<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Old draft re: anarchafem and patriarchy</title>
	<link>http://annaaniston.blogsome.com/2007/03/08/old-draft-re-anarchafem-and-patriarchy/</link>
	<description>adventures of an anarchic anarchista</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:55:11 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: w</title>
		<link>http://annaaniston.blogsome.com/2007/03/08/old-draft-re-anarchafem-and-patriarchy/#comment-279</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2007 06:08:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://annaaniston.blogsome.com/2007/03/08/old-draft-re-anarchafem-and-patriarchy/#comment-279</guid>
					<description>&quot;WHILE THE ROLES EXIST AT ALL, WE ARE OPPRESSED BY THEM.&quot;

Yay!

I just take such exception to the language used by the feminist movement to convey such needed realities.  Feminism is a gendered term and I can't help but feel it innately presupposes certain roles.  ...Which is weird because I don't have as much a problem with the term Patriarchy.  I guess it's because Patriarchy deals with the current context and Feminism is supposed to deal with the idealism behind our fighting it.  Anarchism is less context-dependent and so I feel more comfortable using it.  I strongly identify as an Anarchist passionately fighting Patriarchy, and I think part of that is because it also allows me the freedom to fight Matriarchy.

I think that in our society both Men and Women learn roles and games built around gaining power over one another.  A woman may secure LESS net power over a man then the man has over her, but both roles/relationships/psychoses are problems.  My goal is not to have a net of equal domination over one another (albeit perhaps in different forms or avenues), but to abolish ALL elements of such.


...Also, though God knows the basic concept needs addressing, the term privilege also gets to me because of its authoritarian tone when used.  Privileges are freedoms granted by some social or communal authority to a person, but the implication is the legitimacy of some other body to revoke such privileges.  When we talk of the &quot;privilege&quot; of not having to suffer like someone under a particular form of domination we imply that that its an unnatural freedom earned at our expense.  Although certainly their lack of awareness/etc is problematic and indicative of the power they receive from the system, I feel THAT should be addressed directly.  In terms of &quot;you are participating in oppression THIS WAY, it hurts you and me, knock it off.&quot;  Not, &quot;how dare you walk the streets at night without fear, like getting ice cream after dinner, that's not a right, that's a privilege, and we reserve the right to take it away, you white-ass bourgeoisie male.&quot;

Although, you know, such threats ARE fun.  I don't think the tone is particularly productive or constructive in activist circles. </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>&#8220;WHILE THE ROLES EXIST AT ALL, WE ARE OPPRESSED BY THEM.&#8221;</p>
	<p>Yay!</p>
	<p>I just take such exception to the language used by the feminist movement to convey such needed realities.  Feminism is a gendered term and I can&#8217;t help but feel it innately presupposes certain roles.  &#8230;Which is weird because I don&#8217;t have as much a problem with the term Patriarchy.  I guess it&#8217;s because Patriarchy deals with the current context and Feminism is supposed to deal with the idealism behind our fighting it.  Anarchism is less context-dependent and so I feel more comfortable using it.  I strongly identify as an Anarchist passionately fighting Patriarchy, and I think part of that is because it also allows me the freedom to fight Matriarchy.</p>
	<p>I think that in our society both Men and Women learn roles and games built around gaining power over one another.  A woman may secure LESS net power over a man then the man has over her, but both roles/relationships/psychoses are problems.  My goal is not to have a net of equal domination over one another (albeit perhaps in different forms or avenues), but to abolish ALL elements of such.</p>
	<p>&#8230;Also, though God knows the basic concept needs addressing, the term privilege also gets to me because of its authoritarian tone when used.  Privileges are freedoms granted by some social or communal authority to a person, but the implication is the legitimacy of some other body to revoke such privileges.  When we talk of the &#8220;privilege&#8221; of not having to suffer like someone under a particular form of domination we imply that that its an unnatural freedom earned at our expense.  Although certainly their lack of awareness/etc is problematic and indicative of the power they receive from the system, I feel THAT should be addressed directly.  In terms of &#8220;you are participating in oppression THIS WAY, it hurts you and me, knock it off.&#8221;  Not, &#8220;how dare you walk the streets at night without fear, like getting ice cream after dinner, that&#8217;s not a right, that&#8217;s a privilege, and we reserve the right to take it away, you white-ass bourgeoisie male.&#8221;</p>
	<p>Although, you know, such threats ARE fun.  I don&#8217;t think the tone is particularly productive or constructive in activist circles. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>
