Quote of the Day: Feminism

As the third shitstorm in /r/anarchism raged, enkiam provided this excellent quote.

No, I mean I am a feminist. It is meaningless to say “I support equality between the genders”; “the genders” are defined, assigned, and enforced by patriarchy, in the same way class is defined, assigned, and enforced by capitalism. A feminist is a person who seeks to disrupt, destabilize, and destroy patriarchy in all forms — the privilege of men, the oppression of women, and the definition of binary gender in itself.

21 thoughts on “Quote of the Day: Feminism

    1. The loose definition of "feminism" that I was given by all of my male, self-identified feminist history/sociology teachers was that feminism was simply affording women the same rights as men.

      As a woman in a male field, I'd argue being pent up in homes, being expected to present oneself in an acceptably fuckable manner at all times lest she be labeled lesbian, being considered filthy/erratic/emotional merely by virtue of menstruating, regularly receiving lower pay for performing the same job functions, being classified as useless after childbirth, genital mutilation and "dry sex" practices in many countries, etc etc, are hardly what I define as the "privileged sex." Maybe a simple first-world look at gender relations could give one the impression of being privileged…I mean by-golly, it sure was kind of men to let us vote or have birth control after years of fighting against social oppression…but on a global scale to argue that women are the privileged sex is probably one of the most socially ignorant things I've heard all month.

      (Oh, and hi again db0. It's been months since I've been here! Hope all is well.)

    2. You're right. And blacks and latinos are the privileged ethnicities in the US; people in the Third World are the privileged people of the world, the poor are the privileged class…You know, I could go on like this for hours and not use a single source to back myself up because there isn't one. And that would be because those "factoids" I've provided (along with yours) are complete bullshit.

  1. "A feminist is a person who seeks to disrupt, destabilize, and destroy patriarchy in all forms — the privilege of men, the oppression of women, and the definition of binary gender in itself."

    That is absolutely nonsensical, and I am surprised you would approve of this nonsense. The term "feminism" itself enforces the gender binary in the first place! The very notion of feminism depends on a sharp distinction between genders, and hatred for trans and other gender-benders. It's like unions claiming to want to abolish work hierarchies: we know they don't mean it, because their profit depends on the hierarchy existing.

    Ending the nonsense of gender and sex is Anarchist. Feminism is not Anarchist.

    1. No, go ask any radical feeminist and they will tell you that their struggle is for equality, not for separating the genders. Perhaps the liberal feminists think this way, but not anarcha-feminist. What you're saying is similar to that anarcho-syndicalism is not anarchistic because hierarchical trade unions exist.

      1. Don't be silly. How could a *feminist* be for equality? The word "feminist" itself implies inequality. That's like calling yourself a "nazi" and saying you support zionism because you have a "different conception of what being a nazi is about."

        I don't recognize "Anarcho-Feminism": likewise, I don't recognize "Christian Anarchists." These terms are just plain contradictions, and it requires one to twist them around a great deal in order to rationalize a harmonization of them.

        1. No, it doesn't imply inequality. That's because you're mired in semantics instead of looking at what anarcha-feminists actually suggest. It's as silly as saying that "Anarchism implies no rules"

          1. Not sure what your point is here. A-narchy doesn't mean "no rules," it means "no rulers," as you know.

          2. It used to mean simply "chaos" before Proudhon declared that it doesn't and reclaimed the name.

          3. Well sure, but I wasn't arguing about what people think about the ideologies represented by the words. I'm arguing over the semantic meaning of the words being used. "feminism" is obviously derived from "female." "Anarchy" is obviously derived from a negation of "archy."

          4. For the same reason we do not define anarchism as a sociopolitical movement via its semantics, so we do not define anarcha-feminism via its semantics. If you want to know what it stands for, go educate yourself about it, but stop trying to dismiss it because you don't like its definition. This is unbelievably insulting to all the female comrades who struggle against their patriarchical oppression.

          5. So you're telling me that they call themselves a name that is the opposite of what they believe. HUH? I don't go around calling myself a Christian or a capitalist in the name of propagating the opposite viewpoint. You're not making any sense.

          6. No, it's not "the opposite of they believe". But seriously, I'm not interested in educating you on this Francois. If you want to insult and repel every female (and male) comrade who identifies as anarcha-feminist do it somewhere else.

          7. Hahaha! I like how you added "(and male)." You claim they are not about gender, but you know the score.

            Also, I don't know why you were surprised by Kinsella's entry. He is a dumbass. Pretty much all he does is post stupid entries.

          8. Erm, you do realize that there's not a lot of male feminists because they are too privileged to think that there is gender oppression? Seriously dude, the fact that I need to put males in brackets is an example of the problem that you're ignoring.

      2. I happened to find this by accident while I was searching for a feminist article. Funny now that I am the one who’s into radical feminism and you’re the misogynist. How people change in only two years…

    2. Women are the most universally oppressed people in the world. Where minorities in the First World have little access to resources, minority women have even less. Women (meaning those who have been labeled as women by society) make up 60% of those who are undernourished and don't have access to enough food in this world. This is not a coincidence. This is due to a huge amount of discrimination and disenfranchisement based on gender, and to argue that oppression of females doesn't exist because the gender binary doesn't exist, is completely missing the point and plain idiotic. By addressing the most universal form of oppression in the world, feminists are not ignoring other forms of oppression. They are highlighting them for the world to see.

      To suggest that feminists enforce a sharp distinction between genders and hate people of other genders is pure ignorance. You are basing this on semantics and not reality. I do not know a single feminist who does this. You can rail all you want against the word, just as others can rail against the word "anarchy," and all you are doing is trying to suppress a movement that has made a huge difference in the world, and continues to do so. That is highly destructive.

Comments are closed.