Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 26 2002 @ 01:35 PM CDT

It\'s great to see this discourse fleshing itself out in such well-written pieces!

The author\'s main point is this text (as I read it) is that the feminist movement has become a cultural ghetto of sorts, which is more concerned with \"education, language, psychology\" than a revolutionary movement or economic oppression. This statement is very true and the reasons for this lack of revolutinary or class-based analysis owes itself to a multiplicity of reasons: the middle-class nature of the radical feminist movement, the influence of postmodernism, and the tendency of revolutionary/class-struggle groups to pay lip-service to feminism while ignoring the broader feminist critique.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 26 2002 @ 05:59 PM CDT

as a white (read: colonized celtic) queer, male-identified green-anarchist-feminist


i think it\'s really important to note that radical feminism as well as the classical anarcho-feminism, have shaped the discourse of classical-anarchism, post-modern, situ, and contemporary anarchist movements. As well as, eco-feminism, which most of the contemporary green-anarchist and \'primitivist\' movement hales from.

also, it\'s interesting that anarchists who write about feminism seem quite out of touch with it\'s contemporary theory and praxis. there is an emergence of a newer wave of feminism that seems to of surfaced along with the newer anarchy and anti-glob/capitalist movements, called, 4th wave, transgendered feminism, or gender-queer feminism.

i think bell hooks sum of white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy is a good sum of domination in the obvious systems of oppression. however when we talk about patriarchy. we talk about male-gendered-supremacy. As well, as i think, we must inheritly be speaking of the totality of patriarchy--from the silencing and proliferation of gender, as well as patriarchal civilization and the linear, and domination-logic, that legitimizes it.

Anarchists (read: total liberationists) need to start thinking beyond just capitalism, or that other forms of oppression are seperate or legitimized becuase of capitalism. if we fight for total liberation, we fight anything and everything can be defined under the logic of domination.

i feel as though the contemporary anarchist movement, is still just paying lip service to patriarchy. Even if we do admit it\'s existance, it is over shadowed by attempts to connect it to the comfortable known areas of struggle, even when we still havent figured them out yet either. (read: class and race)

12,000 years is enough.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 26 2002 @ 08:54 PM CDT

as a human.. ok just kidding.

As well as, eco-feminism, which most of the contemporary green-anarchist and \'primitivist\' movement hales from

I find it odd that in one sentence you pay homage to post-modernist thought, then in the next you refer to eco-feminism, when in my mind the two are somewhat contradictory.

As I know, ecofeminism hales internal, essential nature of women as inherently opposed to destructive patriarchal practices like capitalism, ecological destruction, war, and other forms of domination.

Post-modernism, on the other hand, is the school of thought which recognizes that Aristotelean, Western philosophy, with its emphasis on the eternal, internal, unchanging essence of arbitrarily-defined objects is problematic.

I find the two contradictory because ecofeminism not only arbitrarily defines a duality between male and female natures, but essentializes the characteristics of one of those natures.

Maybe my understanding is faulty. If so, feel free to comment.

Now I\'ll get up on my soapbox. If you ask me, this essentialization is one of the faults of the \"primitivist\" school of thought. To put it differently, its basically a Aristotelean reading of anti-Aristotelean texts. It essentializes abstract systems like technology, mediation, and civilization without critically examining them. It imposes defined, unchanging characteristics on these systems for ideological purposes, and unfathomably connects the destruction of these systems with the destruction of the negative characteristics it has imposed on them! It seems that they\'re reading Heidegger rather than Derrida! Heidegger believed he could take the whole problematic history of Western philosophy and smash it, and a purer phoenix would rise from the ashes. Instead, he ended up replicating its very problems. I believe this to be similar to some of the same faults of the primitivist critique, which holds that the death of oppression will accompany the end of civilization.

That\'s my rant.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 27 2002 @ 09:25 AM CST

For a different perspective on anarcha-feminism, I would recommend the article, Anarchism, Feminism and the Individual.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 27 2002 @ 05:07 PM CST

If you have problems with this essay\'s approach to anarcha-feminism, why don\'t you enlighten us with a critique of your own?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 27 2002 @ 07:14 PM CST

Who said I had problems with this essay?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 27 2002 @ 10:57 PM CST

The only real problem with this essay is that it talks about class. Anarchism isn\'t about class. Its about doing nothing all the time and calling NEFAC totalitarian, well except when I\'m calling Love & Rage past totalitarianism. Or when I\'m accusing FRAC of soon to be totalitarianism. Or when I\'m saying that NWFAC are going to be totalitarian after they have their first conference. By the way, Bring The Ruckus? Totalitarian. AFAAD? Crypto-totalitarian. AAAAGH!THERE ARE TOTALITARIANS IN MY CLOSET AND UNDER MY BED!!!!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 27 2002 @ 11:34 PM CST

Actually, the fact that somebody thinks I\'m so important that they take the time to find all my posts and make parodies of them is kind of flattering. Thanks, whoever you are.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 28 2002 @ 07:04 AM CST

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 29 2002 @ 07:47 AM CST

If we look at the origins of the (oxymoron) \"postmodern feminism\", it is rooted in the ideas of the psychoanalyst Jacque Lacan.

Lacan suggested that women occupy the \"imaginary\" while men occupy the \"symbolic\". He\'s essentially arguing a mind-body dualism (but he uses different language to make him sound original).


The conclusion of his argument, is essentialism: Because they occupy different realms of thought, men cannot possibly understand women and vice versa.

This sounds like Lacan was a mysoginous. And he was. But \"postmodern\" feminists, basically use his argument to justify creating \"feminine culture\".

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 30 2002 @ 06:30 PM CST

The Ruckus collective\'s website seems to be down. Is Traci\'s article availble elsewhere on the net?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 03:20 AM CST

you might be able to find the article somewhere, but there are better things to be reading. The paper is circular in its \"reasoning\" - saying that fighting white supremacy is feminist because traci says so, with out-of-context quotes from bell hooks and angela davis to bolster her non-argument. Better to re-read Audre Lorde.

[ Reply to This | # ]