I'm not Feminist, I'm Anarchist

[Violet]

The following thread is intended as a criticism of feminism and as a definition of an anarchistic perspective:


Feminism, as defined by dicionary.com, is first "the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men." Second it is "an organized movement for the attainment of such rights for women". The third definition given by dicitonary.com is simply "feminine character".

Wiktionary.org calls it "a social theory or political movement supporting the equality of the sexes in all aspects of public and private life; a theory or movement that argues that legal and social restrictions on females must be removed in order to bring about such equality."

Wikipedia has got a list of the different types of feminism, so that if one was curious one could ask "What kind of feminist are you?" and you could have your choice.
If you were to ask me, i'd choose "other" and then i'd give you an explaination into why i don't call myself a feminist any more.

This is what wikipedia calls Anarchy:

"-"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."
-"A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."
-"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."

It should be noted that "ruler," if used in the context of the third bullet point, has no explicit connection to the term "rules." In an anarchy, as defined by the last bullet point, it is possible to have rules (laws), however, these must be agreed upon by the participants in the system, and not imposed from above, by a ruler (leader, authority). Some languages, such as Norwegian have two separate words for the two meanings.
A state, free from coercive authority of any kind, is the goal of proponents of the political philosophy of anarchism (anarchists)."

I wouldn't try to set up an anarchist state because I think each individual already has absolute social liberty. To me, anarchy isn't just a theory, its a fact. It's a matter of recognizing the world for the state it's already in.

I began to recognize the state of the world after I was arrested by the police when I was fifteen. I was a feminist before then but after i was locked up i realized there were bigger problems in the world than sexism, and sexism is a symptom of those bigger problems. Struggling with the symptoms is futile if you don't go after the cause.
The idea of male authority can be effectively countered by an arguement desecrating the concept of authority in general. The concepts of rights and privilages and ownership and property must be disproved in general if any gender specifications are to be done away with.
I've found that the most effective, thorough arguments against authority are not feminist but anarchist. Where the feminist is sexist by necessity, the anarchist has no need of any specific gender. The feminist is always thinking within and trying to expand the boundaries of sex and gender in society, while the anarchist promotes the sovereignty of all individuals. Feminists strive for equal authority for women as men while anarchists strive for the abolition of the idea of authority in general. What the feminists do by gaining authority, the anarchists will have to undo by proving it all wrong.
The anarchist can recognize that the female struggle is the same struggle with authority as any other social struggle in history. Putting aside steroypes and differences in appearences can give the anarchist an opportunity to see the struggle in a broader sense, and more clearly as it relates to it's own personal situation.
Thus the anarchist can actually win, and go beyond having to fight and even go beyond having to be an anarchist.

[Pogue]

Interesting argument, but I think feminism is much simpler than that. Women, historically and presently are treated by many as second to men, and feminists simply do not want this ot be the case. Feminism is by neccesity included in Anarchist theory because Anarchists are for equality. So being an Anarchist implies being a feminist anyway. I am a feminist, but I wouldn't describe myself as 'feminist', because I am for absolute equality regardless or race, gender, sexuality etc. I'm an Socialist. Absolute equality for everyone.

[Violet]

i thought about this today:

Feminism and anarchy are aligned when the feminist is demonstrating the sovereinty of the individual by refusing to accept an unacceptable social condition.
Feminism and anarchy are incompatable when the feminist is attempting to gain 'equality' by rising through the ranks of heirarchy, or gain any rights or authority.

The "rights" system is one used by the authorities to regulate society. Thus it must be rejected by the anarchist.
In the past, rights were more selectively given, because they're a privilage. If everybody had had them it wouldn't have been a privilage any more. But now everybody's got some because everybody wanted them because nobody wanted to be left out or put down. Things have changed, but there is still a struggle with authority.
Authority implies a heirarchy and heirarchy implies oppression. If you are fighting to gain equal rights, you are fighting for equal oppression. The female who wishes to be as equally oppressed as her male counterpart is no anarchist.
Even though she isn't an anarchist, the anarchist can still empathize and support her cause. But sometimes the anarchist cannot support the effect, and must critisize.

If the effect is a continuation of an heirarchical system and the use of rights and authority as a means to regulate the actions and beliefs in society, then the anarchist must critisize.

When a woman calls herself a Feminist and rises through the ranks to be the Chief of Police, she is not acting in alignment with the Anarchist cause. She is not out to disprove authority when she is out to become it.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

. . .The "rights" system is one used by the authorities to regulate society. Thus it must be rejected by the anarchist.
In the past, rights were more selectively given, because they're a privilage. If everybody had had them it wouldn't have been a privilage any more. But now everybody's got some because everybody wanted them because nobody wanted to be left out or put down. Things have changed, but there is still a struggle with authority.
Authority implies a heirarchy and heirarchy implies oppression. If you are fighting to gain equal rights, you are fighting for equal oppression. The female who wishes to be as equally oppressed as her male counterpart is no anarchist. . .Hope you don't mind elaborating. Just curious; this is a 2 part question:

1. Do you believe in the idea of natural rights? Or do you agree with Johnathan Wallace that there is no such thing as natural rights (Wallace argued that Thomas Hobbes' account of natural rights confuses "rights" with "abilities".)
Furthermore, critics to Hobbes, John Locke, Thomas Paine, H.L.A. Hart, Immanuel Kant, Leo Strauss, and other proponents of natural rights have been known to claim that the idea of natural rights is no more then a political tool itself.

2. Assuming you do believe in natural rights (if you don't, you can disregard this question), does your statement include natural rights, or does it pertain exclusively to legal rights?

I ask because I agree that legal rights have been (and continue to be) used as a political tool, selectively distributed, and used to divide populations into imaginary demographics, some dominant or superior to others.

However, I do believe in rights that are inherent to people (and animals) universally, and not contingent upon legalities. I believe that such natural rights are quite different then legal rights, but can be infringed upon just like legal rights.

One such natural right I believe in is the freedom of choice. Try as you might with any type of law you can imagine, you cannot take away a person's right to choose; you can only limit the choices, but not completely. I see this as a natural right because with or without laws there is always choice. Another I believe in the the right to thoughts and emotions. No matter what law you set, you cannot take these away, either.

How do you infringe upon these rights, then? By punishing individuals whom utilize these rights. For imprisoning an individual for making the wrong choice, or for executing a person for expressing their thoughts and rage against the government, for examples.

It is for these rights that I consider myself a feminist. I wish for the universal protection of these natural rights, regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, creed, religion, age, education, social status, or any other characteristic that you can divide people by.

The reason I consider myself a feminist is because over the years many women have had these natural rights infringed upon simply because they fall into the female demographic.

I don't see feminism as attempting to obtain rights at all; I see it as simply declaring and defending the rights that women already possess; and refusing too allow these rights to be infringed upon.

However, this is just my personal opinion (which is my natural right to have :D).

I just wonder if, as a self proclaimed anarchist, if you believed in natural rights or not.

[apathy maybe]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/humanistic-feminism-t43472/index.html?t=43472
Funny thing, I wrote something back in 2006 about anarchism and feminism.

Basically, all anarchists are feminists (and if they aren't, they aren't anarchists), because all anarchists want equality and freedom for all, just like feminists do.

[Module]

I began to recognize the state of the world after I was arrested by the police when I was fifteen. I was a feminist before then but after i was locked up i realized there were bigger problems in the world than sexism, and sexism is a symptom of those bigger problems. Struggling with the symptoms is futile if you don't go after the cause. Who says feminists don’t go after the cause? I’m a feminist, and I’m also a communist, so obviously some feminists are going after the cause, aren’t they?


The idea of male authority can be effectively countered by an arguement desecrating the concept of authority in general. The concepts of rights and privilages and ownership and property must be disproved in general if any gender specifications are to be done away with. And once they are disproved then does feminism become relevant?
The idea of male authority can be argued against by arguing against authority in general, but it just so happens that the manifestations of social discrimination are far more complex than that can be simply combated under umbrella ‘anti-authoritarianism’, especially sexism which is so deeply engrained in Western cultures, not to mention those elsewhere in the world. Somebody being an anti-authoritarian does not mean that they either understand or do anything about sexism, though they may disagree with it in theory. It is a specific issue, involving specific social attitudes which have to be challenged specifically. The same applies, though to different degrees, to things like racism, homophobia and religious discrimination.


I've found that the most effective, thorough arguments against authority are not feminist but anarchist. That is possibly because feminism doesn’t refer to general anti-authoritarianism. The most effective, thorough arguments against sexism are not anarchist, but feminist.


Where the feminist is sexist by necessity, the anarchist has no need of any specific gender. The feminist is always thinking within and trying to expand the boundaries of sex and gender in society, while the anarchist promotes the sovereignty of all individuals. The feminist is no more “sexist by necessity” than somebody who argues against racism specifically is racist by necessity.
If you are implying that acknowledging gender differences makes one sexist then you must have next to no understanding of what sexism is.
You are creating a false dichotomy between anarchism and feminism. Who says that feminists don’t promote the sovereignty of all individuals? I do, am I not a feminist then?


Feminists strive for equal authority for women as men while anarchists strive for the abolition of the idea of authority in general. What the feminists do by gaining authority, the anarchists will have to undo by proving it all wrong. Feminists strive for no authority between women and men, as women and men. This does not necessarily mean they strive for ‘equal authority’ any more than the abolition of authority strives for that. I strive for the abolition of ‘authority’ also, am I not a feminist? Again, you’re creating a false dichotomy between the two.


The anarchist can recognize that the female struggle is the same struggle with authority as any other social struggle in history. Social discrimination occurs essentially along class lines, and is maintained by capitalism and the class system. That doesn’t mean that social discrimination towards specific groups shouldn’t be specifically addressed, because it involves specific issues with specific material manifestations. 1.) Social discrimination won’t just suddenly not be there after revolution, and 2.) why should women, or any minority group wait until ‘revolution’ whilst they suffer so much more in the here and now, and in far more complicated and specific ways?


Putting aside steroypes and differences in appearences can give the anarchist an opportunity to see the struggle in a broader sense, and more clearly as it relates to it's own personal situation.
Thus the anarchist can actually win, and go beyond having to fight and even go beyond having to be an anarchist. And I think you’ll find most individuals’ personal situation involves a little more than simply ‘class struggle’. Putting aside stereotypes and differences in appearance is to ignore reality and ignore the very nature of social authority as it exists in the here and now.
Any anarchist that claims to put aside social differences is either full of shit, or absolutely ignorant of social struggle.
An essential part of being an anarchist is recognising discrimination, privilege. How on earth can an anarchist effectively combat these things if they don’t do this?
Wiki link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_feminism)
Wiki link. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcha-feminism)

[ifeelyou]

violet, interesting post

desrumeaux, great response

[superiority]

Feminism is opposition to patriarchy.

Anarchism is opposition to all hierarchy.

All anarchists are necessarily feminists, unless you want to argue semantics.

[Violet]

to Krazyrabitsheep: what you've called "natural rights", i'd call "abilities".

in response to Desrumeaux:


Who says feminists don’t go after the cause? I’m a feminist, and I’m also a communist, so obviously some feminists are going after the cause, aren’t they?

I'd say feminists go after the symptoms, not the cause.
For example: feminism doesn't try to disprove property in general, it only tries to make it impossible to treat women as a commodity.
Women are treated like property because anything can be bought or sold. Abolishing the ownership of women might help treat the symptom but the underlying cause is a belief in property and feminism falls short of disproving that.

The face of an owner might now be female, but the nature of ownership has not been changed.



It is a specific issue, involving specific social attitudes which have to be challenged specifically. The same applies, though to different degrees, to things like racism, homophobia and religious discrimination.


You are right that these are specific issues that need to be dealt with seperately. My point is that they are also symptoms of a common cause, and no matter how much work you put into dealing with the symptoms seperately you will not really beat them if you do not deal with that underlying cause.

And you can beat them all with one movement if you can get past the apparent differences.


The most effective, thorough arguments against sexism are not anarchist, but feminist.

Feminism's primary concern is with sex, so i can see how the movement has had the most success in developing sex-related arguements.


Who says that feminists don’t promote the sovereignty of all individuals? I do, am I not a feminist then?

If you are striving for rights you do not understand individual sovereignty.


I strive for the abolition of ‘authority’ also, am I not a feminist?

Feminism does not strive for the abolition of authority, but instead for equal opportunity for women to obtain that authority.


1.) Social discrimination won’t just suddenly not be there after revolution, and 2.) why should women, or any minority group wait until ‘revolution’ whilst they suffer so much more in the here and now, and in far more complicated and specific ways?

1.) i think that depends on what kind of revolution you're talking about.
2.) i think if you want something done you need to do it yourself.


Putting aside stereotypes and differences in appearance is to ignore reality and ignore the very nature of social authority

being able to see each individual struggle as the same struggle against the same enemy requires being able to see past appearences and stereotypes.
The struggle is with Authority. If Authority was to be disproven, then nobody could claim any rights or privilages or property or ownership and the fight would be over.

It's a theory.

in response to superiority:



Feminism is opposition to patriarchy.

Anarchism is opposition to all hierarchy.

All anarchists are necessarily feminists, unless you want to argue semantics.


I'd say the cause of feminism is in line with the cause of anarchy.
It's the effects of feminism that deviate from the anarchist goel.

Equal Rights does not mean the same as Rights Disproven.
And so long as there are rights there will be authority and heirarchy and oppression.

[Module]

I'd say feminists go after the symptoms, not the cause.
For example: feminism doesn't try to disprove property in general, it only tries to make it impossible to treat women as a commodity.
Women are treated like property because anything can be bought or sold. Abolishing the ownership of women might help treat the symptom but the underlying cause is a belief in property and feminism falls short of disproving that.

The face of an owner might now be female, but the nature of ownership has not been changed. It doesn’t ‘only’ try to make it impossible to treat women as a commodity …? That’s not what sexism is; treating women as a commodity. That is a result of sexism, one of the results.
Feminism does not ‘fall short’ of ‘disproving’ (what do you mean disproving?) a belief in property, an individual may ‘fall short’ of that, and others might not. It says nothing about feminism. Did you look at the links I gave you?
Like I said, I am a communist, am I not a feminist … ?


You are right that these are specific issues that need to be dealt with seperately. My point is that they are also symptoms of a common cause, and no matter how much work you put into dealing with the symptoms seperately you will not really beat them if you do not deal with that underlying cause. Yeah, and as I said, I’m a communist; obviously I see what the underlying cause is. You’re creating a false dichotomy.


And you can beat them all with one movement if you can get past the apparent differences. ‘Apparent’ differences? There are actual differences that need to be dealt with.
Anarchism encompasses ‘feminism’ – it does not discount or illegitimatise it.


If you are striving for rights you do not understand individual sovereignty. That depends on what you mean by ‘rights’.
The concept of legal, economic ‘rights’ is different from the concept of social ‘rights’. Social rights will exist in all societies except those based on pure individualism – the concept of reciprocal social ethics.


Feminism does not strive for the abolition of authority, but instead for equal opportunity for women to obtain that authority. Feminism can/does strive for the abolition of authority. It certainly strives for the abolition of privilege. Again, see those links I gave you.


1.) i think that depends on what kind of revolution you're talking about.
2.) i think if you want something done you need to do it yourself. 1.) The overthrow of the capitalist system.
2.) a.) Who says they don’t do it themselves? What, you think the only people who are anarchists are white straight males who don't need to fight that shit? Social minorities are fighting against their oppression every single day. An example of how they do this is through feminism.
b.) Why are you an anarchist?


being able to see each individual struggle as the same struggle against the same enemy requires being able to see past appearences and stereotypes.
The struggle is with Authority. If Authority was to be disproven, then nobody could claim any rights or privilages or property or ownership and the fight would be over.

It's a theory. Past appearances and stereotypes? What, you mean those appearances and stereotypes that still exist? Are you living on Mars?
What do you mean ‘disproven’ …?
Authority is not something that is just going to disappear once somebody ‘disproves’ it, either. By the way, you can’t ‘disprove’ authority, but you can abolish it.

[Violet]

It doesn’t ‘only’ try to make it impossible to treat women as a commodity …?

Feminism strives to make it impossible to treat women as a commodity, but does not strive to disprove all property in general.


That’s not what sexism is; treating women as a commodity. That is a result of sexism, one of the results.

Do you mean to say that it isn't sexist to treat a woman like she's a thing to be bought and sold?
Where you used the word "result", i'd use the word "symptom".


Feminism does not ‘fall short’ of ‘disproving’ a belief in property

Why should someone strive for the right to own property or vote in an election if that someone does not believe in authority? Feminism is concerned not with abolishing all rights, but with gaining rights for females.


(what do you mean disproving?)

There's a subtle difference between disproving something and abolishing something.


Did you look at the links I gave you?

yeah i did. i'd read the one on Anacha-feminism before and Marxism isn't new to me though i hadn't read the page on Marxist-feminism before.

yeah, those links are definitely relevent to this conversation and to the point i've been making.

I think it's sexist to be called an Anarcha-feminist when you can just be an Anarchist and cover all your bases in one hit.
I don't see the problem of authority as a specifically female problem because it affects everyone. what i do see is that the problems facing females are actually coming from the same cause as everyone's problems.

If you can get beyond gender-specifications you can work more effectively on the cause of the gender-specific problems, and you're clearing up some other problems at the same time.



Anarchism encompasses ‘feminism’ – it does not discount or illegitimatise it.


i'm not looking to illegitimatize the feminist cause, which i can relate to. I'd rather criticize some of the effects, like giving rights to women when rights should be dispproven or abolished.




That depends on what you mean by ‘rights’.
The concept of legal, economic ‘rights’ is different from the concept of social ‘rights’. Social rights will exist in all societies except those based on pure individualism – the concept of reciprocal social ethics.


Legal rights and social rights are indistinguishable as they both imply privilage and authority. Each individual person makes the decision for itself whether or not to be rude or polite.


Feminism can/does strive for the abolition of authority. It certainly strives for the abolition of privilege.

No. Anarchy promotes and strives for the abolition of authority. Feminism strives after equal rights for women as men. It strives for the abolition of certain privilages held by men but not the abolition of privilages in general.



1.) The overthrow of the capitalist system.
2.) a.) Who says they don’t do it themselves? What, you think the only people who are anarchists are white straight males who don't need to fight that shit? Social minorities are fighting against their oppression every single day. An example of how they do this is through feminism.
b.) Why are you an anarchist?



1.) that's the kind of revolution you were talking about.
2.) a.) not me. everybody does what they do. i know what feminism's good for, and i'm not trying to say it's irrelevent. The feminist and the anarchist have a common cause, but feminism is sexist and as soon as i found anarchy i realized that i don't need feminism any more.
b.) Necessity. I'm an anarchist because authority has always had a problem with me. i heard of the movement for the emancipation of females at around age 12 or 13 and i was interested because i'd already had experience feeling oppressed and also i was more conscious of my sex than i'd ever been before. I decided i was a feminist because i felt could relate to an anti-authoritarian cause with a female face. Between the ages of 15 and 17 i got into more trouble with my parents and the law because i continued to refuse to accept their claims to authority. i insisted that the fact that i was deliberately disobeying their orders was empirical evidence of their powerlessness. Also around that time i decided that feminism wouldn't cut it for me, i felt the gender-specification would only hinder my arguments and i felt it was harder to take myself seriously. Ditching feminism for anarchy was my last move as a feminist. I did it to be free of sexism.



Past appearances and stereotypes?

yes, 'beyond' them. i do not mean denial of the truth. I mean see the whole thing at once.


you can’t ‘disprove’ authority, but you can abolish it

if you want to disprove some authority, you can do it by disobeying orders. It's easier to abolish once it's been disproven.

[bcbm]

Its something of a straw man to talk about "feminism" in specifics as though it is a single ideology. There is no such thing as "feminism" in that sense. There are only feminisms, which come from a wide-range of perspectives, from liberal-capitalist to communist and anarchist.

[ChristianV777]

That's exactly what I'd argue.
Feminists like Naomi Wolff who protect the Capitalist system and see it as the natural path to "women's rights" (while making excuses for the system) are very different from Socialist Feminists (for example) or really any of the working class feminists.
You really can't argue there is just one "feminism", and yes, some of the feminist schools of thought are very narrow and see being "the CEO of a corporation" as the natural victory for "feminism". You seem to be looking at the "middle class" or Liberal feminists as representing the entire spectrum, and I'd agree with your assessment of their philosophy.

I'd say the reason that there is a need for branches like Socialist Feminism (when the two should be synoymous) is based on the realities of our current world system, where women are facing greater struggles in almost every area as compared to males, and the fact that until the New Left, most Left organizations ignored the plight of females as being doubly exploited (by the Capitalist system and by the patriarchal system). Both need to be questioned and fought against.
It's impossible to have true Socialism (Communism, Anarchism) without total equality for ALL, but it is possible to set up a Socialist societal system where rape is still an issue or where "house work" is still considered the "woman's work".
And, I don't think all Patriarchal ideologies are just going to fade away when the Capitalist system (and positions of authority) are done away with. Revolution can change the system, but it can't change all the ideologies we've been living with for so many hundreds of years now that condition our thought.
Sexism did not arise with Capitalism, but arose with private property. Yes, Communism/Anarchism is for the abolishment of private property, but we're looking at a Patriarchal system that has been around for thousands of years.

What I mean is you say all rights should be abolished, rather than be given to women, but we have to deal with the reality of the current world, where the revolution doesn't seem to be on the horizon.
So, what about the right for a woman to not have to deal with sexual harassment?
And, saying "women need to do things for themselves" is all well and good, but when you're dealing with an issue like sexual harassment, what are the options other than just hunting down and killing the person, which would obviously land you in a prison cell, because we still have to deal with a world where there is authority/laws. Or, what about an issue where an employer refuses to hire a female because she's a woman? Women still need to make money to live (especially if they don't want to have to be a sex slave to their husband).

[Violet]

Its something of a straw man to talk about "feminism" in specifics as though it is a single ideology. There is no such thing as "feminism" in that sense. There are only feminisms, which come from a wide-range of perspectives, from liberal-capitalist to communist and anarchist.


all feminisms have one thing in common: they're feminist.


Feminists like Naomi Wolff who protect the Capitalist system and see it as the natural path to "women's rights" (while making excuses for the system) are very different from Socialist Feminists (for example) or really any of the working class feminists.
You really can't argue there is just one "feminism", and yes, some of the feminist schools of thought are very narrow and see being "the CEO of a corporation" as the natural victory for "feminism". You seem to be looking at the "middle class" or Liberal feminists as representing the entire spectrum, and I'd agree with your assessment of their philosophy.


Feminism is always narrow because it needs to be. Some people need to focus especially on gender issues.


I'd say the reason that there is a need for branches like Socialist Feminism (when the two should be synoymous) is based on the realities of our current world system, where women are facing greater struggles in almost every area as compared to males

I'd say its because there are many different ways of going about being a woman, and many different ways to try to work for the benefit of women.



(when the two should be synoymous)


I don't see any difference between Anarcha-feminism and Anarchy except for adding on feminism makes it female-specific.
That feminists can't remain unprejudiced when considering the authority question is what gives the movement its strength. Emancipation of the females is important enough to warrent it's own movement if that's what's necessary. I don't need it, though, because i'm already as emancipated as any feminist movement is ever going to make me.


It's impossible to have true Socialism (Communism, Anarchism) without total equality for ALL, but it is possible to set up a Socialist societal system where rape is still an issue or where "house work" is still considered the "woman's work".

If it's impossible to have 'true Socialism' without the realization of equality, then how can there be a 'Socialist societal system' where equality hasn't been realized?


What I mean is you say all rights should be abolished, rather than be given to women, but we have to deal with the reality of the current world, where the revolution doesn't seem to be on the horizon.
So, what about the right for a woman to not have to deal with sexual harassment?


Whether or not to give rights to women depends on the circumstances surrounding such a decision. Rights can be meaningful but they don't really do anything in the face of danger. You may have the right to live, but you can die and be killed. It's the same with sex. You have the right to remain unpenetrated, but you can be penetrated. You're going to have to deal with that whether or not you have the right.


And, saying "women need to do things for themselves" is all well and good, but when you're dealing with an issue like sexual harassment, what are the options other than just hunting down and killing the person, which would obviously land you in a prison cell, because we still have to deal with a world where there is authority/laws.

There are a lot of possible options. You can do whatever you want, so long as you can do it, and so can anybody else.

Prison is a convenient place to put offensive people, and you can kill them to. The point to note is that while prison is convenient and there are rules and rights and courts and systems, there is still danger and crime and rebellion. A system of rights and authority is a way to manage and influence society but it doesn't really solve problems or control people.


Or, what about an issue where an employer refuses to hire a female because she's a woman? Women still need to make money to live (especially if they don't want to have to be a sex slave to their husband).

An employer is free to make decisions on it's own because it's a person. I guess i wouldn't like to be turned down from a job just because i'm a girl, but i could be, maybe i have been. It might just show weak judgement on the part of the potential employer, especially if i am actually more fit for the job than any other potential employee. But then again i'm sure each person has their reasons for going about their business like they do.

Perhaps i will get married and depend on my husband and we'll have some children and i'll keep the house clean and do my hair, if that's what i want to do and i can pull it off then i will. I don't know many wives who are sex slaves to their husbands, even the ones who don't have jobs.

I've heard of and read about women who are treated as slaves,though, and i know there are some serious problems in some relationships. All I can do is stay out of that kind of relationship, critisize from my perspective, and support the cause of rebellion if it happens. I might remind certain people of their ability to walk away, if they've forgotten. If i was in a position to actually help someone escape an abusive relationship i probably would. I might be interested in studying the psychology behind those relationships. I might want to understand them in the context of history. I might suggest some reading material to any one stuck in those environments, maybe encourage them to change. What more can i do? People make their own decisions.

If you want to get something done you have work for it, even if you are a woman.

[Pogue]

If you're a Anarchist you're a feminist.

[Decolonize The Left]

However, I do believe in rights that are inherent to people (and animals) universally, and not contingent upon legalities. I believe that such natural rights are quite different then legal rights, but can be infringed upon just like legal rights.

One such natural right I believe in is the freedom of choice. Try as you might with any type of law you can imagine, you cannot take away a person's right to choose; you can only limit the choices, but not completely. I see this as a natural right because with or without laws there is always choice. Another I believe in the the right to thoughts and emotions. No matter what law you set, you cannot take these away, either.

You have made a grave confusion. "Freedom of choice" is redundant. What is freedom, if not the ability to will as one chooses? Hence freedom is 'freedom of choice.' What you are referring to in the above quote, if I am reading correctly, are liberties. It seems as though you have confused freedom with 'natural liberties.' These are the liberties which come about from social organization - choice, bodily-integrity, speech, etc...

We call them freedoms in contemporary culture, but that's because we don't like to talk about actual freedom... it's dangerous.


It is for these rights that I consider myself a feminist. I wish for the universal protection of these natural rights, regardless of sex, gender, sexual orientation, race, creed, religion, age, education, social status, or any other characteristic that you can divide people by.

The reason I consider myself a feminist is because over the years many women have had these natural rights infringed upon simply because they fall into the female demographic.

This is a fine point, and the struggle for equal liberties is vital to the well-being of individuals. If you would like to discuss this further, I'm willing to offer an argument for why liberties are completely and utterly pointless if one accepts and establishes simple freedom as the state of being for all people (hint: freedom necessitates equality).

- August

[KrazyRabidSheep]

You have made a grave confusion. "Freedom of choice" is redundant. What is freedom, if not the ability to will as one chooses? Hence freedom is 'freedom of choice.' What you are referring to in the above quote, if I am reading correctly, are liberties. It seems as though you have confused freedom with 'natural liberties.' These are the liberties which come about from social organization - choice, bodily-integrity, speech, etc...I suppose you're right. Although I don't think it much changed the meaning of my query, using that phrase is as redundant as "ATM machine".

[bcbm]

all feminisms have one thing in common: they're feminist.

That's a bit of a no brainer. Not seeing the point you were trying to make here. Obviously there are commonalities between feminisms, nobody ever said otherwise.

[Violet]

Anarcha-feminism is anarchy as it applies to women.



If you're a Anarchist you're a feminist.


If you're an Anarchist you are anti-authority, including the authority underwhich the females suffer.


That's a bit of a no brainer. Not seeing the point you were trying to make here. Obviously there are commonalities between feminisms, nobody ever said otherwise.

My point is that no matter what kind of feminist you are, you are a feminist. You said my reasoning is weak, implied that i couldn't see the differences between the feminisms, but i can. What's more important to my point is that there's reason to believe all feminisms are sexist. Because it's sexist, i've asked myself
"Well, what if it's necessary, like a necessary evil? Is sexism such a bad thing if it's called for and it's good for the world? What if it's sexism in reaction to sexism, like violence in self-defense?" I've decided i'm ok with feminism's anti-authoritarian cause, i can see why somebody would want to act out in reaction to an oppressive condition.



If you would like to discuss this further, I'm willing to offer an argument for why liberties are completely and utterly pointless if one accepts and establishes simple freedom as the state of being for all people (hint: freedom necessitates equality).


I'd like to read your argument, I like the word "liberties" and I can see how freedom necessitates equality.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'd like to read your argument, I like the word "liberties" and I can see how freedom necessitates equality.

Very well -

Premise 1: I am a human being.
Premise 2: I am a free agent.

Conclusion 1: If I am a free human being, other human beings must also be free agents.
Hence my freedom is symmetrical.
Conclusion 2: As a free human being, I find myself on this planet which I share with all other free human beings.
Hence my freedom is mutual.
Conclusion 3: Given that the universe is a closed system, all actions inevitably have an effect on all others, even in the most insignificant fashion.
Hence my freedom is reciprocal.

We have now established that freedom contains the three characteristics of symmetry, mutuality, and reciprocity. These three characteristics are also the qualities of equality.

Hence we can conclude that all human beings are equal in their freedom. And since this freedom and equality is reciprocal, all human beings are responsible for all their actions.

With this freedom, equality, and responsibility, we have no need for liberties. Furthermore, we can see that these are not up for debate - they are the conditions of human existence.

- August

[Violet]

With this freedom, equality, and responsibility, we have no need for liberties. Furthermore, we can see that these are not up for debate - they are the conditions of human existence.



Precisely right. You've effectively summerized all that really needs to be said on the subject, and in an objective, scientific manner.

This theory is the end of all heirarchy and whatever comes with it. There can be no oppressor, no authority, and no oppression after the realization of this basic principle.
The challenge then is first to become aware of the freedom and equality we've all got in common, and then to take conscious responsability for your self and your life.

[bcbm]

My point is that no matter what kind of feminist you are, you are a feminist. You said my reasoning is weak, implied that i couldn't see the differences between the feminisms, but i can. What's more important to my point is that there's reason to believe all feminisms are sexist. Because it's sexist, i've asked myself
"Well, what if it's necessary, like a necessary evil? Is sexism such a bad thing if it's called for and it's good for the world? What if it's sexism in reaction to sexism, like violence in self-defense?" I've decided i'm ok with feminism's anti-authoritarian cause, i can see why somebody would want to act out in reaction to an oppressive condition.

I didn't say your reasoning was weak, I simply said it was incorrect to speak of feminism as a single ideology adhering to one set of beliefs, as you seemed to do repeatedly. If you can see the differences between them, as you claim, then why would you say "feminism believes x" when some feminisms do not?

What reason is there to believe all feminisms are sexist?

[Violet]

Feminisms are inevitable in any sexist society.



What reason is there to believe all feminisms are sexist?


Feminisms are all for the benefit of females, specifically.
And just look at the way the word Anarchist is changed when given the Feminist hyphenation. We should call it anarcha-feminist becuase the "a" makes it feminin. You could call it "anarcho-" but isn't it trivial? Couldn't call it "anarchy-feminism" because that just doesn't make any sense. Might as well call it anarchy, but then how will they know you're fighting for womens' rights?


why would you say "feminism believes x" when some feminisms do not?


"Feminism involves various movements theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) and philosophies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophies) which are concerned with the issue of gender difference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_difference), that advocate equality for women, and that campaign for women's rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights) and interests"

-wikipedia, feminism


I simply said it was incorrect to speak of feminism as a single ideology adhering to one set of beliefs

and I'd still say it's feminist no matter what kind of feminism it is. How can it be feminism if it's isn't feminist?


Anarcha-feminists such as Susan Brown see the anarchist struggle as a necessary component of the feminist struggle

-wikipedia, anarcha-feminism

and I'd say the anarchist element is necessary to any sort of revolution.


In Brown's words, "anarchism is a political philosophy that opposes all relationships of power, it is inherently feminist".

-wikipedia, anarcha-feminism

yeah, so if you're an Anarchist you don't need feminism, because you're an Anarchist. So why should you be an Anarcha-feminist unless you've got a gender bias? Is sexism justified? Apparently so.



...equal rights and empowerment for women.
-wikipedia, anarcha-feminism

I don't want permission, i don't want the right, and i don't want authority.
Nobody with authority has ever told me how free i am.
Rights are tools for regulating society, just look at the definition i got from dictionary.com:



-noun

18. a just claim or title, whether legal, prescriptive, or moral: You have a right to say what you please.
19. Sometimes, rights, that which is due to anyone by just claim, legal guarantees, moral principles, etc.: women's rights; Freedom of speech is a right of all Americans.
20. adherence or obedience to moral and legal principles and authority.
21. that which is morally, legally, or ethically proper: to know right from wrong.
22. a moral, ethical, or legal principle considered as an underlying cause of truth, justice, morality, or ethics.
23. Sometimes, rights. the interest or ownership a person, group, or business has in property: He has a 50-percent right in a silver mine. The author controls the screen rights for the book.
24. the property itself or its value


"morally, legally, ethically"



...including an equal claim under the law to their own persons and property. Individualist feminism encourages women to take full responsibility for their own lives
-wikipedia, individualist feminism

How can you take full responsability for your own life when your claims to your person and property are depending on the social law? You are giving the responsability to the state so that the state may give it to you? Well, what good are you doing? You are fueling the authorities. You wouldn't stand for this if you were an anarchist.

[bcbm]

Feminism is for the exaultation of females, from a lower status to one higher or equal to that of males. Or the emancipation of females by whatever means necessary, towards whatever end. Feminists use different methods to reach their feminist goels, i know there are many feminist theories. How is it feminism if it's not feminist?

I still don't understand what point you're making with the "all feminism is feminist" lines. Yeah, I know its feminist- I never said otherwise. But it isn't unified in any meaningful sense, with many feminists believing completely contrary things.

As for being sexist, I still don't see how. Believing in gender equality and analyzing conditions specific to women (or gender relations in general) is not sexist.


"Feminism involves various movements theories (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) and philosophies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophies) which are concerned with the issue of gender difference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_difference), that advocate equality for women, and that campaign for women's rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights) and interests" -wikipedia.

Which has nothing to do with what I was saying, thanks.


and I'd still say it's feminist, no matter what kind of feminism it is.


And, again, no shit. Nobody is saying otherwise so you're not arguing anything.

[534634634265]

don't you hate it when you get an ingrown hair or zit and you try and squeeze it out too soon, so it only gets more nasty and inflamed and swollen? thats what this whole argument is, a big ingrown pube of an idea that Violet tried to push out before it was ready.

Violet, you had a good idea, so you thought you'd post it on here as an assertion, not a discussion. unfortunately, you can't assert anything you can't also back up really well, or we'll squeeze the fuck out of it till it pops, and you're left with a nasty mess. its alright though, i've done it too. several times actually. we all stick our foot in our mouths. next time, try to phrase it as a question maybe? you might have gotten less flak then...

[Black Dagger]

Violet, have you read much feminist literature? You seem to cite wikipedia and the dictionary as a reference for your ideas - these are not good sources from which to base a meaningful analysis of feminism.


Feminisms are inevitable in any sexist society.

How is a political philosophy originating in 'the west' inevitable for the whole planet? Patriarchy is everywhere, but feminism is not.

If you mean that resistance to sexism is inevitable then i agree - where there is domination and oppression there will be resistance - though its forms are diverse and sometimes hard to find. However resistance to sexism does not always take the form of feminism led by self-identifying 'feminists' - not even in the so-called 'west'.


Feminisms are all for the benefit of females, specifically.

I disagree - feminism also benefits trans folk and queer guys, but even if that was the case it doesn't make feminisms 'sexist' - feminists are not advocating discrimination against men - that's like saying the Black Panthers were 'reverse racists' because they advocated a Black liberation philosophy.

Oppressed peoples articulating a desire for their own liberation is not 'reverse-oppression'/sexism/racism - on the contrary, it is an explicit rejection of those values.

Besides feminisms (esp. politically radical ones like anarchist feminisms) advocate the total liberation of everyone. Feminisms are not suggesting that women are better than men, or that women should be treated better and men worse - but that women should not be discriminated, oppressed, mistreated or otherwise insulted on the basis of their sex (feminists also deal with other issues like gender).

Women's & gender lib is a vital component of any social revolution but historically anarchist and marxist revolutions have neglected this - creating revolutions that improved the conditions of male and some female workers but which ultimately left many/most patriarchal attitudes and practices unchallenged. In other cases these attitudes were merely re-created in new ways with communist sounding rhetoric.

So without addressing the oppression of women (feminisms), the revolution will be made only 'half-way' - feminist analysis helps to keep revolutionaries real about the total liberation of the working class (not just the male half).




"Feminism involves various movements theories (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory) and philosophies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophies) which are concerned with the issue of gender difference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_difference), that advocate equality for women, and that campaign for women's rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_rights) and interests"

-wikipedia, feminism

That definition is incorrect. Specifically the latter half refers primarily to liberal 'equality' feminists - not revolutionary feminists.


and I'd still say it's feminist no matter what kind of feminism it is. How can it be feminism if it's isn't feminist?

Please rephrase this sentence, the wording is extremely confusing.


and I'd say the anarchist element is necessary to any sort of revolution.

Agreed.


yeah, so if you're an Anarchist you don't need feminism, because you're an Anarchist.

I take it you have not had much involvement with the organised anarchist movement? Or anarcha-feminists/groups?

Despite the organisational and philisophical similarities between some anarchist groups and some feminist groups - the focus of anarchism on total human liberation from all forms of authority and domination - there are still patriarchal anarchists, sexist anarchists etc.

Saying, well anarchism basically = feminism, is a cop-out which conceals the patriarchal attitudes and practices, sexism etc. that exist in the 'movement' - in anarchist groupings, and in relationships between anarchists. If anarchism really = feminism and all anarchists = feminists, then these problems would not exist - just saying 'i'm a feminist' or whatever doesn't make it so - you need the praxis to back it up.



So why should you be an Anarcha-feminist unless you've got a gender bias? Is sexism justified? Apparently so.

See above. Plus, not all anarchists agree that anarchism = feminism -some anarchists reject feminism as 'bourgeois identity politics' or whatever - so identifying as an 'anarcha-feminism' is a political statement.