Isn't It Ironic? A New Meme For Feminists

     Thanks Alanis Morissette, "It's a free ride when you've already paid". Well put. I have to say, it figures, because there's some irony brewing in this story -

    I type this as I listen to the song Ironic. Bad joke?

    OK. My blog now has 1,770+ hits thanks to my last blog/rant titled "Do I Look Fat In This?". How is this possible? Is feminism just so relevant that people around the world google radical feminist blogs? I would like to think so, but I doubt that's the truth. This specific blog entry is successful due to three key words: MILEY. CYRUS. FAT. Isn't it ironic? 

    Vain, celebrity-obsessed  people in desperate need of a feminist rant about why I don't always shave my legs, stumbled upon this blog by searching those 3 words of delicious body observation : MILEY CYRUS FAT. Count 'em, 1, 2, 3....hundreds of people typed those words in the google search engine, and was redirected via images and tags, to my lonesome, @ news ridiculed, radical feminist blog. I know this because my blogspot knows what website you came from. Perhaps they even read some of my radical ideas? Maybe they threw out their lipstick and went to work with their real face - GASP! Maybe they thought for a moment, "Hey your right, I'm a woman, but I'm not a sex object, I have a mind too, ya know!!" Then, upon coming to that realization blasted some Bikini Kill in their work office. 

"Revolution Grrrrrl Style Now!!" and the whole office would shake. Just try and fire me. 

    Of course this isn't so, they accidentally wound up in the midst of a cyber hole of feminist opinion, that they probably thought didn't exist. That's awesome. So I propose the most radical action to date: every post from now on will have the tags MILEY CYRUS FAT, as a way to lure the people who need feminism, as opposed to those of you reading this that actually read physical books. You already know how messed up society is and how your boyfriends talks over you, and that you never get the job promotion. Now let's fight back, by typing those three silly word MILEY CYRUS FAT on all radical feminist blogs/things you want out there to mainstream people. Type it and they will come. Ironic? This is the new feminist internet meme.

A Woman's Syndrome: a poem accompanied by my radical watercolors showing

A Woman's Syndrome

A women's syndrome:
nutrient deficient love,
no matter what your portion size
or whose spies lied
between your thighs.

For our own minds aren't minded,
a crime scene polluted by blind men
as we mind them.
Pet them.
Pat them.
Let them give us a pat on the back
for making his favorite dinner
as you feast on the least
thoughtful after-thoughts
the milk drained from our teets...

Due date late, his mistake
your cross to bear.
Eve of fate.
The first birthday cake -
your daughter's prison
in the Gender Lake;
pool of cut of jeans,
pink ribbons
and diet treats.

That's how the war continues.
Walking the shattered streets
with our mother's broken feet.
Broken dreams -
inherited defeat.

Now we should eat
our cake
while the men easy bake
with our leftover bait.
Win this debate
head high, i wait
with my sisters and their mothers.

The Dark Knight: Forecast & Weather Patterns (an @nalysis)

    I know, I know. Bane is Zerzen-esque. This entry is along the same lines as the anarchistnews.org perspective, except this is a nerd-ed out detailed analysis of the coolest movie I have seen in a theater to date. So give me a chance despite me not having a fancy piece of paper that says I'm allowed to focus my thoughts on such trivial matters. This movie was clearly about Occupy and why it failed. Here it is - The Forecast.

     This movie starts out with the cover up of Harvey Dent. (Bear with me I'm using a plot summary to help speed this up). Harvey Dent is the socially acceptable version of Batman. He thinks he's fighting for justice but while fighting with his last breath, it corrupts him. Then, via Joker, becomes Two-Face (in case you didn't see the film before this one). Why two-faced? On one side he is the hero Harvey Dent, on the other he is the very thing that he hates, corruption and crime. Batman is similar because although he has very clear cut morals, he is still going against the law to do what he feels is right. Essentially Batman is a criminal, which is how the government and majority of Gotham feels; he has alot in common with Harvey. So Harvey Dent's character is paralleled with Batman. (i.e. what is socially acceptable, what is not? what are morals? is the law ethical?) This is why I dissected this movie on anarchist principals - aren't anarchists the ones who essentially fight for justice while simultaneously opposing the law?
    The whole controversy in Gotham is why Commissioner Gordon felt it was necessary to cover up for Harvey when he was a murderer. Why? Because Harvey is the law, the people need to trust in the law or else everything could spiral out of control. (Sort of like what our government tries to do now). If they trust Batman, who was criminalized by the state, people could get funny ideas. Plus, people are morons.
    So, in the meantime, Wayne Enterprises is investing in clean energy. How merit-able Bruce Wayne! Aren't you the hero/billionaire? As you can see, Bruce has a hard time dealing with the fact that the police can't be trusted, the general public is brainwashed, and the fact that he's a billionaire in good with high officials, so he overcompensates by trying to do something good. If you can't change politics from the outside, you should be able to change it from the inside, right? Wrong! This is what the Occupy movement was about, what it failed to recognize, and what the public fails to recognize. It also happens to be the plot device for this epic movie. Let's continue...

 
    The thing with the sustainable energy project, is it's made with nuclear technology. So, if in the wrong hands, it would be disastrous, when, in fact, it was designed to help people live peacefully. This goes along with the whole dual-identity thing that Harvey and Bruce have going on. Even though something is meant to be for good (or your intentions for instance) it doesn't mean the outcome will be good. This is the grey area of ethics and morality this movie is trying to show and what anarchism is all about. Bane, who wants control of this power, also has good intentions. To have people live peacefully, instead of being moronic sheep. This is the "Zerzen-esque" parallel that Graeber mentioned, because in theory, if green anarchists actually achieved their goal of rewilding, even a city, it would have disastrous outcomes. Like for instance, those who didn't give a rats ass about the environment and loved sipping on lattes and raping women in the first place, so your whole theory that sounded good on paper is actually attacking you now. (Which, although I am a green anarchist, this is theoretical and in accordance to the movie, and what it seems to express). In Bane's attempt to help civilization, that he also hates (there's that duality again), he is actually destroying the city and becoming militant which is the antithesis of what he initially wanted.  Which is also how some green anarchists like to approach helping people (i.e. Green Nazis).

 
    When Bruce finds out he's bankrupt, thanks to my favorite character of all time, Selina Kyle (aka CatWoman, but she is not referred to that in the film), Bruce suddenly sees things a bit differently. Like how corrupt money is. Not to mention how Selina, seemingly a criminal (after all she is breaking several laws for that necklace), is actually a morally intact person who only steals from those who can afford it. That would be the typical "I only steal from large corporations"-anarchists and Batman would be the one on a morally high horse who never steals because he doesn't think stealing on any level is good; but will still vandalize property. When he meets Selina, he obviously falls for her, because they're both psychopaths who dress up and break the law. All she wants her identity erased so she can live peacefully outside the system upon realizing she can't keep stealing, she needs to lay low. Sound like anyone you know? Conveniently for my analysis, they all wear black. Thank you Christopher Nolan!
 

    That's about when Joesph Gordon Levitt comes into the picture (seems like he's in a ton of movies these days) and he knows everything. Not only that, he was an orphan just like Bruce and totally idolized him from the time he was a kid and his childish obsession continues into his adulthood, into his profession. That's actually what inspired him to be a cop. A good guy. He wanted to impact people the way Batman had, so he's adopted the same strong ethical code Batman has, and thinks he can help from the inside - like Bruce Wayne. That's a delusion that gets dispelled at the end of the film. His character is a key role because he becomes Robin/Night Wing, so he as well as every single character in this movie, parallels the Dark Knight and his moral evolution. He represents naive youth. He's trying to fill the role Batman had, by helping those that truly need it - eventually stumbling upon the fact those who are there to help (kinda like cops) aren't doing their job, in fact, they don't care. The whole idea of "I can be a good cop" is a farce, and at the end of the movie he throws his badge away to become Night Wing. Following in the shadow of his hero, Batman, throughout the film this question is posed as they mirror each other's steps "Can you work inside the system and still make a difference?" Really, they are just delusional and won't come to terms with reality. The innocent people of Gotham they love so much and are trying to save are actually morally corrupt, just like the law. Most of the time they're too busy trying to save the people from themselves.
    This poses a moral conundrum for all the characters (excluding Selina Kyle, because she is in no way trying to be a vanguard, she's in it for herself, her own gain) now that they are starting to realize how corrupt the system AND the citizens of Gotham are. Why are they trying to save them in the first place? Can justice truly prevail? Are people doomed to make their own mistakes over and over again? How can one be truly happy within all this chaos? Can you be happy living apart from society? Is that feasible?

    Selina Kyle is like the anarchist that is actualized in thought, practice and theory. She has come to terms with society and it's flaws and has decided her coarse of action based on experience of juggling two very different personas - Selina the socialite living within the system/ the cat burglar against the system that is disgusted by Gotham's well-to-do. Now, believe it or not, no one with such moral opposition to the system of 1% versus the 99% can conform their actions to project their radical ideology in their day to day life and peacefully live within that same society. That society doesn't want you, and you don't want it.  So like many anarchists who want to change the system, but cannot, and keep finding blockades in their struggles, eventually giving up because of all the problems from the law, neighbors, your relationships, your child, etc. You have to make a decision. Will you continue on to make a point despite the cost of your happiness/peace, extract yourself from society altogether, or go with the flow so to speak, i.e. give in to capitalism?
    Both Alfred, one of my favorite Batman characters, and Selina, are two sides of the same coin - reason and experience. They both understand the ethical dilemma of Batman (and what he represents) and the need to just live life in peace. Everyone deserves that, you can't save other's from themselves like everyone is trying to do by dressing up in costume. That's why Selina is never addressed as Cat Woman in the movie. She is who she is all the time. No fake identities to save her from from going to jail or to save her reputation to get a decent job. The only difference between the two of them is they represent different options that anarchists eventually face: Alfred = giving in to capitalism and becoming a producing member of society despite being knowledgeable enough to oppose it, and Selina = getting off the grid and living on the outskirts of society and not worrying about other's economic issues she can't fix by robbing the rich.
    This is the green anarchist problem: stay within society to help it become sustainable and equal, or give up on it because it's not going to change (at least not anytime in our future) and just live in a nice hut, grow your own food, etc. During this development, Batman still not knowing what to do upon Bane's rise in power, is making last attempts to justify his Bruce Wayne/ Batman lifestyle that is for the "good of the people", he let's Tate take control of the nuclear energy investment because she seems trustworthy. Plus, if you haven't seen the movie, Bane has control of the energy, he just needs a scientist (like Tate) to activate it and create some sort of death threat so people will be scared enough to do what he wants.

    Bane is the vanguard, UnaBomber person who honestly has a point, but doesn't realize his ways of proving that are psychotic. He gains the city's trust by showing how the police aren't on their side and Harvey Dent was not who he was portrayed as. Commissioner Gordon had a speech all written out that Bane took (score!) and read it out loud to the public. Now, Bane is painted as having a secret motive because they aren't clear as to why he wants everyone scared into REAL freedom. As you watch scenes with Bane, you start to realize he is a pretty nice guy who had some harsh stuff happen to him being raised in a prison and all. But...that is proven to be assumption that is incorrect. HAHA! (more on that later). He wants people to be free, because he honestly feels people are sheep who deserve the right to have a choice. What he doesn't realize, is how naive he is. In fact, like many anarchists (and pro-authoritarians) proclaim in their theories, when the prisoners were released because they are just victims of society and circumstance according to us good-hearted folks, they start killing, raping and creating havoc for those who they felt were responsible for their life decisions. You know, CEOs, politicians and rich old women.

    Cillian Murphy (a great Irish actor who played Scarecrow in the first Batman; another awesome comic book character I wished this movie elaborated on...) happens to be the judge, and if you knew he was Scarecrow in the first film, (you do, cuz I just told you) the craziest of the crazy are now making judgments on the people who were imprisoned by society - giving them the option of death or death by trying to escape. Nice. Bane thinks this hilarious, just like myself, and continues on believing this is what people want, they just don't realize it yet. The truth of the matter is, Bane thinks his motives are pure, but they aren't because he is actually the son of Ra's al Gul (Liam Neeson, another Irish actor, from the first film), so it's tied in with his need to actualize his dad's vision. That's why he imprisons Batman in the prison he grew up in - BUT WAIT! That's not his dad, as revealed in the film, Tate is his daughter...that's who is behind it the whole freakin' time. The reason why no one suspects her and trust so much is because she's a smart woman, in a man's world of business. In fact, Bruce has no clue because he's somewhat of a closet chauvinist. So that's why I appreciate that aspect of the film. The men are so much on their high horses they don't suspect that even for a moment that the pure motherly, smart Miranda Tate is a conniving backstabber, and Selina Kyle who's such an untrustworthy burglar who turns Batman in, is actually sweet as pie. It's all too easy for them to manipulate the situations to their advantage. Good for them!
 

    All the while Batman is in the Ra' al Gul prison watching the people of Gotham going out of control like some movement just happened (ring a bell?). He does have the option to leave, after all there is a big opening at the top of the prison someone escaped through (only once) and it was a child, whom Batman believes is Bane, because he is still completely ignorant that a woman could be doing this.  He is being kept alive by some monks, because in Bane's words, he has to have hope of escape to truly suffer. So Bruce is just waiting around for something to light up so he can finally make the connections to what Bane was unintentionally alluding to. It has something to do with (a) hope, (b) his unrecognized motives that have to do with Ra' al Gul, (c) escaping, and (d) a mass movement.
    The thing is and what I'm trying to conclude by tying together all these characters and motives and cultural analysis is that Bane, like anarchists in general, has strong ethics that unless forced upon the general public, will only be actualized in small time setting. Why? Because people have their own individual problems and motivations that they fail to recognize that have alot to do with how they are approaching things like activism, personal relationships, political theory, etc. Which makes it impossible for anyone to be on the same page. We are all individuals, and that is what the intention of anarchist principals and practice are supposed to respect at all times. But when you start to interact with society, with all the different types of people with different views, desires, and aspirations, we ultimately dismiss the possibility that we were wrong to think we have the best morals that make the most sense. We are only in control of our own lives, not everyone else's and we need to make decisions based on that. Like Alfred and Selina.
    Bruce eventually comes to this conclusion by putting things back to the way it was, just as messed up as before, becoming the martyr of the movement by faking his suicide, because he just loves society so much. When in fact, he realizes he can't be a billionaire who cares about orphans and pretend he's doing so much to help the world, when in fact, like the nuclear sustainable energy, that started with good intentions, his fascade developed into something reckless based on personal motivations and ego. People need hope not to suffer, but to balance the duality of their lives without being hypocrites.  
    That's why Bruce and Selina in the end run off to Italy with Alfred's recommendation, off the grid, and start living a happy life. He now sees he was pretentiously making himself the hero for a lost cause at the expense of his happiness. It's like Occupy movement because the intentions weren't clear, it was angry and all over the place. Occupy eventually fizzled out because people lost hope. The point of the film, as symbolized by Robin/Night Wing is you need to continue hoping, and trying as much as you can. People need to feel a revolution could happen if they wanted it. Which it could. The truth is though, we don't know what's good for everyone else.

Do I Look Fat In This?

    I have been reading an interesting book about the psychology of the fat/skinny dynamic in women's lives called Fat Is A Feminist Issue (authored by Susie Orbach), that poignantly describes many women's desires to beautiful and judged by their body, how they are scared to actually fulfill this goal and how to overcome these expectations. Her focus is not eradication of fat through diet or making one feel bad about being fat, and neither does she judgmentally put her own notion of what 'fat' is; the women have already decided they feel fat or overeat, (or in some cases are skinny and overeat/binge), then has them assess their true feelings about why they want to be 'skinny' in the first place.
    She helps them pinpoint what sort of fantasy they have about skinniness - which is almost always synonymous with attractiveness - being more outgoing, more successful, etc. while the patients themselves figure out what originally made them form these expectations they prevent themselves from fulfilling. She never suggests for them her analysis, that is just commentary for the reader, or tries to shove in their face a political theory about gender roles (although upon the patient discussing their expectations of 'skinny', the patient comes to that conclusion themselves by their own reasoning). Through discovering the the unfulfilled desires of themselves, their potential, obligations and goals have all come from their complex relationship with their mothers, which of course, manifests within food.
    For readers this may sound metaphoric, though it is symbolic, but our notions of love and family revolve around food, especially the mother, so daughters and mothers have a unique relationship based around food consumption and preparation. Not only does your mother breast feed you, which is your first knowledge and direct experience of love, but the milk itself also has an opiate-like effect on the brain (which all dairy does) that makes you feel close, even euphoric. Upon being fed, with your cries being answered, you find relief and satisfaction. Then, later on in life, it is your mother who makes the family meals, prepares lunch for you, teaches you how to bake, gives you food to feel better. Of course this book was written in the late 70s, so it's possible that your mother wasn't the only one making meals, but considering gender roles, that's beside the point.
    Since these are women in a changing world striving for something more than their mothers (aren't we all), they are really asking for help the only way they have ever been taught how to resolve problems - with food. I recommend anyone with an unbalanced relationship with food to read this, and being an anti-diet book, it's about making you feel comfortable with however you are healthiest. I just want to post some images that I've seen recently on the internet that really make this book a valuable read -

    Maybe you've heard about this "controversy", but Lady Gaga is being critiSIZED for gaining  (according to her) 30 pounds or so. Not only did she come out as formerly being bulimic, but people online are actually asking "Is she fat?". They don't even know! But, the question is, does she deserve the publicity considering her job is being half-naked and objectifying herself? Either way, despite if she's healthy, over-weight, or underweight, the clothes she wears are crazy, and this certainly isn't a flattering outfit.

    This is the Miley Cyrus picture that triggered everyone to start calling her anorexic. So not only if you gain weight a small amount of weight you are fat, but if you actualize the skinny ideal you are anorexic. She's a young girl with the pressures of her Hollywood career, obviously just coming from yoga or the gym or something, and gets railed on. She's thin, but not dangerously so. Wasn't she just sized up last year for gaining weight? Isn't this what everyone wanted?

    This is the picture that popped up under "Miley Cyrus fat", which apparently is a popular search. Really?

    Since Kelly Osbourne has lost her dirty mouth fat girl image, she is now on a style network show where she makes fun of how celebrities dress. Nice. Now that she has her skinny goal reached, she has the authority to call Christina Aguilera fat because she years ago made fun of Kelly. Ironic. By looking at the Christina pictures from her Genie In A Bottle days, she obviously has drastic weight fluctuations, which indicates extreme dieting, which along with having a baby probably destroyed her metabolism. Although, I am not a doctor. True or not, it's wrong and painful to make statements like that and insensitive coming from someone who felt the same criticism.

    This is the hottest celebrity right now, the ideal beauty. From some sources they claim she eats only 600 calories a day, which according to the clinical definition of anorexica nervosa, classifies her as anorexic, if this is true. How many people do you know that think she's hot, or aspire to be her?

    Have you heard of pro-anorexia sites? This is one of the first images under the search "Thinspiration", commonly known to frequenters of these sites as thinspo. This is a women named Felice Fawn, I'm guessing a model of some type which women who have body obsession look up to look like.


    With these images, for disbelievers of pressure and gender roles, I'm sure you can at least conclude women, more so than men, have a dysfunctional relationship with their bodies which would obviously have something to do with food. Without getting into an anarchist perspective, I believe it's obvious what social roles that are enforced by laws and regulations along with media which, is one of the main tools of oppression of capitalism, has everything to do with these disturbing notions of beauty, self, and celebrity. But I just have to ask, does this blog make me look fat?

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.