Why Feminism is Necessary (Part 1 of Many)...

    Inclusiveness has been a big talk among feminists, a notion that is the most relevant of all the aspects of feminism, in practice and in theory. "Feminism" when said, immediately sends chills down the spines of previously thought "open-minded" individuals, but why? I have heard many of my cohorts say when I just mention "women" and not "men" I am being exclusive. Even in the context of my feminist blog. Interestingly, feminism is felt to be too harsh of a word because the male-bodied people, and those who have been brainwashed by the depiction of feminism in popular media, thanks to Gloria Steinem, immediately think you are trying to make the world into a matriarchy.
    This is NOT radical feminism, especially not anarcha-feminism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcha-feminism) It is also not my fault there are preconceived notions of what/who feminists are, but it is my duty to change them if it is my goal to accomplish feminism's goal: true equality, especially between males and females.
   There are preconceived notions of everything - you don't see vegetarians changing their name/label because everyone thinks if you are called a vegetarian you should only eat plant material and not cheese. Well, too bad ignorant people who think that, that's just the way it is! There are even people who eat fish and call themselves a vegetarian, which technically you would be a pescatarian, but the point is, just because people who are unaware of the true definition of feminism feel like I should say male and female all the time, doesn't mean I should use a different term for feminism. In fact, it's fucked up. After all these years of using that term, then all of a sudden the p.c. police comes and WHAM! feminism has to be "all-inclusive" - guess what? I hate police, especially the p.c. police and feminism is the practice of inclusiveness, because women are NOT included on the whole.

Here is why:

As a woman I am,
1) constantly cat called when I walk outside, making me feel inferior and generally bad, especially about what I wear, even if it's something unrevealing.

2) pressured to beautify myself, like shaving, wearing makeup, wearing pantyhouse - and I do not always have the luxury of defiance. I could loose my job.

3) constantly sexualized, oh, especially when I am in the middle of discussing intellectual ideas

4) ignored when I speak.

5) scared to walk outside alone at night.

6) walking the line of "too sexy" and "too plain"

7) fed images of women since birth that are unrealistic body types, and made to feel less than worthy if I do not try to follow these ideals.

8) told I need "a man to take care of me" by various people including strangers trying to hit on me and my own mother.

   As for other women, around the world, it is obvious there is not equality. Keep in mind, my experiences are those of a young woman in the United States in South Florida, a pretty liberal area. Woman across the globe are frequent victims of rape, the legal systems do not champion them even in the U.S., they are mutilated in some countries, killed at birth in others, and generally kept in fear in all areas, whether because of backwards religious beliefs or backwards political policies. This is called patriarchy. Women are not represented in government around the world, not just here, and therefore are forced to work 40hrs while pregnant and other mind-blowing atrocities that for some reason men think are the same for them......

   That is why it is called feminism and not called equality-ism or something. Say it with pride, you feminists. Don't blush with embarrassment the same way we've been taught when someone cat calls at us and we are wearing a tank-top. Men - it IS NOT EQUAL. Stop whinning about it, and understand you are not all rapists and no one thinks that, but most men are blissfully unaware bystanders. Feminism exists for a reason. Gah.

 

Modern Feminism & Pornography (repost)

    Feminism has degenerated into a virtually non-existent schism of pro-porn feminists opressing themselves on the grounds of free speech, merely in opposition of the radical anti-porn, politically correct, feminist police. Radical feminist ideology focuses on redefining gender roles that are not biologically innate, but restricted by society's standards; to use people as commodities fueling white male oppression - a.k.a. capitalism. How would these billion dollar companies sell cosmetics (among other products) to a population of women who weren't trying to immitate some ideal beauty? Patriarchy is prevelent in all aspects of our culture. Even so, some of these "radical" feminists seem to misplace this justified outrage. Why are women still in a position of social inequality when lawfully women and men are equals? Many posit pornography as the source.

    Traditionally, sex was considered inapropriate to discuss, whether openly or privately. Women were grossly uninformed about contraceptives, abortions and the idea that sex could be pleasurable, not just a duty a proper wife should endure. Sex was the legal right of the owner, otherwise known as her husband, to do as he wished, however often, even if it was rape, because she was merely property. Domestic rape became illegal, thus women became the true owners of their bodies eventually ushering in the era of free love - second wave feminism. Women sexually liberated themselves by boycotting the kitchen, shortening their skirts and discovered they too could have pleasurable sexual experiences on their terms and in non-monagamous circumstances. Marriage, to radical feminists, was viewed as slavery; merely a way for men to have an endless supply of sex and servitude.

    After certain legal reforms in the 1970s-80s (e.g. access to birth control) women were on equal footing, legally speaking, and feminism declined. Many noticed women still being victimized and objectified. There was something lurking beneath these new found freedoms of bare bellies and strip pole aerobics. Domestic violence increased and women undoubtedly began the trend of willing oppression, in plain terms, befriending their captors. (Which is identical to the fight or flight response of victims who are abducted and/or raped). Which leaves us to the present situation of popular culture openly degrading women, using derogitory terms for women, pushing sex more heavily than ever in mainstream culture, especially with the rise of hip hop. Pro-porn feminists insist we are being monitored more than ever and our freedom of speech is at stake thanks to the pro-censorship stand of radical feminists.

    Anti-porn feminists see pornography as the embodiment of the perfect union of patriarchy and capitalism; sex being treated as a market as opposed to a natural urge common to nearly every being. Porn, and every other form of media ingrain an image of what a woman is and what constitutes a beautiful, or ideal woman. Duping the masses to adhere to a common belief that a woman must be underweight, have a face full of makeup, enjoy activities labeled "girly" as opposed to "manly" or aggresive and women are not the only victims. Men are encouraged to follow certain criteria as well, although more loosely enforced. A woman with purple hair who wears anything but fashionable ensambles are considered undesirable, or outcasted at best. These ideas are sold to us so we can buy overpriced bullshit we don't need that fuels the money machine of capitalism that keeps us all oppressed. Based on these images seen in porn and elsewhere men expect (at best want) a woman with no hair on her vagina (so she can look prepubesceint) who screams in ecstacy when you bend her over and pull her hair.

    Not everyone adheres to these images nor wants to. People's sexual preferences range similarly to how individualistic one's favorite foods are. Capitalism is categorizing us into rigid boxes of social protocol and porn is adequately representative, despite the blind eye given by pro-porn feminists. Anything involving a woman who is not big-breasted, thin, fucking anally and finishing orally with cum dripping down her chin is considered niche porn. If the film involves a black person, that is labeled interracial, not mainstream, even if it involves the same sexual acts. Asian? That's not interracial, that's foreign. As this implies, porn also encourages rascism not just sexism. If a woman is squirting (a practice unknown by most) or if she isn't completely waxed down to her butthole, that is fetish porn, otherwise known as an uncommon turn on or sexual practice brainwashing the masses to believe in a solid undebatable standard of normal. You are either a "man" or a "woman", blue for him, pink for her (no transgendered folks) and theres even rules and regulations to match your genitals. There are no variations excluding gays, which is barely accepted as it is.

    Anti-porn feminists take this unrefutable logic and fact and twist it into accustory statements such as "all men oppress all women" when in fact, women are doing it to themselves to fulfill a human need to be wanted and loved. These feminists also decided heterosexuality is a social construct, not a default in our sexual behaviors - it's all concocted by patriarchy. These accusations sets women back by creating the defense or backlash of the pro-porn feminists holding on to their recently discovered sexual expression in fear of other women holding their mouths shut in the very way it was made possible for men to enslave women in the first place - through censorship.

   Countless feminists are blinded to this plague, convinced pornography equals rape and fuels violence towards women. It is an act of sexual violence and censorship is the solution, despite the foundation of feminism advocating free speech and sexual liberation to free her from the confines of traditional social roles. Excluding BDSM and specific rape fetishes (a.k.a. and uncommon sexual practice), there is no violence in porn, let alone explicit violence. These women are not coereced into these acts as claimed by the "radical" feminists, they enjoy being either on the giving or recieving end of all the sexual acts including the simulated punishment (more commonly as the dominatrix). These displays do not advocate rape, contrary to the biggest argument anti-porn feminists have, but these acts are deeply rooted in patriarchy which is ignored by pro-porn activists. Being anti-censorship does not mean one should support women being products of manipulation for men even when under the guise of dominance. In short, these women are undeniably legal prostitutes, but it is out of their own free will.

    Women are subjected to the scrutiny of an unrealistic standard of sexuality based on a ficticious demand of what men supposedly want. Sexuality is profoundly diverse and cannot be generalized or contained within the boundaries of what a man is/wants and how women are/should be. Porn exaggerates an illusion telling you what's taboo or weird as opposed to accepted or mainstream. Pro-porn feminists see this as liberation even though gays are being equally discriminated against and women believe they are sexually inadequate based on what they see men whacking off to. The only way to eliminate the problem, or these supposed norms, to let people be truly free and naked is to rid the illusion of right/wrong, sexual correctness/prudence, he/she is to give people much needed variation, especially in the market of sex.  Have women explore the fantasies denied to them, experience orgasms they never knew about and market porn for different tastes, not just ridiculous alternatives that make people feel outcasted between a virgin or whore.

   Feminists of this generation need to see the fruits of our mother's work, really utilize our freedom. Sex is evident in our biology and women shoiuldn't have to feel bad if they are not a lesbian or want to wear a skirt. The only way to educate the public is to show them what they truly want without inhibitions; men and women all ages of all races ethinities engaging in consenting sex. Women should be taught about their bodies and so should men. Encouraging communication between eachother and disregarding normality is key in our fight against white male oppression. Sex isn't the problem, it's the product "sex" being sold to us that causes eating disorders and half-naked women claiming they've been liberated. Capitalism wants feminist against feminist in fear of a crumbling system already on the verge of deterioration. Redefining feminism must be actualized through sexual education, not censorship or vaginal rejuvunation.

Circle A Rant

    I was on anarchistnews.org  and there's frequent heated discussions on anarchism, what that means to you and what kind of anarchist are you. So many comments are dedicated to attacks on people's personal beliefs and theoretical debate that I felt it was appropriate to r@nt about how I honestly feel about the theory of anarchism, without quoting some dead political writer from the 1800s. From the power of my own experience, logic and reasoning, I am a green anarchist.
    In order to address the practice/theory of green anarchism, I have to address anarcho-communism and the libertarian  roots of anarchism. To believe in a theory that was relevant in the 1800s and early 1900s and not modify its action or meaning, I believe is ignorant and elitist. Elitist only for the fact, that individuals quoting these Kropotkins and such are putting academia over action; making anarchism academic as opposed to practical or common sense values. This creates more hierarchy and limits anarchism to either book nerds or to college folks who are mostly middle class white kids who were bored with name dropping Marx.
    Nonetheless, I realize not all anarcho-communists are involved in one-up-man-ship and genuinely believe in an ideal government structure. That's where I disagree, simply because there is no ideal government, the common people (at least in the U.S.) will not have a revolution or situation to even begin to talk about an ideal government, therefore anarchism, to me, is about creating non-hierarchical, non-oppressive alternatives to our current system (outside the capitalism of the United States, specifically) because we cannot change other's beliefs or this government (to any reasonable degree). Anarchism seems to me more like a here-and-now approach as opposed to a let's hope for a revolution - here's-my-ideas-I've-already-written-a-book-about approach.
    The anarchism in the streets, feels more symbolic as opposed to actually doing something. The only action that is realistically being accomplished is putting the idea of anarchism as an alternative (or any alternative for that matter) in the consciousness of the mainstream public. I believe in order to right now actually have a non-hierarchical and non-oppressive alternative, it would inevitably have to not participate in capitalism at all to create equality. In order the achieve this, you have have to remove yourself from capitalism and this society and live off the land as much as possible. No, this doesn't mean you have to live like cave-people, just sustainability... meaning eliminating capitalist treats or tendencies. So if you aren't the type willing to leave your x-box, maybe communism is right for you. If you don't want to be apart of nature, then you would probably prefer capitalism, so think twice about starting your revolution that won't happen.
    Ecological concerns are anti-capitalist concerns - this is how big corporations are able to manipulate resources for continual production, this is how poor countries stay poor and powerless, this is how oil wars are possible, this how the public can be sedated by consumer gratification NOT RELIGION (which is outdated anyway)  and how patriarchal systems are encouraged to exploit immigrants and women for low wadges which in turn spawns racism, sexism, ageism, you name it. To me, putting sexism, animal rights and environmental concerns behind economic concerns is ignorant to what capitalism is and how it thrives. Creating a sustainable community beyond consumer brainwashing, academic brainwashing, media brainwashing and economic chess-games would be the only way to live autonomously and is only feasible within the ideology and action of green anarchy. Like I said before, even within action, the only thing that's really being accomplished is the idea of true equality being put out there to the public in hopes the morals and ethics of the public will change, which is really the only lasting effect; the laws will be changed, new pipelines will be created even after one is fought off. So even if feminism, for example is only "micro" politics and not the larger reality of capitalism/power, wouldn't it have a greater lasting effect than fighting a war that has never begun?
    I can't change the way others view the world. I can only live how I want to live, that's why I'm going to the countryside to create and take part in an autonomous community so we can begin to try to heal the damage on our psyche inflicted by capitalist civilization.

Hetero-normative Culture and the Counter Culture of Polyamory

    Hetero-normative culture is the dominant force in shaping our gender identity and social relationships. There is no question homosexuals are second class citizens legally and socially, and that other self-identifications or sexuality is either taboo or ignored (i.e. bisexuality, trans-sexuality, pansexuality, etc.). The methodology of hetero-normativity comes from idea that marriage is another form of slavery, men owning women as property to fulfill the roles of baby making machines/domestic laborers and its enforcement through outcasting any person who can't/won't perform these roles - socially, economically, and/or politically.  We are force fed these roles early on, which is the main argument for pro-LGBT activists, feminists mainstream and otherwise, polygamists, and people who practice polyamory, a norm in anarchist circles.
    This is my qualm: I am not poly, nor am I supportive of hetero-normative culture, yet often enough, I am called out for being in a monogamous hetero- relationship; for falling prey to the hetero culture hierarchy. Without being defensive, or ridiculing anyone of alternative lifestyles, some people are heterosexual, even us feminist activists. Yes, biologically a woman's natural response is to reproduce, as is a man's, so some of us are straight, and even lesbians like to have fingers, toys, etc. that technically are phallic (although it is not necessary and doesn't make a lesbian bisexual). There are many feminist theorists that claim woman are by nature, bisexual. I don't agree, simply on the grounds I am not opposed to same-sex relations, I have engaged in same sex relations and I didn't care to have them (or not)...on several occasions. Although I am not bisexual, I am not heterosexual, either.
    Can a person receive pleasure from someone of the same sex, enjoy it and not be bi? Yes, considering we can receive pleasure from inanimate objects and not have attraction to them, or have sex with a person you don't particularly have interest in, but get your rocks off (so to speak).
    This is where I think many sexually inexperienced individuals become confused with the idea of bisexuality.  Now, this is not to say that homosexuality or bisexuality is just a made up social construct (like hetero-normativity) but perhaps heterosexuality isn't merely a social construct. I do believe, especially in activist circles or anarchist circles (whom are mostly "alternative") it is common for poly or LGBT folks to be the norm and it is merely because, initially, the type of person to be involved with activism or punk rock (or whatever) are people who don't accept the status quo. They are the type of person who does't want to be fed more bullshit; sexuality is another outlet of that rebellion. This is also the reason why people who just are different than the mainstream norm are attracted to activism or other alternative lifestyles.
    Experimenting is and SHOULD be promoted (bi or poly experimentation), but I think many just label themselves bisexual only because they've kissed someone of the same sex, or hasn't and just wants to be recognized as someone who doesn't support the hetero culture/gender system. So, to some extent, the bisexual club has racked up a significant amount of people who just don't consider same-sex relations taboo who actually act out hetero lifestyles. I also think, in some cases, the idea that it's taboo or wrong to be bi or homosexual or to be poly is the main reason why these lifestyles fulfill people sexually, which is the main reason  why people develop fetishes. For example, a straight man having a woman screw them up the butt with a dildo or a lesbian woman having fantasies about being gang raped by men (these are very common fetishes, actually). In real life, the man would never want to sleep with another a man or the woman may severely oppose rape. Again, I am not proposing that those born gay, trans, intersex, etc. are just bi-products (no pun intended) of the opposition of a hetero culture, but I AM saying that there are a minority of those who consciously choose a poly or bi lifestyle that are.
    As for the poly lifestyle choice, which goes along with unconventional gender identifications, sexual practices and multiple consensual partnerships or relationships, I think some may enjoy this lifestyle and have legitimate reasoning but those who aren't poly aren't just by-products of hetero culture. Especially if you've considered the argument of being forced to be hetero and forced fed the idea of a single marriage long term relationship. Yes, most marriages fail, but I believe its because people don't experiment and are pressured into having one partner at a time with marriage being the end all be all. I don't agree with the eagerness and myth of "the one". I do believe, however, biologically due to the urge of creating children and having a family, people are naturally serial monogamists as seen in many primates. Some people, of course, don't have the urge to settle down, period so they do not want to be monogamous.
    But, let me ask you this: if many men, especially nowadays, want multiple partners or open relationships and many woman don't, is the popularity of poly orientations perpetuated by a culture of woman geared towards pleasing men especially in anarchist circles which are usually predominantly white young men and have traditionally set the intellectual standard due to the gender hierarchy and access to information? This could be because of socially ingrained gender roles, perhaps that aren't inherent, (that woman want a family and men want to fuck around), but it may also be from mainstream gender roles of men wanting as many women as possible (to prove masculinity/prowess), therefore it is a way to coax women. I have seen some manarchists like this and mainstream men like this. I have also been around/with people who practice polyamory that aren't like this.
    I also have to bring up that within the context of marriage being a contractual agreement, where the idea was initially brought up because women were slaves to men, anarcha-feminists like Emma Goldman had a political justification and a personal frustration that was right on taking many partners and breaking that taboo. Nowadays though, people having many partners (i.e. cheating) isn't taboo, it is common. People not wanting to settle down so they can continue having sex with whoever, is common too, so, maybe it's more politically relevant to be with one person and not treat women or men as tools that are simply for sexual gratification?
    When it all boils down, people have the right to chose how they want to live their lives, so don't be hypocrites you open minded anarchists and feminists, let me prefer to be monogamous and not be ridiculed for my natural inclination to have one mate at a time. I do think the ideas above are worthwhile conversation topics but ultimately would be useless to prove, considering no one has been raised beyond gender roles and without social tendencies ingrained by media, parents and school. Just keep in mind, all I am saying, is if heterosexuality can be a social construct why can't other types of sexuality or polyamory be a social construct as well?

A Blog About A Blog

     In this post-2000 world of internet accessibility, where anyone can have a blog, I wonder how relevant my self-publication is. While an individual's freedom for creativity, no matter how seemingly self-indulgent or adolescent, is important, especially in the context of anarchism and activism - when everyone thinks they are the next Paris on Twitter, I wonder how anyone can find my poor old radical feminist blog. Sigh. Blogging is even referenced in popular media. Big name writers that have contracts even have blogs just to screw the rest of us up.

    A long time ago, perhaps 10 years ago, before the digital monopoly over reality, if you wanted to self publish you were making trips to Kinko's quite regularly. I don't know if they're are Kinko's anymore. They are probably all internet cafes. The beauty of the zine making scene was you had to have the will power to see the process through the maze of mapping and folding so it can look like a bonafide flip-able piece of literature. Now, laziness and boredom are the motivations for your urgent need for expression. Just to give a few examples, I 'flipped through' (of course there's no 'flipping' online) the blogs that come before mine, and they are mostly personal journals and movie reviews. I barely trust my friends to give me good movie reviews, let alone Jane or Joe who loves romantic comedies.

    Despite the over lapping of self-interest and the welfare of the general public, even in cyber space there is a need for intelligent reading material. I will not be discouraged to rant about patriarchy even when lines of my articles mysteriously disappear thanks to this perfect technology. To have people willing to use the tools we have is crucial for activism in the anarchist communities to thrive and reach the sensitive minds of the youth who have been brainwashed by Axe commercials and history teachers to think 'anarchy' is a synonym for chaos. To have an accessible record of herstory is a beautiful fuck you to big name publishers who want the voices of protest to be turned down, if possible, non-existent to mainstream folks. 

    So, here I am, the lone warrior, in the vast desert plain of internet blogging hoping some youngster will find this just like a tumble weed in the wind. Us anarchists are outlaws in the cyber wars, supporting eachother's political ramblings is a step towards numbers and recognition. We are relevant citizens and have alot more to say than Jon Stewart. So to movie review person: this town actually is big enough for the both of us. 

The Dichotomies of Consumer Culture

    The most fundamental dichotomy, man/woman, or if you like, day/night, is the basis of modern thought, stemming into religious morality and thus government and rule. Throughout culture, sexism has been persistent. Even the woman-based or goddess based cultures of ancient times were eventually physically put in submission. Patriarchal societies have the upper hand when examining the polarity of feminine/masculine. To this day, in for instance, Feng Shui, the method of balancing one's environment, is based upon Yin-Yang, feminine/masculine, dark/light, night/day. These basic dichotomies are almost universally accepted and become the principal foundation for gender roles.
    At once dualism becomes the structure of collective thought, every concept is divided in two, so day/night becomes light/dark, good/evil, positive/negative. It is easy to see the relationship between day/light/man in ancient culture when the sun was the main focus of worship (sun=son?). This leaves night to represent female whereas night is dark, when the unknown occurs, naturally inspiring fear, longing for daylight. Many children have fear of the dark, vampires, ghosts and nocturnal animals come out at night, making evil interchangeable with night, dark, and female, most noticeably in Western society and religion.
    Upon examining the book of Genesis, the story of Adam and Eve gives much insight into modern association between good/man and evil/woman and the identification of men representing all of humanity. Before Eve, Adam was neither man nor woman, therefore Adam represents all people, i.e. "man kind" not "woman kind". To further reinforce  male superiority and woman inferiority, Eve, is tricked by Satan, i.e. evil, and gets both Adam and Eve kicked out of Eden the beautiful paradise God (a man nonetheless) made. Now, according to Genesis, women suffer painful childbirth for our collective misdeed. This of course is the Judea-Christian religion Western society is built upon, especially the United States, a more recent concoction of religion and state (supposedly separate).
    Religion reinforces the unquestioning of these modes of thought. Religion is one of the main culprits of the evolution of gender roles, why women are submissive and men traditionally the bread-winners. Nowadays, gender-roles have a slightly new configuration after the Woman's Right Movement and politically, on most accounts have equal rights. Equal rights, should not, however, imply overall equality. Women are still fitted into traditional stereotypes of being weaker, still take on domestic roles as well as jobs outside the home, are still paid less than men, and are still objectified through all branches of media. This atmosphere of consumer culture is where more complex dichotomies evolve.
    For instance, we are constantly being advertised and sold products, while watching a weight loss show we are also being shown McDonald's commercials, while watching a cooking show we are being sold diet pills, while looking at anorexic models we are being told "big is beautiful" (then being called either too skinny or too fat), while seeing women run for office we are seeing half-naked women in music videos. These are alot of confusing images, especially for young women. This is a result of the religion/state dichotomy - on one side we have the pure, house maker religious moral side, then the demonized over-sexed pro-women's rights, left. These polarities make it possible for gender roles to be perpetuated and for rifts between other women or feminists to persist over which side to take. Dualism in our thinking patterns makes it black/white as if there is no gray!
    People are politically divided into left/right when, in reality, they are the same people making decisions for whichever company they have sworn allegiance to. Since capitalism is based on the consumer's demand, it is necessary the companies who run our government find a way to please us, or to create demand for their products.
    For example, even if there is no real demand for cheeseburgers there is one created through advertising and other types of psychological manipulation. This is how we have become a brand-based culture and a culture that racks up debt for the newest cars and computers even if we don't need products or can't afford the products. So it becomes necessary to find to the audience to sell to and to box up their characteristics to find a way to reach their vulnerability.  For example, a company needs to sell a new oven cleaner, they have spent millions on animal testing, researching and creating something slightly different than the previous oven cleaner, so to sell it they give deals to stores so it can be sold cheap and also advertise. They figure, who does the oven cleaning in the home? Who is the majority of our audience? Women? Aged 30-50? Are they a parent with a job and busy lifestyle? What do they watch? Oprah, maybe? Soap operas? Therefore they create the right opportunity, during the right time slots have a commercial with a busy mom with alot of things to do, praising how much she enjoys having this fast acting oven cleaner to save her time, then you go to the store remember that catchy jingle and see that it's on sale, then, voila! A company has millions in their pocket and can continue to have political sway.
   This culture makes it possible to continue stereotypes even after the so-called "women's liberation movement". To indulge in this psychological manipulation is indulging in sexism, racism, animal torture, environmental atrocities and political ignorance. Our black/white thinking makes it impossible for our green parties to ever win an election and nearly impossible for individuals to be individual. This why examining the dichotomies persistent in our moral values and political structure become the crux of anarchism and individual liberty. To ignore gender roles, where they stem from and how they persist is going to be the downfall of politics, environment, and freelance information.