Feminism

You are currently browsing articles tagged Feminism.

I just received in the mail, kindly sent to me by Włodzimierz Gogłoza, a Polish libertarian magazine called MindFuck (pronounced, I assume, “Minndfootsk”) that includes translations into Polish of the libertarian feminist piece I wrote with Charles, Libertarian Feminism: Can This Marriage Be Saved?, as well as my blog post Against Anarchist Apartheid.

Polish flag with anarchy symbol

The magazine’s other articles, likewise all in Polish, are as follows (insofar as I’ve guessed/deciphered correctly); I’ve linked to the English versions: David Andrade’s What Is Anarchy?; Voltairine de Cleyre and Rachelle Yarros’s The Individualist and the Communist; Wendy McElroy’s American Anarchism; Murray Rothbard’s Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty and The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine; Bryan Caplan’s Anarcho-Statists of Spain; and three pieces I couldn’t find English versions of: an unsigned editorial on horror movies (I think), another on religious parodies (I think), and a piece by Gogłoza himself on Spencerian anarchist Wordsworth Donisthorpe.

There were also interviews with our own Kevin Carson, with Fred Woodworth of The Match!, with Tom Hazelmyer of Amphetamine Reptile, with “feminist pornographer” Erika Lust, and with anarchist musician Daniel Carter; the latter interview is the only one I believe I’ve identified an English version of, here.

So it’s safe to say that this is the sort of periodical I would read, if I could read Polish.

Tags: , , , ,

Magritte - Lovers

Can you guess the source of this passage?

– Do your people always quarrel thus?

– Always.

– Why?

– I do not know. They take their mates for life and are permitted but one and though both men and women have a choice in the selection of their mates they never seem to be satisfied with one another and are always quarreling, usually because neither one nor the other is faithful. Do the men and women quarrel thus in the land from which you come?

– No. They do not. If they did they would be thrown out of the tribe.

– But suppose that they find that they do not like one another?

– Then they do not live together. They separate and if they care to they find other mates.

– That is wicked. We would kill any of our people who did such a thing.

– At least we are all a very happy people, which is more than you can say for yourselves, and, after all, happiness, it seems to me, is everything.

– Perhaps you are right.

The answer.

Tags: , , ,

Brad Spangler has an excellent post on the relationship between thick libertarianism and anti-electoralism.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Sometimes questions answer themselves.

Tags: , ,

They say nobody knows you when you’re down and out – but wow, it sure isn’t true in my case. The outpouring of support and assistance from the libertarian community has been tremendous – over $5000 in gifts and loans in just two days, from all around the world, whether from old friends or from people I’ve never even met. To say that it has exceeded my expectations would be an understatement; it simply takes my breath away. Thank you all so much.

Once I’ve got my own situation together again I’d like to do what I can to “pay it forward” by contributing in some way to the creation and funding of some sort of libertarian mutual-aid network. Any thoughts or suggestions on how this might work?

In other news, my radio interview from this afternoon with “Little Alex in Wonderland” is now online to play or download. We ended up talking about natural law, racism, children’s rights, anarchism, class conflict theory, and left-libertarianism rather than about agorism specifically. He also has interviews available with Scott Horton (just before me on today’s show) and Gary Chartier (from the previous show), which I haven’t had a chance to listen to yet.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

what an anarchist looks like to a Homeland Security camera hidden in the ceilingCharles’s Las Vegas Anarchist Café is in the news. (CHT François Tremblay.)

Of the two standard tones newspapers take toward anarchists (condescension and alarmism), the story takes the former, which I guess is preferable to the alternative. At any rate, hey, it’s free publicity.

(Also, check out the comments section for the usual mixture of reasoned discourse and yahoo idiocy.)

Tags: , , , ,

Check out Charles’s posts (here and here) on the Tiller shooting.

Tags: , ,

Keith Preston (about whose work I’ve blogged here and here) has long been controversial in left-libertarian circles; he’s attracted praise for his economic analysis (see, e.g. his excellent essay “Free Enterprise: The Antidote to Corporate Plutocracy”), but criticism for a) his big-tent strategy of making common cause with all opponents of the central state, including ethnic separatists, racists, bigots, and the like; b) his favouring of ethnic and otherwise insular enclaves as the “natural” outcome of anarchy; and c) his increasingly insulting (e.g., homophobic and transphobic) language.

Hey, it's a strategyWell, tonight I return from (perhaps appropriately) San Francisco to find that Keith’s (b) and (c) have just dynamited his (a) – confirming my thick-libertarian suspicions about how attractive and repulsive forces operate in the Space of Reasons. Keith has penned an angry, whiny, bigoted, abusive, bridge-burning screed (you’ve gotta read it to believe it) calling for anti-racist, anti-homophobic, anti-patriarchal, pro-immigrant, and pro-counterculture folks to be purged from the anarchist movement.

This is the kind of thing the paleolibertarians used to say (back before most of them retreated from this suicidal strategy), but at least the paleolibertarians weren’t trying to build a big-tent movement, so their position made some kind of sense. But Keith, as Kevin Carson notes, has “‘evolved,’ if you can call it that, from a willingness to share a tent with racists and homophobes for the sake of defeating Empire as the primary enemy, to promoting an active purge of anti-racists and gays from the anti-Empire movement … in order to appease the right wing of [his] coalition.”

In 1773, Benjamin Franklin penned a piece ironically titled “Rules By Which a Great Empire May Be Reduced to a Small One.” Maybe Keith read it and didn’t catch the irony – because in the name of defending his big-tent strategy, he’s been taking an axe to the tentpole, prompting a flurry of hasta la vistas from the left-libertarian blogosphere (see Kevin Carson, Royce Christian, Mike Gogulski, Charles Johnson, Brad Spangler, Darian Worden, the ALL Forums, and now me with a belated ditto – go read ’em, at least they’ve all saved me the trouble of making this post much longer).

Keith’s critics have long charged that his willingness to make common cause with racists, sexists, and homophobes was a sign of his own racism, sexism, and homophobia; Keith’s defenders have insisted that it was all just part of the big-tent strategy against the Real Enemy. Well, Keith has now clearly decided that he prefers a coalition with racists, sexists, and homophobes to a coalition with anti-racists, anti-sexists, and anti-homophobes; make what you will of that. Make likewise what you will of Keith’s references to “psychologically damaged personalities … pissed-off, man-hating dykes with an excess of body hair … self-hating whites, bearded ladies, cock-ringed queers, or persons of one or another surgically altered ‘gender identity’,” which some of us politically-correct types might be hyper-sensitive enough to interpret as indicative of some sort of prejudice on Keith’s part, despite his assurances that, ooh, he’s personally known gays he didn’t hate and nonwhite women he was broad-minded enough to fuck. (It’s also strange how our lack of enthusiasm for Keith’s intolerant right-wing buddies is diagnosed by him as intolerance on our part, but their lack of enthusiasm for us cultural-lefty types is not similarly diagnosed.)

In any case, Keith’s big-tent ambitions, whatever life they ever had, are evidently dead – and at their master’s hands, to boot. Keith concludes:

I suggest that those of us who want to have a non-leftoidal anarchist movement simply go about building one, and ignore the personal attacks that will continue to be thrown our way.

Mutatis mutandis, amen. Keith is marching off in his creepy coalition and we’re dancing away in our cool one. May the best coalition win!

Tags: , , , , , , ,

This story is surprisingly feminist for a medieval Arthurian tale.

Tags: ,

According to these statistics, u.s. voters are becoming increasingly anti-abortion.

Sonia JohnsonIf that’s true, I suppose there’s at least some comfort to be derived from the fact that it’s Obama who’ll be picking Souter’s successor.

Still, the most reliable defense of abortion rights will ultimately have to come, not from the permission of judges and electorates, but from direct action. As Sonia Johnson wrote in 1989:

So the men let us have legalized abortion, and almost instantly the energy drained from the movement, like air from a punctured balloon. Instead of the Women’s Liberation Movement, we became simply the Women’s Movement, because liberation is antithetical to letting men, depending upon men to, make the laws that govern our lands. For the last 15 years we have been nailed to the system by Roe v. Wade, our mighty energy and hope and love channeled into begging men in dozens of state and national bodies not to pare away cent by cent the truly miserable allowance they promised us for abortions for poor women.

If we hadn’t trusted them again, if we had kept on going in the direction we were headed, with the same time and money and energy we have since expended on groveling, we could by this time have had a woman on every block in every city and town who is an expert on contraceptives, women’s health, birthing, and abortion. We could have educated the women of this country in countless creative ways about their bodies and their right to rule them. We would have learned how to govern ourselves, discovering a whole new way for women – and therefore everyone – to be human.

And, significantly, a Bork could have been appointed to every seat of the Supreme Court, men could have been spewing laws aimed at controlling our bodies out of every legal orifice, and all their flailing and sputtering would simply be irrelevant.

This moral of course generalises to further rights besides abortion. As La Boétie long ago advised us (unless it was Montaigne):

I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.

While I’m at it, here’s another great quote from Sonia Johnson:

I have heard women involved in male politics say about our political system almost the same words I have heard battered women use about their abusers: ‘Of course our government isn’t perfect, but where is there a better one? With all its faults, it is still the best system (husband) in the world.’ Like a battered wife, they never think to ask the really relevant questions: who said we needed a husband, or a husband-state, at all?

Tags: , , ,

« Older entries