Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Why I'm not an anarchist

Because anarchy in the patriarchy would actually be worse for women, in my view. Peek into a dudebro's mind to find out what he thinks "anarchy" would be like, and you'll see a nasty rapey world, all Mad Max and Thunderdome. Eff that. I'll take the U S Constitution over anarchy as long as I live in a rape culture, thankyouverymuch.

Am I a socialist? Kindasorta. Same problem applies: the same minority of white hetero able-bodied old white guys will still be decided who needs what, and who needs to give what. Guess who'll stay at the bottom of the food chain? Yeah, before revolution, chop wood carry water, after the revolution, chop wood carry water. On the plus side, the massive inequities in wealth would be eradicated and a lot more people would have an education, health care, a clean environment, and at least a decent shot at living the life they want to live. You can take the boy out of the government but you can't take the patriarchy out of the boy.


Sarah said...

This is precisely the same reason why I'm not one - or rather, why I didn't become one when that particular political structure was of interest to me. I remember having lots of chats with my various no-government pals in high school, and asking, "But who would protect weaker people from attacks?" Their answer was something about "friends and family," which is, I suppose, all well and good, so long as you actually have either of those things, which many people don't. Even if you do, one's friends and family isn't often made up of hulking menacing masses, so rape would probably become an even more prevalent fun pastime than it is now.

Jezebella said...

Yup. Also, family can be pretty damned dangerous in themselves. That answer ("friends and family will protect you!") presupposes that all danger comes from outside the family unit. For children especially, it mostly comes from inside the home. For women, the protection racket hasn't really worked out so well ("let one man own you so he can protect his property from other men"). Anarchy without feminist revolution will absolutely NOT benefit the sex classes.

Keith said...

I think you have a skewed view of what anarchism is and means. The idea that anarchism means lawlessness is a misnomer. Proper anarchism is an ideology and a method of inquiry, not utter lawlessness.

I feel like Chomsky offered what is probably the best definition of anarchism in practice: "to seek out and identify structures of authority, hierarchy, and domination in every aspect of life, and to challenge them; unless a justification for them can be given, they are illegitimate, and should be dismantled, to increase the scope of human freedom."

This does not necessarily entitle lawlessness because there may be laws and applications of authority that are justifiable. However, it DOES entitle remaining skeptical of authority. No proper, self-proclaimed anarchist I know of imagines a nasty rape-fest world as an ideal, dude or otherwise. The pop culture strawman of anarchism that people are fed is bullshit.

Jezebella said...

Your point is well-taken, Keith. My friends who are anarcha-feminists, however, have experienced a great infestation of patriarchal thinking and behavior in the anarchist movement. Until the overthrow of patriarchy is a priority for the anarchist movement, even Chomsky-esque anarchy will not benefit women and other oppressed peoples.