Male Feminists

    Feminism can come off as discluding or accusatory, even though (anarcha-) feminism's goal is erradication of gender roles and complete equality for all indentities of people - no excpetion. "Feminism" as a term can, admittedly, be misleading especially with the misgivings of the media and misconceptions perpetually fed to us to discourage any questioning of our patriarchal authorties/ systems/ structures, yet due to these misgivings, validates its appropriateness and necesity. Fear over the root "fem", as in "feminity", "feminity", etc., is understandable when you consider this to be the race of men or the human race...women being an afterthought or a secondary priority. Yes, white men are running the show, so the individual man isn't rolling around in wads of dollar bills, but this is a patriarchal economic system constructed and upheld not just by sexist and rascist attitudes but also by discriminating laws that favor adult white males.
    Across the world, radical men are acknowledging the roles they partake in, socially and otherwise, taking a stand to be an ally for women and no longer excepting passivity as the only alternative. Radical male feminists (I love saying that!) recognize their priveldge as men, and therefore the necesity to have men, not just women, speaking out against these injustices. Not only does it give men an opportunity to educate other men they know about simulated (or real) violence in pornography, how women are consistently spoken to or ignored, but also provides a male-only space to speak about experiences as men, how they cope with being looked as perpetraters of violence, guilt and numerious other issues that women could be insensitive to or unable to understand. One example is the relationship with violence young boys develop, which is drasctically different from the relationship to violence that young girls experience, which is usally being a victim and (hopefully) removed from violence all together in the name of being a proper young lady.
    Many issues that are brought up in these groups include, when or how is it appropriate to vocalize feminist opinions without becoming a male hero for women's rights, is it okay to tell another man to back off when he's hitting on a woman, and how to connect with other radical feminists groups to learn their issues, boundaries, etc. To see men start actively changing their roles as men, is a huge step for feminism. How else to stop the war against women than to stop the roots of violence within men? I encourage men that consider themselves champions of equality and merely say they're feminists to start a group like this, and implement co-counseling for the psychological tramuas of gender, captialism, and violence. Acknowledging our roles is one step towards equality, but we also need to heal, and create pathways for a future of true freedom and equality....

For more info you can contact me throught my email. 

Dispelling Those Anti-feminist Myths

   Feminism has been dubbed as "micro" politics; merely a personal plight for social freedoms with secondary relevance to economic revolutions, animal rights, anti-war picketing and environmental concerns.  The entire idea of "micro" and "macro", not just its meaning in the political sense, is a made up construction based out patriarchal notions and political obstructions. Keeping a divide of more important, so-called "broader" issues and "lesser" issues like racism, trans-activism and feminism (although not limited to) lessens the focus on local community based issues, which are typically more effective, and more often than not fails to acknowledge the plights and concerns of other groups of individuals that have different immediate issues. Just the idea of equality-based activism being "micro" is an example of its necessity at least in social terms, but most definitely is a unifying principle of any anarchist issue.     
    Typical excuses of not acknowledging feminism in anarchism include (but are not limited to):
(1) Revolution! If there's decentralized government than there will be no more discrimination based on gender or class. Yeah, because before government was invented, there was no sexism or labor division, in fact it was all sunshine and rainbows... give me a break!
(2) Class discrimination is the more fundamental root of our problems. So if there was successful socialism men would magically stop abusing women around the world.
(3) Men are just as exploited as women. Ok, thats's why I see all these men in bikinis selling me liquor. Also explains why there are so many women representing one sided political concerns in office.
(4) Gender roles do not exist. I don't even have sarcasm for that one!
(5) Women and people of minorities have the same chance as anyone to speak or get jobs or receive affordable housing. That's why there are SO many CEOs of minority and non-hetero sexualities. Also why poor white men resort to sex work or other degrading activities to feed their children.
(6) Animals don't abuse people, women do!

So, next time when you're having a meeting and you can't get your point across, just remember how women are so equal to men and that you should quit complaining.

Failure of Revolution

     For those who believe merely recognizing gender roles and sexism in our society is counteracting patriarchy, please reconsider how (despite our protests) we are still products of a patriarchal society. No one would ever suggest simply recognizing the faults of a global economy is sufficient enough to oppose its oppression, then continually engage in free market capitalism (either as a consumer or a capitalist). As with both examples, which of course illustrates patriarchal globalization from the perspective of social relations enforcing pre-existing systems of sexist institutions (which of course then reinforces our personal behaviors)...there is a deep psychological manipulation used through economic and social means that condition every person based on a role we are programmed to believe we are destined to play. Meaning, experiencing and/or seeing the injustices of patriarchy (or globalization) and ethically opposing it in theory only deprogram our faith in these systems, which does not necessarily change the conditioning we've experienced up until that point. We no longer believe it's our destiny to play the games of the government but we've still been conditioned to fulfill certain roles.
    Our habits and tendencies are much harder to break than it is to simply change our beliefs, which only takes a thought. Taking action, like to actually stop biting your nails, requires will-power and many times of falling back into the same pattern before your actions match up with your thoughts, which already oppose biting your nails. Essentially, with changing our daily habits, like when we decide to dumpster or grow our own food than shop at the supermarket, or patch up our pants rather than buy a new pair, we are rerouting our brain's pathways and discovering new routes to go about the same situations (i.e. coming up with a different coping mechanism when experiencing mild anxiety rather than biting your nails).
    Our pre-existing habits and social behaviors is why anarchists, during meetings, purposely make room for women to speak. The behaviors we've accumulated allows a social dynamic of, for instance, men being more comfortable speaking and listened to when being vocal which enables women to be less inclined to speak out and opinions less respected. This is the process of eliminating hierarchy through changing our habits.
    It seems as though every time I am at a social gathering, whether anarchist related or not, not only do people talk past me to my boyfriend (as if I am not there)  but then unwittingly, he continues the cycle by leaving me no room to speak, and by no means am I a shy or quiet person! Yet, there I am staring at my feet hoping for a gap in the conversation where they may or may not hear me due to the mere rapidness and exclusion of their conversation. It makes sense that there is no need for my input considering my boyfriend uses the words "we" and "us" to sum up my experiences, as if he is my spokesperson and I feel awkward bringing up topics that are out of context, as if I can't help but be a secondary conversation partaker. Why, as well, do I fixate on gaining a couple pounds when I am aware of the crisis of eating disorders and oppose this consumer driven society that treats women as objects? The only logical conclusion would be that these are knee jerk reactions.
    Most of us aren't "good" anarchists; "good" meaning up to our ideal standards of what anarchism opposes/stands up for. The failures of our attempted revolutions, as with Occupy, is the unwillingness to reconcile our behaviors to match our beliefs. I expect liberals to bring take-out to the Occupations, but the anarchists...doing drugs, drinking PBRs (as if drugs and alcohol aren't already the reason for failed revolutions)...it's a hypocrisy we are all guilty of (to some degree) but we have the obligation to be the counter-point to these liberals. It's not radical to support large corporations or fund wars due to opiate addiction. What, in fact, is the difference between Chinese take-out and PBRs? At least with the take out you probably aren't supporting a large chain and also putting a little change in a family's pocket.
    It is understandable to feel pressured by this society of greed and oppression, especially as anarchists, but it's not understandable to play into ignorance out of pride. We should recognize our behaviors and hypocrisies as individuals and attempt to change them. Look at the sophistication of television advertisements, enticing us with bright colors, sounds and key words they know from research will peak our interest. Companies are constantly conducting experiments on willing participants (unwilling depending on your point of view) to find ways to draw us in based on our biology and psychology. They know what colors make us angry or excited, and how to make a jingle that can't get out of our heads. I can't even look away from HD, it just looks so cool, and I don't even know what I am watching half the time, because my brain's pleasure receptors are being stroked so efficiently. Pulling ourselves away becomes a constant struggle living in civilization.        
    There are similar problems with the post-left anarchists who believe we are beyond labels, yet, how can you be beyond patriarchy by just refusing to acknowledge it's existence and not using the ideas and terminology to examine your behaviors? This is why I meet men who refuse to acknowledge patriarchy exists and the same reason why even though we know oil funds war, many of us end up at the dealership ready to purchase a car... already prepared with excuses to defend your decision... because it's convenient. Ethical decisions, I assure you, are usually not convenient. This is also why so many people are against the Anti-Civ folks. It's not impossible to live sustainably with the environment, off the grid and rewild - it's just people are afraid. Bugs, storms, diseases (most which would be eliminated outside of civilization), not having all the foods they love; people are dependent on the concrete structures to protect them from their fears that have been instilled since birth. Most people would honestly,  based on their tendencies and habits, stay within capitalism, even when they hate it, based on a laundry list of excuses and quotes from dead white men who hoped technology would save humanity.
   Revolutions fail only because we prevent ourselves from succeeding. We are a society based on realism instead of idealism, which traps us into being "flywheels on the ram-shackle machinery of the awful truth" (Kurt Vonnegut). We intellectualize things to a point of falling back into our Babylonian prison cell. Sometimes we are duped into thinking we're making a difference  and then you look around you and notice your in a group of white males 20-25 talking about minority issues when who knows if any of these people personally knows one person of color. We must witness our hypocrisies and become willing to fix them with the support of our anarchist friends and not shoot down everyone who has a slightly different theory. I do think that within time, people will abandon the old anarchist syndicalist ways and become open minded to the possibilities of life not dependent on technology, which can only quicken the pace of the world's demise.
   Revolutions take place, first, within yourself. That is the main reason why Occupy countered any attempts at mass uprising, because it tamed anarchists to work within mainstream politics. Radicals failed to differentiate themselves from liberals, due to the bureaucracy of large scale consensus, although it is effective in small groups. As soon as Occupy clearly became a reformist movement about better banking and so on, anarchists should have broken up, back into our smaller groups, and took the opportunity while Occupy was still making headlines to start a counter-Occupy movement. Yet, because our theories do not sync up with our actual practice, many of us were drawn into the game of democratic process and trying to convince middle class people how to go about effective direct action (to no avail).
    There is no solidarity between anarchists which leads us into petty discussions about theoretical points instead of looking at practicality and possibility. For instance, though anarcho-primitivisim  is heavily criticized,( in my opinion for an individual's co-dependency with civilization and fear of nature) you will find a fear of feminism. Expecting the effects of patriarchal civilization to magically dissipate into a peaceful feral community, would be to expect HIStorical and archeological evidence to be accurate, which, of course, is doctored and shaped by the society in which we live. This is not to create an argument about whether or not hunter-gatherer societies held the platform for hierarchy (which it quite probably did considering here we are now) but more so to acknowledge the influences this society already conditioned us with, and to hold out the possibility that maybe the Unabomber had a point. The validity and necessity of primitivisim should not be dependent on whether or not natives were peaceful or at times violent. This is petty arguing, and the reality is, to leave rewilding (which in actuality would take generations to fully realize) the hefty task of eliminating patriarchy based on faith of someone's research instead of taking extra precaution to create a genderless society (specifically in regards to division of labor)  would be ignorant of the current attitudes of individuals and their cultural influences. If on the other hand, people applied these theories instead of debating with words we would see in practice if in fact it is necessary to make genderless equality an issue at the forefront instead of relying on what we were told worked for Tribe A or Tribe B.
    Close-mindedness, from liberals to red/green/black anarchists among themselves, is our only detriment and keeps us DE-radicalized. The very premise for anarchism is that we've been conditioned to believe we need leaders, and as we all know reading this, that is a lie, that  before  in theory leaders were believed  necessary until put into practice otherwise. Upon having the opportunity to say what we've been dying to let the mainstream media know, we cowardly watered ourselves down for the liberals and therefore played right into the hands of our big, mean government machine. Revolutions aren't futile, but with the Occupy let down, it will be difficult for another mass movement, and perhaps different tactics are in order. For now, I say unity, small collectives, and groups is, at the current time, the only counter-point to the oppression we experience in the United States, so working on ways to deviate from the capitalist system should be number one priority. Hopefully others will see the possibilities of our own creations once we stop dividing ourselves and mend our hypocrisies. The failure of revolution? Our own thoughts left over from our pre-anarchist days.

The World We've Inherited: Brave New World & Anti-Civ

"O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in't."

    -William Shakespeare, The Tempest, Act V, Scene I, II.

"Am I sorry you killed the Kennedys'
And Huxley too?


But I'm sorry Shakespeare was your scapegoat
And your apple sticking into my throat
Sorry your Sunday smiles are rusty nails,
And your crucifixion commercials failed."
   
    -Marilyn Manson, Target Audience, album Holy Wood.



   It's 11:59pm, 1983, you're waiting for the ball to drop and the boot to come down on the face of humanity. As soon as it hits midnight there's going to be a sudden outbreak of totalitarianism...1984 has come to pass literally, and figuratively, being that the anticipated image of riots in the streets, currently popularized by the Occupy movement, is the un-evolved fascism of pre-democratic, give a dog-a-bone consumerism; now, post-1984, is a future that operates more like the dystopian vision of Huxley's Brave New World. We cannot distinguish democracy from fascism, we willingly participate in our sedation in fear of the littlest inconvenience or displeasure at the cost of freedom within the illusion of free-market capitalism. As an anarchist, I do not distinguish the myth of voting from a literal boot in the face, but two party democracy and intellectual elitism gives people their apples and oranges, or rather GMO and organic options, not realizing Monsanto can fall far from the tree, and we've allowed this - outrage and all. 
    It's remarkable that in 1932 Aldous Huxley was able to foresee the infiltration of technology and how it would alter and control the masses.  Even more remarkable would be the fact that his critique on technology goes as far to say it's not the incorrect use of technology that troubles our future, but civilization itself that is doomed because it is dependent on manipulation of nature, now exaggerated by the aid of modern technology. 

Population Control
      Population control is the backdrop for Brave New World, keeping the population consistently at 2 billion, which is sustained artificially through "decanting bottles" for the Alpha intelligentsia and for the other lower ranks in a single fertilized egg; breeding intelligence and passivity for the government's preordained tasks at various levels and continues on past nature into nurture. This keeps the different groups, Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, Epsilon separated not only through superficial differences but through their analytical capabilities, which also manifest in privileges and jobs they uphold. Sex is seen as a commodity and pastime, encouraged so the population is satiated with pleasure, beyond the point of love so no real bonding can occur.  

    Population has steadily increased since the Industrial Revolution, which began in 18th century Britain, and came into full actualization during the early 19th century, although it wouldn't be until about 100 years later the world would truly experience the impact of modern medicine, food modification, and fossil fueled methods of mass import and export.

    "In only 100 years after the onset of the Industrial Revolution, the world population would grow 100 percent to two billion people in 1927 (about 1.6 billion by 1900)......Since the 250 years from the beginning of the Industrial Revolution to today, the world human population has increased by six billion people!"  

-Eric Lamb, The Ecological Impact of the Industrial Revolution, Global Ecology Network       

     Technological development and scientific gains in medicine supports population increase not only in the sense diseases are cured (i.e. when smallpox was eradicated through extensive vaccination, once a serious cause of death), or because life expectancy has drastically increased due to medical research, less child-bearing deaths, etc., but when the general world population has food, shelter and are not fighting to survive, the rate of child births also increases, therefore resources will be depleted rapidly. In Brave New World, once a person hit 60 years of age, they were euthanized to prevent overpopulation. This is not unlike China's forced abortions and one child policy, or China, India, Pakistan, Taiwan and Singapore's (just to name a few) gendercide of small baby girls, because (a) there are too many mouths to feed, (b) boys are seen as more profitable since they are used for physical labor, (c) the parents wouldn't have to pay dowry and, (d) men cannot become pregnant.  Uneven distribution of resources leaves the poorer nations fighting to control population, while the wealthier countries keep using up the resources to sustain their own populations with more advanced technologies.

    In more affluent countries, the manipulation of the birth process has been actualized through fertilization drugs, which is why there has been an increase in twins, triplets, quadruplets, etc., and through artificial insemination, but recently countries have been experimenting with cloning and stem cell research to grow organs in laboratories. These so called "advances" only enhance existing problems such as wars over oil, outsourcing factories for cheap labor which only make countries dependent on the presence of rich corporations, and mass destruction of ecosystems (i.e. the rainforests for some commercial food commodity). The development of genetic mutations, and forced genetic mutations of food, and people to cure diseases, actually creates new, more sufficient illnesses, like cancer, for example, that had not existed before recent times and as of yet, cannot be cured. Civilization cannot exist without manipulation of nature, and nature cannot allow humans to destroy the planet. No matter what measures we take to protect ourselves from the inevitability of death, illness and scarcity, we will experience backlash.

    Countries such as the United States are answering these problems by creating new ones, and out necessity to fill the wallets of corporations without looking at long term effects, we experience, just as in Brave New World, a breeding of levels of intellect according to privilege and class. Separatism is already enforced through capitalism - where minorities are kept poor and unable to receive higher education, unable to verbalize concerns in the preferred jargon of pseudo-intellectuals who run our schools, hospitals, and, who are at the mercy of the corporate hierarchy. Then those who are born into money/privilege are held captive by positions of business executives and lawyers afraid to lose a paycheck. Capitalism keeps neighbor fighting against neighbor, thanks to private ownership, and the poor always dependent - therefore abused by the rich. To further the correlation between Brave New World and modern society, is the superficial way we treat having children, with artificial insemination (which is not dependent on pair bounding or family; family considered "pornographic" in the novel), the lack of natural childbirth, c-sections being treated like an assembly line, and the lack bounding between mother and child (i.e. using cow's milk over breast milk) leaves us to treat sex as a commodity, just a fun past time, that has no real correlation with love or human bonding. 
    The careful calibration to desensitize and rob us of love, family, loyalty, etc. has been made possible through private ownership, consumerism, and technology and is the platform for the blindfolded allowance of social and environmental injustice. Huxley, an academic from the prestigious Eton, had seen the development of modern technology, and its effects so much that he, himself was in awe at the accuracy of his predictions, which inspired Brave New World Revisited.

Soma

           "There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution." 

    -Aldous Huxley, Tavistock Group, California Medical School, 1961 

    Soma is a fictional drug (although there is a pharmaceutical drug that shares its name) that is used many times a day whenever one of the characters are unhappy or needs an extra boost; the drug is also given in rations. Soma resembles not only our own drug epidemic, but our addictions to sex and consumerism that is used at our will to sedate ourselves, not unlike a self-serve IV pump. With the constant pressures to maintain 40+ hour work weeks, or on the other hand, the stress of making sure you have basic necessities, it becomes mandatory to "groom" civilians with treats (as do pedophiles with young children) for a trust to develop. "Grooming" prevents the questioning of blatant injustices, letting people assume the government has our best interest in mind, while we die with a belly bloated with fast food, as our country kills animals, ecosystems, creates wars, just to have more businesses to kill more people in the name of democracy which is a mockery run by the banks.
    Sex is treated as commonplace, to a point where sexual exploitation of all walks of life, but primarily women, is treated as a game. Degrading each other is treated as humor, when in actuality it desensitizes our scope of empathy, and we continue to look at each other as demographics or an object of sorts. How could we understand the starvation that millions of people go through, when we are more concerned with smart phones or having our gas prices decrease? Sex is not a problem, just the commercialization of sexuality and everything else including music that funds our sedation, to give an illusion of choice or freedom.
    Occupy is a great example of this illusion, most of the people I've met within this movement just want bank loans and would rather have a frappicino than actually understand that convenience comes at a price. More so, it illustrates how even when people sort-of see there's something not right, here comes Ben & Jerry's to make an ice cream flavor called Occu-Pie. 
    Symbolically, consumerism, democracy and sex are soma, but what about the true-to-life drugs like alcohol or prescription pain medication? Alcohol causes liver disease, is linked heavily with cancer, it's a contributor for brain shrinkage, stroke, dementia, causes accidents (31% of all traffic fatalities in 2010) and is associated (obviously) with poor decision making. Although most people know this, almost all social functions center around drinking, for the mere fact that it feels good. Now, alcohol has been around since ancient times, the only reason that makes a fair amount of sense as to why now it's an epidemic, would be modern advances in civilization which creates a need to feel sedated despite its consequences and half-assed attempts with advertisements to warn everyone.  
    More shocking, is the sudden uprising of pain clinics all around the country where almost anyone can have a prescription. There has been a 24 percent rise in prescriptions to opiates, and the abuse among teens has been steadily increasing. Our government has an on-going war against drugs, yet at the same time we feed children adderall, give adults anti-depressants which have been actually linked to increased feelings of suicidal thoughts and behavior, because of certain drugs being pushed by major corporations, this includes opiates. Opiates have increased in distribution to keep heroin off the streets, which most certainly would not profit the Rx companies, yet sedate the masses. This keeps poor folks struggling for a moment of peace, which unfortunately is bought because they are unable to earn it.
   
Savage       
     Brave New World is a sterilized society away from nature, afraid of actual child birth and appalled at the "ancient" religion Christianity. Ways of the outsider "savage" Christians are seen as immoral and disgusting. This is a direct correlation to our current attitudes about native rituals and our (dare I say it?) hatred of nature. Modern society is obsessed with anti-bacterial soap to a point where we actually get sick from having 99.9% of bacteria gone, making us much more vulnerable to foreign organisms that otherwise would naturally live on our skin. People are terrified from eating a fruit off a tree because of chemicals, yet we eat food that's been doused chemicals on it all the time...people can't even tolerate a speck of dirt or a harmless insect on them or inside their homes...It's to a point where if I even politely voice my views about green anarchism to a fellow anarchist they assume a necessity in concrete, cars and supermarkets. I assume people are too comfortable in air conditioning to want to even think about living a place made out of sustainable materials or to just farm or something which requires effort.
    These views are ingrained in our behavior because the very fact civilization exists is because of the violence we've put the so-called savages through and their so-called savage land. Just being within a tax bracket is upholding the values of violence. We have not only committed mass genocide but stripped natives of their culture which before Spanish and European settlers, was in accordance with nature. The so-called civilized ways of Christianity pushed out the need for nature, and ever since industrial society has been trying to make everything plastic.
        Not only does Brave New World articulate our blind and willing obedience as the evolution of totalitarianism, but it makes the argument that the entire concept of civilization is doomed due to its defiance of nature. Nature is the first casualty of war and mass agriculture. Earth cannot support endless development of cities and constant multiplying of any creature. It is not beneficial to us either, because if there are not enough resources people will become extinct. Capitalism, or any other form of developing government cannot exist without manipulation and depletion of the land which goes hand in hand with the exploitation of people, their rights and the extinction of their culture (look at China and Tibet).  If Aldous Huxley, who by no means is an anarchist can make that analysis, then why stand around starry eyed wondering why our protests are barely making a dent? 
    At the end of the book the main character decides to live like a "savage". He didn't try to change society; no the soma was too strong, the fear of the people too great...and it was their decision. My only suggestion is for those of us who can see the destruction and how it renders us almost completely powerless, is to resist by living outside the "safety" of industrial civilization as  much as possible. This is not to criminalize the participants of civilization or to suggest that being totally outside civilization is feasible, but to take an action that is more feasible than hoping for 1984.      

No, Objectifcation is Not Considered a Compliment

    Relevence of a feminist essay comes from genuine experiences. No pretenstion, no scholarly exposition of what women theoretically should want or what utopias we can dream up as we clean up the messes of patriarchal society. Some of the best examples of sexism come from other women's mouths.
    I made a comment, to an undisclosed person, along the lines of "I'd rather be pale and pasty than have a fake tan [or sunburn]" and was subsequently accused of feeling self-conscious about "being pretty". The reasoning was that since I do not appreciate men hitting on me, I do not like to wear makeup, I shave my legs about once a week and also (I'm guessing) I do not dress myself in typical mainstream attire, I must have a fear of pretty-ness.
    Offensive as it was, I did not try to argue about the myth of beauty and what constitues 'pretty' in reality physically and mentally with/out consumer-culture. I defended myself to some degree, but sometimes it's more beneficial to talk to a wall.
    Confidence about one's appearance is not dependent on making it a superfical fixation nor is it dependent on what other people's force-fed perception of beauty is. People look beautiful naturally without gimmicks, clown makeup, expensive accessories and in very unique, indivdual ways. Stop trying to be a Barbie and then making everyone else feel bad for not being a Barbie. These are unrealistic expectations that few can achieve, and are irrelevent to the broader scope of existence. I would rather be a humanitarian than a super-model. Neither do I want a man in my life who's relationship with me is based around my appearence, (which if you're belief of beauty comes from pop-culture deteriorates in your mid-thirties) as opposed to my character traits (read: intelliegence, humor, kindness, etc.).
    Keep in mind, this ideal beauty being sold to us through advertisements/consummerism/media is coming from big time companies owned by white men that have political influences that keep perpetuating the myth that women are so stupid because they care more about superfical shit than the myriad atroscities that are going on in the world and would rather starve and buy anti-wrinkle cream at risk of death or cancer than to read a book (besides Twilight) - which is not always true and I'm an example of that.
    Undisclosed person, if you are reading this, that's why I only shave my legs like once a week, and I don't care.

Capitalism's Superiority Complex, how it Manifests in Feminist Desire/Lack of Desire

   Recently, I've been re-reading Jane Sexes It Up, a series of essays examining contemporary feminism in its relation to sexuality. It describes this post-post-feminism (as labeled by Germaine Greer, one of my favorite feminist theorists) that acknowledges a patriarchal society, with all its injustices and inequalities, but nourishes a feminism of women who cannot be politically correct feminists in the context of sexuality, especially within heterosexual relationships. Frequently the essay contributors talk about the lack of sexual identity they have developed as adult women, due to feminism's restricting perspective on rape culture and gender identity; not being able to acknowledge they want it rough, and to feel sexual, not "asexual" as one author puts it.
    This is why an anarcha-feminist perspective is much needed within the world of feminism, apart from feminism being much needed in the world of anarchism.  I notice that these concerns of needing sexual liberation through being a stripper or grabbing the attention of a guy with the use of "femininity", comes out of confusing sex and gender within sexuality. Wanting sex is natural, being sexual is natural. Objectifying yourself in the hopes a man (or anyone for that matter) will look your way is not natural, and is a product of a patriarchal society that gears sexuality towards (white) men's (supposed) desires and not women's. Basing sexuality off of "he's such a man" or "I feel womanly" directly relates to either (a) showing body parts (b) gender roles, or (c) a mixture of the two. Showing sexual interest or being sexy isn't always showing body parts or giggling or objectifying the male or you opting to be objectified.
    Anarcha-feminism rejects gender roles, the idea that there are "feminine" attributes or "masculine" traits dictated by nature. Feeling "feminine" would only mean embracing the character traits that women are stereotyped as having, "masculine" being the perceived character traits of men, all of which are based merely on social conditioning. For instance, I do not believe all women want to be whisked away by Prince Charming, but I do believe people want love and attention from those we desire. Why must desire turn into objectification?
    Desiring an individual sexually does not merely mean physical attraction...even those who claim mere physical attraction must acknowledge that certain status symbols, body types, and accessories one wears provides clues to how a person is, which is why you find a particular type of person sexy and not another. Otherwise it becomes masturbation and objectification. This is where consent comes into play, if you respect a person's boundaries and are not merely in it for self-gratification, but acknowledge the other person's desires even if it is based on just pure bodily attraction, it is not objectification because you act in accordance to another's feelings, restrictions and desires. Anything not in accordance with another's expressed wishes is non-consensual and in my book, sexual assault. Practicing consent would eliminate much of the "I have to show my boobs to receive the sex I want" and seeming contradictions of feminism and desire by eliminating the objectification through verbal communication.
    Gender roles are very much ingrained in our social behaviors, so it is crucial to ask ourselves why we want men (or anyone for that matter) that expect us to be half naked in order to qualify as sexy? Why isn't my intellect sexy or the way I hold myself sexy? I don't want a person in my life that is immediately looking at me just as body and not a human being. The gender roles we are taught to accept, in even the most well-read feminists still exists to some degree, so we must challenge our motives.
    With that said, why do women feel the need to be submissive....or dominant for that matter? Both represent patriarchy at work, telling us there is no equality in sex only submission and dominance. Anarchism is the practice of no slaves or masters, so why should we want to be dominant just to prove women are capable of being "masculine"...which is basically the patriarchal why of saying abuser. When in fact, neither submission nor dominance that is consensual is truly just submission or just dominance - if you are a dominatrix for instance you still have to acknowledge the safe word, and if you're the sub, you have the power to stop any action you do not like. They are guises to play out fantasies that are based around a culture of sexuality that demeans women, or even others who exemplify "feminine" qualities that don't fit into the structured gender hierarchy of the porno-consumer culture that is sex in the United States.
    Look in, for example, a typical stereotype of homosexual relationships; there's the top and the bottom, the  submissive "feminine" one and the dominant "masculine" one. Submission and dominance are synonymous with feminine and masculine, and with true equality, we would be able to function as people without it orbiting around the idea of gender. Even the typical homosexual relationship fed to us through porno culture aka consumerism and media, is just mirroring hetero-normative culture.
    Of course, since there's no other way to get off, all we have are porn stars to show us our bodies and desires, which is manufactured by notions of acceptable and unacceptable sexuality, depending on your race, sexual orientation and body parts. So we practice this porno version of sex or no sex at all because talking about sexuality is deemed unacceptable.
   To practice consent, would essentially eliminate notions of superiority or inferiority but with all the rough (not violent) sex you want. Instead of wanting to be choked or wanting to choke another based on a culture of violence and gender we can create equality in sex. Not that its wrong that it gets you off, but to verbalize your desires, identify them to get to the point of examining them. Violence being a turn on should indicate a deeper psychological issue that stems from the way your sexuality has been formed initially in the first stages of development, either that or it was developed later in life, turning you on as a response to it being naughty or wrong, because sex is naughty or wrong, which is the same reason we don't talk about our desires or use consent. Violence leaks into sexuality because the world we live in is enforced with violence, and war, which is how we prove our superiority aka "masculinity" over resources and compete within the game of capitalism. Eliminating violence in our sex eliminates the gender hierarchy in our personal lives that seems to be causing feminists such a big problem. We must break our attachment to gender roles within sex, challenge the psychological abuse we've been taught that's enforced within patriarchy/heterosexuality, and in the way our abrasive consumer-capitalist cultures thrives in the mirco- and macrocosm. Voicing our true desires beyond the realm of gender gives us potential to create well-rounded people who are not oppressed by lack of sex or exploited by sex within capitalism and immediately threatens the hierarchy of capitalism, aka global white male oppression.  

Ok, rant done.   

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.