💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › dot-matrix-less-within-more-between.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:13:27. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Less Within, More Between Author: dot matrix Date: 2004/05 Language: en Topics: AJODA, AJODA #59, feminist Notes: Originally published in “Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed” #59 / Spring-Summer 2004–5, Vol. 23, No. 1.
caveat: Both feminists and anarchists come in wildly divergent flavors
(some mutually exclusive), and yet those labels remain useful. I do not
continually say “this kind of anarchist” or “my kind of feminist,” so
please understand that I’m biased and referring to the anarchist and
feminist ideas that are most interesting to me.
Feminism is meaningful as a perspective on what humans need, and what
“human” means. This is qualitatively different from feminism being
merely about defining “woman” more expansively. Feminists believe that
both men and women are constrained by gender/sex roles in this culture
(and most cultures that have survived under the current paradigm). We
believe that while one group in this culture is more obviously powerful
(i.e. able to do more of what they want, to determine more of the course
of their lives), that the definitions of “power” are warped: for
example, one way men are considered to be powerful is that men can and
do beat the people who care about them, which is hardly actually
powerful. In other words, men are usually more able to make decisions
about externals but also usually have a more severe lack of internal
options regarding range of feelings and relationships. Part of the power
equation in this culture is the power of being a victim or martyr that
women have been encouraged to claim as our own. The fact that this is
frequently a dissatisfying option doesn’t refute the point that there is
a status that comes from being worse off than other people. (The
“innocent victim of war/crime/catastrophe/ blood transfusion stories is
only the most blatant example of this line of thinking.) The power that
comes from that status can be hard to give up, especially if there seems
to be no other kind of power available. This is the best answer I can
find to the question of a conversation I had in my 20s with an
anti-choice woman who argued that if it is possible for women to get
abortions, then men will not be forced to deal with the consequences of
their actions. In this perspective, abortions mean that women’s bodies
become men’s toys. If pregnancy is the last option for getting a husband
to take care of you — i.e. for survival, to some people — then
socially-acceptable abortions take away women’s last, strongest tool.
Put a ”strong” woman in the same small group with a “weak” one, and
[there] becomes a problem: How does she not dominate? How does she share
her hardearned skills and confidence with her sister? From the other
side — how does the “weak” woman learn to act in her own behalf?...
Those of us who have learned to survive by dominating others, as well as
those of us who have learned to survive by accepting domination, need to
resocialize ourselves into being strong without playing
dominance-submission games, into controlling what happens to us without
controlling others... (Carol Ehrlich — Socialism, Anarchism & Feminism)
Anarcha-feminists reject simple essentialist analysis. We know that
while characteristics that are assigned to women in this culture need
bolstering (nurturing, wombs, moods, non-linear thinking — all mostly
good) and women need bolstering (we deserve better than what we get), it
is misleading to conflate the two. It is not a matter of deserving
better because we have wombs (we don’t all have wombs) or because we are
nurturers (we are not the only ones who nurture), and so on.
As anarchist feminists we are not asking men to atone for the sins of
the forefathers, we are asking them to take responsibility for the
masculinity of the future. We are not asking women to be perpetually
aware of their oppression but to emerge from it. Mostly we are not
locating conflict within certain people, but in the kind of behavior
that takes place between them. (Flick Ruby — Anarcha-feminism; emphasis
added)
Feminism and anarchy both encourage people to take responsibility for
our own lives and relationships. This is different from advocating a)
that people make the government behave itself, or b) that generalized
men make space, in some generalized way, for generalized women. Who can
deny that there are institutional structures that enforce
oppressive/oppressed roles for men and women? Or that there are patterns
of behavior that are endlessly, tediously replicated between most men
and most women? But we know that no government is going to help--or even
allow--us to liberate ourselves. We also know that individual behavior
is most effectively challenged on an individual level. In other words,
if a man is acting like a jerk, then having his less-jerky peers deal
with him directly (in whatever way makes sense for the situation) will
be a more effective response than (for example) writing/reading some
paper saying that men are jerks and should do fill-in-the-blank.
And if there’s no group of less-jerky people who are prepared to deal
with him respectfully and appropriately? Then the situation is best
treated as motivation to get started developing such a group. We have to
build these relationships, not continue trying to get by without them.
Feminism or anarchism is frequently people’s first and deepest exposure
to a fundamental and global type of critical thinking that can work as a
compass for gauging every interaction that we have in the world. This is
why both feminism and anarchism vary so widely — because on one hand,
the most significant aspect of both types of analysis is the intensity,
clarity and wide range of their critique of the present situation. Both
act as elevators dropping us down many floors (as many as we can stand)
in the edifice of our current situation.
Both feminism and anarchism emphasize the relevance of day-to-day
actions and situations: there are political and personal aspects to all
experiences. Feminism especially brings an awareness of the concrete,
personal and emotional repercussions of oppression. Most political
theory is happy to exist platonically, but feminism insists that we
check ourselves and our friends regarding the decisions we make, the
relationships we live, the choices we assume. Feminism tracks the
genesis of personal behavior from political, social constructs (which is
the original meaning of “the personal is political”). Feminism rejects
abstractions to the extent that they distract us from what we can do now
to make the world better, or to the extent that people act like we can
make a better world without challenging problematic patterns now. To say
that this is feminist is to say that it is not behavior that comes
easily or gracefully within a sexist culture. We all have to find our
ability to a) value and work on relationships, b) value ourselves and
our ideas, and c) be creative (and patient) when those two seem to be at
odds. DIY, communal living and polyamory are all aspects of this kind of
perspective. A significant part of this living- in-the-real-world aspect
of feminism is the recognition that actual situations, choices, and
people are complex, with conflicting motivations and unpredictable
interactions. There is no purity. (The concept of purity is a christian
construct that valorizes the non-physical/sacred by denigrating the
physical/mundane, as a way to bolster the power of religious,
ideological “experts.”) Walking towards being more wonderful is
gratifying (and fun!), as long as it’s kept in perspective. Feminism and
anarchism both help us keep that perspective: anarchism by reminding us
that none of us want to be Authorities/experts, that Authority is
undesirable as a state, dehumanizing as a position.
The combination of feminism’s understanding of complex emotional
realities and anarchy’s belief in our fundamental ability to be in
appropriate relationship means that an anarcha-feminist response to
inappropriate behavior by community members requires a community
response that is just and supportive to all parties involved.
... to draw back respectfully from the Self-gate of the plainest, most
unpromising creature, even from the most debased criminal, because one
knows the nonentity and the criminal in oneself, to spare all
condemnation (how much more trial and sentence) because one knows the
stuff of which man is made and recoils at nothing since all is in
himself, this is what Anarchism may mean to you. It means that to me.
(Voltairine deCleyre — Anarchism)
We acknowledge that we are all broken by the society that raised us,
that we all need to learn how to interact with each other better, and
that while some of us are more broken than others, self righteousness is
not helpful to us, either as individuals or as groups.
Anarcha-feminists are somewhere along the road of holding the community
and the individual in simultaneous regard, challenging both the
individualism and the group-think taught us by patriarchal capitalism.
This balancing act (uh, this wildly swinging trapeze?) addresses both
the need for reconciliation and the reality that we cannot spend all our
time trying to help people who don’t want to change. (And of course we
reject the whole christian continuum of Righteous Casting Out of Sinners
on one pole and martyr-sacrificing-self-for-other-people on the other.)
Anarchists and feminists also find ways of being in relationship that
are different from culturally prescribed models — like by challenging
the primacy of romantic/sexual relationships, and the idea that any
relationship is separable from the context and social relationships it
exists within (e.g. abusive relationships are frequently misunderstood
to be the business only of the people involved, rather than a part of
whatever social circles are involved).
While a bias towards the real is one of the things that maintains
feminism’s relevance, that bias also limits us when it comes to
articulating what our goals are. I have been to too many conferences,
anarchist and otherwise, where the feminist component is dominated by
talk about the prevalence of sexist behavior (duh) and how we need to
support each other (again duh, or perhaps, unh unh, depending on the
definition of support and who “each other” is; questions that are never
addressed). The lack of analytic and strategic thinking is in part a
valid rejection of abstraction, and in part intellectual laziness and/or
intimidation. The feminist tactic of analyzing our individual behavior
and needs, too frequently is used to attack people for not abiding by
“rules,” when what it is good for is challenging ourselves and our
friends to keep our theory and practice fresh and meaningful. This means
criticism has to work for something other than making one person feel
better than another.
Finally, there is an ongoing tension for anarchists between
understanding ourselves as members of groups and understanding ourselves
as individuals. U.s. culture exploits both those urges in people, and
dissidents in the u.s. tend to prioritize one or the other; e.g.
anarcho-individualists vs. anarcho-communists or -syndicalists. But
really we need to incorporate our needs for both autonomy and membership
into how we want to live. We all need to develop a more sophisticated
understanding of how u.s. culture manipulates us through both sets of
needs (by pushing conformity and individuality). Feminism provides
anarchists with tools to discuss both autonomy and membership.
“Feminism,” “racism,” “classism”: the whole lexicon of “identity” is
useful to today’s anarchists to the extent that it provides us with ways
to talk about, and to meet, both sets of needs.