Anarcha-Feminism and the Newer “Woman Question”
by stacy, aka sallydarity
sallydarity [at] yahoo [dot] com
Gone
are the days when anarcha-feminists nurtured visions of revolution
brought on by a unity of women. While the following quote can be found
in a nineteen-seventies classic “Anarchism and the Feminist Connection,”
“The development of sisterhood is a unique threat, for it is directed
against the basic social and psychic model of hierarchy and
domination...”[1] it has become clear that sisterhood alone is not a threat to hierarchy and domination. The
logical conclusion of any type of feminism should not be to simply seek
equality between each woman to her race/class male counterpart, leaving
other inequalities in place. More explicit in anarcha-feminism is that
a focus on gender oppression is not at the expense of attention to
other systems of power. While some of this is addressed by
intersectionality, I am also interested in further questioning this
concept of sisterhood, or more specifically, expanding what I will call
the newer “woman question:” are we to continue to orient around an
identity called “woman,” or should we instead oppose the power
structures that have created this category to oppress us?
While
many agree that anarchism opposes all hierarchy and oppression and
therefore is against sexism and such, still necessary is a tendency in
which gendered concerns are central. I propose that anarcha-feminism has
two main and related principles specific to its emphasis on feminism:
Everyone should have freedom from all that is coercive about gender (or gender stratum,
see below), and everyone should have bodily autonomy--freedom from
bodily harm, and the freedom to do, or not do, what they want with their
bodies.
Rather
than referring to patriarchy, I address coercion related to gender
because gender oppression works in multi-dimensional and complex ways.
Individuals may have a variety of experiences based on their body parts
and functions, what gender they’re perceived to be (gender attribution),
their gender presentation, their sexuality, and/or how well they
conform to their imposed gender box- either based on their gender
assignment or their gender inclination. Now of course this oppression
is structured in this way primarily because of the gendered order in
which men are deemed superior and women inferior, while enforcing this
order maintains its strength.
The principle relating to bodily autonomy is multi-dimensional as well. It
relates primarily though not always to a gendered manifestation of
oppression. Not only does it refer to sexuality, consent, reproductive
freedom, etc., but also to an ideal society in which we can make truly
free choices, e.g. we should have the freedom to get liposuction, but we
would ideally be free of any pressure to do so. Of course on a
practical level the latter principle is incredibly complex as it relates
to power dynamics, what justice looks like, and issues around
technology, etc. The principle of bodily autonomy requires a bit more consideration of balancing individual freedom with collective freedom, as is
important in the context of heated debates about such things as sex
work, which I will not be addressing here. This balance should also
apply to the debate on the ways defining “woman” impacts others’
freedom. These working principles ought to inform these debates.
Although
I am not arguing that we must abandon concepts that refer to the real
effects of gender oppression, I argue that the above working principles
are preferable to identity politics. Identity politics tend to prioritize one particular type of oppression and harden the boundaries around the identity related to that oppression[2] most often in the interest of gaining equal representation and participation in the system.[3] As
many have argued, this creates alliances where they shouldn’t be (e.g.
cross-class), marginalizes intersections and complexities of identities,
reinforces the identities and perhaps therefore the oppression, and
strengthens loyalty to the system when assimilation is a strategy. The type of power sought to balance out inequalities is often not questioned.
Anarcha-feminism--or
perhaps it is a queer anarcha-feminism--is not identity politics as
long as its aim is to destroy the gender categories rather than
perpetuate them. I argue that we can center the above principles, and
oppose gender oppression without getting caught up in boundaries of
identity. The point is to oppose and acknowledge the power structures
and their very real effects, but to not create or reinforce our
identities around our oppressions.
Anarcha-feminism and Gender: new ideas
As
safer spaces and separatism have been discussed as responses to sexism
and sexual violence, it has become clear that these issues are not so
clear-cut. We know that abuse can occur between two women for example.
We know that women’s groups or spaces are not necessarily free from
hierarchy simply because they are free of men (as discussed by various
feminists of color, as well as Jo Freeman’s “The Tyranny of
Structurelessness”). Spaces created by feminists to be safer or simply
to allow better focus on gender oppression, have increasingly
encountered the difficulty with where, if anywhere, to draw a line
between the gender categories. More importantly are the implications of
drawing that line if it means excluding trans people and ignoring our
common struggles. The Michigan Women’s Music Festival has been a
classic contemporary example of the controversy around spaces only for
“womyn-born-womyn.” This became a topic in zines and online forums,
something I encountered on a radical cheer listserv around 2001. At
this point, whether because of the increased visibility and presence of
trans people in anarchist and feminist spaces, an influence of queer
theory, or for other reasons, it is more common in these spaces over the
past few years in the U.S. and some other countries for trans people to
be included now more than ever, even though some involvement by trans
folks in anarcha-feminism in the 1970’s has been documented.[4]
Currently it is simply assumed in most cases, along with the
expectation of respecting one’s gender pronouns, that women’s spaces are
for women- in which trans women are included, or there are spaces for
women and all trans folks, although the process of defining these can be
problematic as well.
In
terms of theory, anarchist feminists have not until more recently
addressed the gender binary as such. They have addressed gender roles
and biological determinism, but have not criticized the concept of the
sexes as binary, mutually-exclusive political/social categories whose
meanings have been made significant over time. This is changing.[5]
One need not read Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble to
understand the concerns with politically orienting around the identity
of woman, although her influence cannot be denied. Among the questions
raised by Butler we might gain from asking: “Is the construction of the
category of women as a coherent and stable subject an unwitting
regulation and reification of gender relations? And is not such a
reification precisely contrary to feminist aims?... The identity of the
feminist subject ought not to be the foundation of feminist politics, if
the formation of the subject takes place within a field of power
regularly buried through the assertion of that foundation.”[6]
Within
feminism, “women” sometimes refers to those whose sex is female,
although confusion can somewhat be allayed by using the term “woman” to
refer to gender, while “female” refers to sex. However, distinguishing
gender from sex tends to establish sex as an actuality on which the
construct is based. I believe
it is about time we incorporate into our understanding the ways in
which sex is gendered. In the absence of anarcha-feminist theory about
the origins of gender oppression, I pull some ideas together from
various perspectives. Although I have qualms about the approach and am
not interested in limiting analysis to materialism, I find it useful to
understand construction of gender categories to an extent from that of
French Materialist Feminists Christine Delphy, Monique Wittig and
Collette Guillaumin.[7] Although Delphy acknowledges that there’s only so much we can know, she writes,
“For
most people… anatomical sex (and its physical implications) creates, or
at least permits, gender—the technical division of labour. This in
turn creates, or at least permits, the domination of one group by
another. We believe, however, that it is oppression which creates
gender; that logically the hierarchy of the division of labour is prior
to the technical division of labour and created the latter, i.e. created
sex roles, which we call gender. Gender in its turn created anatomical
sex, in the sense that the hierarchical division of humanity into two
transforms an anatomical difference (which is in itself devoid of social
implications) into a relevant distinction for social practice. Social
practice, and social practice alone, transforms a physical fact (which
is in itself devoid of meaning, like all physical facts) into a category
of thought.”[8]
Delphy
and others suggested that the concept of woman only exists within a
power relationship. Sex differences are not natural but naturalized.
This diverges greatly from theories that maintain sex as a given. Some
theorize that sex led to gender roles and/or that gender/sex oppression
was the first form of hierarchy. But if we don’t take sex as a natural
category, as a given, but instead a naturalized category, we can
understand gender oppression and all that comes with it in a different
light, and as something much more unstable.
Feminists
understand gender as a social construct. But perceiving
sex-as-gendered is a step beyond that, and has implications for how we
should orient politically around an identity such as woman or female.
Some may find it hard to argue with tangible differences; sex being
considered the biological/anatomical/hormonal/genetic difference between
humans, generally primarily corresponding to reproduction of the
species. Yet rarely is it acknowledged that these do not always align
(e.g. genetics and anatomy may not “match”) nor fall in only one of two
categories. Examination of non-Western cultures and the rest of the
animal kingdom also reveals many exceptions to Western thought’s
dualistic concepts.[9] While
the reality of a general organization into two categories of different
bodies and their reproductive function can be acknowledged, I believe
that the significance and polarization of these differences is gendered;
the categories naturalized out of political interests. For this
reason, I often include sex with gender as a social construct--writing
it as sex/gender, even though I see gender and sex as referring to
different aspects of gender.
Whether
the first form of hierarchy had anything to do with gender, that
naturalization of gender hierarchy has had a cascade effect. Andrea
Smith wrote, “…Heteropatriarchy[10] is
essential for the building of US empire. Patriarchy is the logic that
naturalizes social hierarchy. Just as men are supposed to naturally
dominate women on the basis of biology, so too should the social elites
of a society naturally rule everyone else through the nation-state form
of governance that is constructed through domination, violence and
control.”[11] In
a speech, she said, “This is why in the history of Indian genocide the
first task that colonizers took on was to integrate patriarchy into
native communities. The primary tool used by colonists is sexual
violence. What sexual violence does for colonialism and white supremacy
is render women of color inherently rape-able, our lands inherently
invadable, and our resources inherently extractable.”[12]
In
a sense, we can see this logic of conquest in the history of the
construction of gender that was occurring during the witch hunts that
essentially spelled out the defeat of women (European women, and then
nearly all women through colonization/imperialism), as Silvia Federici
describes in Caliban and the Witch.
To summarize what I got out of the book, the witch hunts played a
significant role in naturalizing gender/sex hierarchy by reinforcing
divisions along lines of sex; functioned as counter-insurgency measures
by breaking down solidarity along those lines among serfs/proletariat
(in the transition to capitalism); justified exploitation (unpaid work
in the home); increased dependence of women on men; and sought to
control reproduction to increase the workforce by enforcing
monogamy/marriage, heterosexuality, anti-abortion/birth control
(accusations of causing infertility, infant death, impotence, etc.), and
burning of queer folks (“faggots”/kindling). Women’s bodies were to
some degree the new commons (for men) as enclosures increased. As such,
women continued to lose bodily autonomy, and in the process were
further coerced into specific gender roles (roles varied based on race
and class). Although not the beginning nor the end of the
naturalization process of gender oppression, this served as a sort of
conquest over women, trans, queer people, and European peasantry in
general (and then far beyond) as part of the transition to capitalism.[13] It is inextricable from colonization of the “new world,” as well as the construction of whiteness.
In this context, we can see how important eradicating gender oppression is. If
it is the case that without hierarchy bodily differences would have no
meaning, then we would not want to reinforce these categories, but
destroy them. Before we discuss this, I want to point out the
implications of not specifying what we mean by “gender.”
---------------
Upon
reflection, there appears to be a contradiction in seeking the
destruction or abolition of gender, meanwhile building a culture of
respecting everyone’s gender, pronouns, etc. Indeed, there are some
radical feminists who advocate the former but, not seeing a place for
trans people’s liberation (and in fact often finding it a threat),
oppose the latter. I have determined that the problem lies in the ways
in which gender is defined and understood. To many radical and
materialist feminists, gender is only a relationship of power, therefore
it must be destroyed. However, the concept of gender was borrowed by
feminists from a psychologist who, in the late 1960’s, wrote about the
phenomenon of transsexuals feeling “trapped in the wrong body.”[14]
Not to imply that one meaning is unrelated to the other, but it would
seem that “gender” came to refer to different concepts while not seeming
to.
Perceiving
gender as only related to power as the French Materialist Feminists and
other radical feminists do can and has lead to some transphobic bias.[15] For
this reason, I would like to propose two different terms for gender as a
way to make sense of the vastly different concepts of gender. Gender stratum refers
to the binary hierarchically-defined socially constructed categories-
that which is coercive and related to power. Sex, being gendered, would
be included by this term, as are gender assignment (or designation), gender roles, and to some degree gender attribution, some of the terms that Kate Bornstein has used to identify the multiple aspects of gender.[16] Gender inclination is
another term for what is generally referred to as gender identity but
since identity is in question, I prefer this different term. I
believe gender inclination would have different meaning in the absence
of gender stratum, but I believe it is something distinct enough that it
should not be lumped in with the other concept. Although the “trapped
in the wrong body” concept has its problems, it shows that from its
first use in relation to people (as opposed to language), the term
“gender” did not necessarily have anything to do with power other than
the fact that the concept comes from a gendered order of which the
power-based naturalization process was concealed. After all, there are
various ways of defining one’s gender which may be multi-layered,
non-binary, and/or shifting through time. This is not to mention, as I
discuss elsewhere,[17] that
the concepts “masculinity” and “femininity” have different meanings and
can be understood to be separate from power relationships.[18]
Using
these terms, we can talk about the destruction or abolition of gender
stratum, and promote the freedom of people to live out their gender
inclination and have it respected. This is important when it comes to
determining solutions for the problem of gender stratum- such proposals
being androgyny, a proliferation of genders, and/or a negation of
gender. But there is a potential for these to be coercive if the target
of destruction is not specifically gender stratum. A truly liberatory position on gender/sex requires self-determination of gender inclination.[19] Everyone’s experiences and sense of identity should be incorporated into an idea of what gender means.
More than just theory
Anarcha-feminism,
in seeking an end to all domination with an emphasis on freedom of
bodily autonomy and freedom from gender stratum demands a newer “woman
question.” While some of this may seem rather
theoretical, it can and should inform the way we approach gender
oppression. We must fight for each person to be able to be who they are
and to be able to participate equally in struggle, in decision-making,
etc.. Using the working principles of bodily autonomy and freedom from
gender stratum is a way to address gendered (but not always gendered)
oppression without reinforcing boundaries around imposed categories and
other problems of identity politics.
While
I do not see a lot of utility in putting too much of an emphasis on
language alone, it makes more sense to address issues within each
context and use language that reflects the situation. For
example, when referring to an issue that directly relates to pregnancy,
one may refer to “people who are, will be, or were capable of becoming
pregnant” rather than “women,” because of course not all women can or do
get pregnant, and not only people who identify as women can or do get
pregnant. Of course, as many women of color and others have discussed,
assuming that something like pregnancy or having a uterus creates unity
or “sisterhood” among those who share that, is inaccurate, essentialist,
if not at times racist in practice. Rather than the typical white
middle-class-centered approach of mainstream feminism, the working
principles I discuss also allow for an approach to a wide range of
factors relating to such things as pregnancy- one’s age, race, or
citizenship/immigration status, whether one lives or works in areas
where they’re exposed to toxic chemicals (which is more likely in poor
communities of color) which affects fertility and survival of the fetus
or child, whether one lives in the context of war, whether one is on
welfare, whether one is living as their assigned or designated sex,
whether they’re partnered and with whom and how. All of this factors
into whether someone is encouraged or discouraged from having a child,
and whether they are even capable of choosing one way or the other, not
to mention the actual experiences--sometimes trauma--of birth,
sterilization, abortion, or taking birth control, depending on the
context. In the face of this, the standard feminist demand for access
to birth control and abortion falls flat. Of course what I’m getting at
is not that fertility, pregnancy, and reproduction are the prime
example around which bodily autonomy revolves, but that we can see how
those which aren’t automatically considered feminist issues, such as the
health problems related to exposure to toxins also have to do with
bodily autonomy whether they affect fertility or not. While approaching
issues this way seems much more difficult than the simplicity provided
by identity politics, using the working principles discussed above
allows for us to see the ways that capitalism, the state, and the very
real effects of the social constructs of race and gender intersect or
share similarities.
Beyond
drawing together similar struggles based on these working principles,
it is necessary to recognize the significance of this construct called
“woman” that was created in many ways as a cage.
Plainly,
as long as we understand sex as two natural categories, there remains
little to no room for intesex, transgender, and all other people who
don’t fit neatly into those categories. And while feminists have found
it useful to call gender what it is, a social construct, gender is
considered to generally correlate with sex, and as long as the sex is
seen as one of two mutually exclusive rigid categories and the legit
counterpart to gender the construct, we may never be released from the
confines of gender.
Now,
to what extent is increased freedom in terms of gender transgression
and sexuality accommodated because of the shifting needs of capitalism
and the state rather than the struggles of feminists, queers, and trans
people over the years? And to what extent are the efforts of the latter
on the part of predominantly white and middle-class people? These
questions should be considered as we move forward.
“What about teh menz?”[20] is a relevant question in the following context. The
gender roles assigned to men are important for maintaining a culture of
domination. For any anarchist to believe that we could live free of
hierarchy requires the belief that there isn’t anything intrinsic in men
that makes them the natural oppressor. This differs from some other
feminisms which refer to essentialized male ways of being or thinking
which are seemingly incorrigible. Anarchists and others such as
prison-abolitionists believe that there is nothing natural to one group
or another (such as men of color) that makes
them more inclined to violence, otherwise state-based forms of “justice”
may seem necessary and justified. bell hooks argues that
it might be counterproductive to refer to men having privilege--that
not being able to be in touch with one’s emotions and not being able to
have equal relationships (something that has been imposed, not natural)
is not liberatory[21],
therefore men must also see the struggle against gender oppression as
theirs as well. It is not that they don’t benefit, but the benefits come
with costs even while it is significant that they are able to ignore
the costs. This is not to say that we should
have sympathy with men who choose to continue to play out the role of
domination. However, the rejection on the part of many women of color
of separatism and misandry (not to imply that there is a consensus on
this) speaks to a need for other understandings of possibility.
The
belief that men are natural oppressors also legitimizes women’s
participation in domination (e.g. white supremacy). On the flipside,
militant resistance to the state and capital is in some cases
characterized as belonging to man the oppressor, and therefore
condemned, even if a woman participates in it.[22]
Anarcha-feminism
is a specific type of feminism and a specific type of anarchism that is
critical of power relationships, particularly those that are gendered.
Take or leave the term “feminism” with all its baggage and relationship
to identity politics. It seems useful however to use a term that
points to gender oppression as something that anarchism doesn’t tend to
address in practice. We are in a new position, compared to the
anarcha-feminists like Peggy Kornegger before us, to move beyond the
idea that sex is a given- that it’s women against men. What is
necessary now for anarcha-feminism is the destruction of gender stratum
while recognizing the real and complex effects of the gender construct,
along with the opposition to state and capitalism.
Originally published in Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader, 3rd Edition, AK Press, 2012
[1] Mary
Daly quoted in Peggy Kornegger, “Anarchism and the Feminist
Connection.” (1975) From
anarchalibrary.blogspot.com/2010/09/anarchism-feminist-connection-1975.html
(accessed February 6, 2012). Somehow Daly did not see transphobia as
incompatible with hierarchy and domination. In “Politicizing Gender:
Moving toward revolutionary gender politics”, Carolyn writes, “In
Gyn/Ecology, Mary Daly reasons that transsexuals want to destroy the
burgeoning women's community, stating, ‘their whole presence becomes a
member invading women's presence and dividing us once more from each
other.’ Daly also supported Janice Raymond’s anti-trans book
“Transsexual Empire”
http://anarchalibrary.blogspot.com/2010/09/politicizing-gender-moving-toward.html
[2] I
would note that “bisexual” often denotes a binary, and thus does not
necessarily upset gender, but pointing to the recuperative nature of the
power structure, Paula Rust wrote, “Thus lesbianism was initially
constructed as a challenge to gender. But once ‘woman’ was reconstructed
to include ‘lesbian’, lesbians became part of the prevailing gender
structure. In effect, lesbianism was co-opted into gender and ceased to
be a challenge to it. Furthermore, the rise of cultural feminism reified
rather than challenged gender, maximized rather than minimized the
differences between women and men, and created a concept of lesbianism
that was dependent on the preservation of gender… Given lesbians’
initial challenge to gender, one might expect bisexuals’ efforts to
break down gender to be well received among lesbians. But because of the
change in the relationship of lesbianism to gender..., bisexuals’
contemporary challenge to gender is also a threat to lesbianism.” Paula
Rust, “Bisexual Politics,” reprinted in Judith Lorber, Gender Inequality, Feminist Theories and Politics, (Roxbury Publishing Co., 1998), 93-94.
[3] See
also the following essays printed in Pink and Black Attack: “Identity,
Politics, and Anti-politics: A critical perspective” (2010) http://anarchalibrary.blogspot.com/2011/09/identity-politics-and-anti-politics.html ,
“No Gods No Sponsors: Pride and the problem of assimilation” (2009)
http://anarchalibrary.blogspot.com/2011/09/no-gods-no-sponsors-pride-and-problem.html
[4] On
the Edge of All Dichotomies: Anarch@-Feminist Thought, Process and
Action, 1970-1983 (2009)
http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1355&context=etd_hon_theses
80-81. see also http://anarchalibrary.blogspot.com/2010/09/on-edge-of-all-dichotomies-anarch.html
[5] See
“Politicizing Gender: Moving toward revolutionary gender politics”
(circa 1993)
http://anarchalibrary.blogspot.com/2010/09/politicizing-gender-moving-toward.html,
“The Anarchy of Queer (2006)”
http://anarchalibrary.blogspot.com/2010/10/anarchy-of-queer-2006-zine.html,
“Strengthening Anarchism's Gender Analysis” (2009) http://anarchalibrary.blogspot.com/2010/10/strengthening-anarchisms-gender.html, “Thoughts on Developing Anarchist Queer Theory” (2010) http://anarchalibrary.blogspot.com/2011/03/thoughts-on-developing-anarchist-queer.html, “Towards
An Insurrectionary Transfeminism” (2010)
http://anarchalibrary.blogspot.com/2010/10/towards-insurrectionary-transfeminism.html
[7] See
Namascar Shaktini, On Monique Wittig. (2005), Christine Delphy. Close
to Home. (1984), Wittig, Monique. “One is Not Born a Woman” (1981)
printed in The Straight Mind (1992), 6. http://zinelibrary.info/one-not-born-woman-monique-wittig, Delphy,
Christine. “Rethinking Sex and Gender.” (1993), Stevi Jackson.
Christine Delphy. (1996), Guillaumin, Colette (1995). Racism, sexism,
power, and ideology.
[9] See Bruce Bagemihl. Biological Exuberance. (1999). and Joan Roughgarden. Evolution’s Rainbow. (2004)
[10] “By
heteropatriarchy, I mean the way our society is fundamentally based on
male dominance—dominance inherently built on a gender binary system that
presumes heterosexuality as a social norm.” Andrea Smith, “Dismantling
Hierarchy, Queering Society”, Tiqqun Magazine (July/August 2010). From
www.tikkun.org/article.php/july2010smith (accessed February 6, 2012)
[11] Andrea
Smith, “Indigenous Feminism without Apology.” (2006)
http://www.awid.org/eng/Issues-and-Analysis/Library/Indigenous-feminism-without-apology-Decentering-white-feminism.
[12] US
Social Forum 2007, Liberating Gender and Sexuality Plenary,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5crWlrksZs (accessed January 28, 2012).
[13] Silvia Federici. Caliban and the Witch. (2004)
[15] I examine this more thoroughly in “When Feminism is Revolting” (2012) http://anarchalibrary.blogspot.com/2012/02/when-feminism-is-revolting-initial.html
[16] “In hir book, My Gender Workbook,
Kate Bornstein characterizes gender's components as fourfold: gender
assignment, gender role, gender identity, and gender attribution. Gender
assignment is what the doctor calls you at birth, so it can be written
off as a description of sex (Bornstein reserves the word sex for sex
acts so as to circumvent Essentialist argumentation). Gender role is
described as what culture thinks your niche should be, while gender
identity is totally subjective. Gender attribution refers to how another
person might interpret your gender cues.” Stephe Feldmen, “Components
of Gender,” http://androgyne.0catch.com/components.htm (accessed January
28, 2012). I find Bornstein’s terms useful, but not adequate for
dealing with issues of power.
[17] “When Feminism is Revolting” (2012) http://anarchalibrary.blogspot.com/2012/02/when-feminism-is-revolting-initial.html
[18] For example, bell hooks distinguishes “patriarchal masculinity” from other forms of masculinity. See also “When Feminism is Revolting” (2012) http://anarchalibrary.blogspot.com/2012/02/when-feminism-is-revolting-initial.html
[19] See
Emi Koyama, “Transfeminist Manifesto.” (2000) From
eminism.org/readings/pdf-rdg/tfmanifesto.pdf (accessed February 6,
2012); Michelle O’Brien, “Trans Liberation and Feminism:
Self-Determination, Healthcare, and Revolutionary Struggle.” (2003) From
anarchalibrary.blogspot.com/2010/09/trans-liberation-and-feminism-self.html
(accessed February 6, 2012); and Carolyn, “Politicizing Gender: Moving
toward Revolutionary Gender Politics.” From
www.spunk.org/texts/pubs/lr/sp001714/gender.html (accessed February 6,
2012).
[20] "What
about teh menz" is written in internet slang popularized by lolcats
memes which are often grammatically incorrect. this has become a
feminist trope used to bring to light the constant intrusions of men
bringing men's problems when feminism is being discussed. Noah Brand and
Ozy Frantz writes, "persistent conversation-derailers have succeeded
in making a bad name for themselves, and given rise to the “what about
teh menz?” trope as a boilerplate dismissal of these tired distractions
from the addressing of women’s issues that is the raison d’être of most
feminist communities." http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/what-about-the-men-chapter-1-introduction-and-principles/
[22] I discuss this further in “Gender Sabotage.” Queering Anarchism. Forthcoming from AK Press.
No comments:
Post a Comment