Authored by: nameless on Sunday, March 09 2008 @ 12:30 AM CST

@ ScavengerType

You wrote that "it sounds from the language of this article that the author has let this no-authority bias permeate every facet of their life or at least that this is their final goal." I don't really understand what your problem is with this. It seems to me, that as anarchists, or even as people in general these are things that we should consistently question. I wouldn't call it a "no-authority bias," but rather, a question-our-relationships analysis. Localization and autonomy is obviously important, but why is it "religious" to question or own personal relationships and the coercion that could be taking place within these relationships?

To give a different example, as a parent we may find it "normal" to demand subordination from our children. Most parents, I would argue, demand that their children should adhere to their authority and a lot of times this is justifiable. But should parents not question when their domination over their children is really wrong or excessive?

And, in regards to Why's comment: "If I have to have 'long discussions' about who I fuck, then I don't want to fuck. The ritual of attraction has existed for eons." This same argument could be made for the parent/child conflict. Why should a parent have long discussions about raising children? Parental authority has existed for eons, so whats the problem.

HPWombats criticism, that the language can be confusing, I think is justified. The essay doesn't read too well (it is rather legalistic sounding) and adding too much subculture lingo could actually deter individuals from dealing with the actual issues hand.

That said, I think the essay actually does raise several interesting points. Considering we do live an extremely patriarchal and ownership based society I think the questions raised are useful. For instance, I think anyone familiar with sexual assault would realize that there is a stigma against any person who has been accused of such. The authors suggestion, that we support the victims and the perpetrators, I believe, is a valid suggestion and should be thought about and discussed a lot more. It raises some interesting questions. At one point do we stop supporting such individuals? Is a stigma justified? And if so when? Would reshaping our language actually help with this at all? I don't think these questions should just be dismissed offhand.

And as the author stated, "Sexual assault is a part of all of us who have grown up in this society; we cannot ignore it, or pretend that because we ourselves have been assaulted or because we work to live anarchy in all aspects of our lives that we are not capable of sexual assault." If some choose to dismiss this -- "I keep politics out of my bedroom" -- then we must also admit that when we speak of revolution we are not speaking about a revolution of values, which is a shame.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: ScavengerType on Sunday, March 09 2008 @ 04:05 AM CDT

"but why is it "religious" to question or own personal relationships and the coercion that could be taking place within these relationships?"

Because it's labor intensive and in many cases a roundabout way to get where a normal person would arrive by paying only slight attention to the situation. I don't like to over think life and having to examine every social interaction for some hidden patriarchy or authoritarian message sounds like a load of shit to me. Too much introspection can make a person go mad. I have known since I was a young boy that we live in a patriarchal and ownership based society. This is not news to anyone I know and I doubt it is news to anyone who comes to infoshop, if anyone at all. To be honest this article is wordy, full of abstract jargonistic and it doesn't really argue anything novel about human relations. This is why i think this anarcho life approach junk is a negative influence on anarchists.

I don't think that re-examining the language someone uses with regard to sexual assault will prevent it from happening to someone else or sooth the victims of it. Therefore, it is nothing more than wasted words and a waste of revolutionary potential.

To be honest though I'm pretty convinced the only reason this article was given top billing on the page is because the sexual assaulter was a woman.

[ Reply to This | # ]