💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000061.txt captured on 2022-03-01 at 16:05:08.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Some of you may have seen Molly Tov's editorial in several anarchist papers
and zines. Here's Bob Black's response which he sent to me:
REFLECTIONS ON, REACTIONS TO MOLLY TOV
by BOB BLACK
In "A Message to 'Anarchist' Men, and Then Some" (in *Profane
Existence* and *Practical Anarchy), Molly Tov voices so many criticisms of
anarchist men that she understandably overlooks the way several of them
apply to anarchist women -- or at least to Tov herself -- too.
For awhile as I read her rant I was congratulating myself that an
anarcha-feminist had come, ten years after my "Feminism as Fascism," to my
point of view, but I was the one who had come -- too soon. Tov complains
that anarchist men have learned to mouth feminist rhetoric to get laid or
otherwise get women to do what they want. I said so ten years ago,
although I also observed, as Tov does not, that women, such as leftists
and/or lesbians, can mouth feminist catchphrases for the same self-serving
reasons.
Even those men, if there are any, who aren't just feminists for
immediate personal gain are feminists, Tov suggests, the way they are
everything else-ist's: in descending order of self-interest. Anti-racism
is easiest since it authorizes fighting with skinheads, etc. with, finally,
ageism (they being young) and ableism (they being able enough to fight with
skinheads) bringing up the rear somewhere behind anti-sexism even if they
are sincere about all of this.
Preliminarily, why *shouldn't* people start with their *own*
oppression? There's no better place to start. And then, for them to
notice others, too, are oppressed, often by a common enemy. For example,
point out to black sexist men that they are treating women the way whites
treat blacks, or point out to Jewish Zionists that Israel treats
Palestinians the way Zionists complain Gentiles have long treated Jews.
"How did some isms become more important to others you ask?"
Actually, I didn't ask, Tov did, but what is her answer? Is there an
objective rank-ordering of victim-groups in descending order of suffering
or powerlessness? I doubt very much anarchist theory, or any theory,
provides one. Certainly Tov doesn't have one, since she contradicts
herself back-to-back on this one. "We [sic] already know that all men are
sexist, just as all white people are racist..." Okay, so what happens when
a white woman (all whites are racist) squares off ideologically against a
black man (all men are sexist)? This is no hypothetical, it's been
happening since the 1860's.
Tov's hypothetical of anarcho-male priorities was amusing but what
are *her* priorities? I am going to go out on a limb here and assume that
Ms. Tov, is a white female who is not a victim of speciesism (since she is
human), not a victim of ageism and not a victim of ableism. I might be
wrong in one or more of these assumptions, but I'll make book I'm not wrong
about all of them.
What then id Tov's first priority? Ableism? Speciesism? Ageism?
Racism? hell no it's FEMINISM, which she prefers to her second choice,
ANARCHISM, apparently. But isn't it SELFISH of her to place FEMINISM,
becuase it benefits her, above ableism, speciesism etc. in which she has no
immediate personal interest? How does this differ from how the anarchist
men she berates arrange their priorities? Is *she* the member of each and
every possible downtrodden group? If not, how does she decide which ones
to put any effort into succoring? In the unlikely event she *is* a member
of every known victim-group she is probably too powerless to do anything
for any of them and the rest of us, more favored if maybe not by much, will
have to make our own choices.
My impression is that Tov's critique is very specific -- and if it
is, this adds to its power -- to a very specific setting, the
leftists-anarchist *scene* (perhaps the one in Minneapolis, although I am
sure what she says applies to others). A *scene* is just that, a stage, a
public arena. She is talking about a situation in which activists are
actors for one another. i consider these scenes pernicious. They are
encapsulated in subcultures (usually punk) which provide social (and
sexual) fields for some of those alienated from the usual fare, but they
fail to reach out to the general population to just the extent they succeed
in pulling their wagons into a circle to protect their own. Group dynamics
in such scenes (or, as they sometimes turn into, cults) are intense,
introspective and in time pathologiacl for the minority which they haven't
driven away.
Maybe Tov should drop the quotation marks, stop worrying so much
about "anarchists" vs. anarchists, "anti-sexism" vs, anti-sexism, and
instead of complaining why some ism's are more equal than others, blow off
ism's altogether, including feminism. And get out of whatever ghetto has
so soured her on her "anarchist" fellows. Just as Christians are the best
argument against Christianity, it is all too often true that anarchists are
the best argument against anarchism. But lon after anarchism has withered
away, the dream of ANARCHY will live on.
Bob can be reached at:
PO Box 3142
Albany, NY 12203-0142