An anarchist response to "Masculinity Is Not Revolutionary"

<table><tr><td>Recently an article found its way through anarchist circles entitled Masculinity is Not Revolutionary. The piece was written by Ben Cutbank, a member of Deep Green Resistance, who originally posted it on his blog (http://kidcutbank.blogspot.com/). In his text Cutbank argues against the concept of masculinity, which he sees as a driving force behind sadism, violence, and men's struggle for power over other people and the Earth. In Ben Cutbank's attempt to conceptualize masculinity he fails to define or identify its actual relation to gender itself. Taking his article at face value one would infer that masculinity is a social condition or existent social/psychological entity which manifests itself in men and is utilized by them in their never-ending pursuit of greater power. This power, which of course is inherently masculine and we can assume male, is a sadistic force bent on domination, violence, the “breaking of boundaries”, and power over women. Cutbank leaves open the question of how this masculinity relates itself to the male gender, how femininity relates itself to the female gender, how these two concepts relate to one another and to themselves, under what conditions they appear (be they social or biological), and how their inherent attributes have manifested themselves as such. His analysis falls short of a competent understanding of power and gender and relies on essentialist generalizations which disempower women and reinforce gender roles.</td><td><img title="We are like Gods in the clouds fighting each other with thunderclaps" src="http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2012/spotsinroom.jpg"></td></tr>...
<!--break-->
Although this analysis is an apparent weakness in Ben Cutbank's arguments, this is a flaw that is prevalent in feminist thought popularized by contemporary anarchism. This type of feminist thought has failed to define these concepts, their relations, attributes, and their relationship with the exertion (or receipt) of power and dominating influences. At once this theory of gender claims to reject the commonly ascribed inherent attributes of gender roles, yet, as Cutbank does, it strictly reinforces these gender norms with a short-sighted and shallow analysis of masculinity and femininity based on essentialist deconstruction and analysis of incidents of power exertions and situational dynamics.

In Ben Cutbank's essay it is easy to see how this shallow analysis affects his writing. Cutbank writes, “Masculinity’s destructiveness manifests in men’s violence against women and men’s violence against the world.” In discussing gender politics in radical communities Cutbank explains, “ ...male privilege goes unchallenged, while public celebrations of the sadism and boundary-breaking inherent in masculinity remain the norm.” Given the plethora of imagery attached to his essay which depict black bloc radicals attacking corporate targets, police informants, and those trying to stop them from striking their targets, we can only assume that the “public celebrations” of male sadism Cutbank describes are acts of revolutionary violence and resistance. Since these images depict acts of legitimate resistance against the state, capitalism, and state-actors, Cutbank's apparent criticism of them gives us the idea that he sees these acts as masculine and therefore sadistic. Here Cutbank is defining what he describes as “masculinity” based on entirely negative, oppressive attributes. Not only is this a dangerous analysis of a complex construction such as the male gender, it completely ignores all attributes of the masculine gender which are not oppressive and domineering. It also ignores attributes of the feminine gender which are equally destructive and patriarchal.

If one subscribes to the idea of the roles of the gender binary such as Cutbank does, it follows that the other side of the gender coin is masculinity's opposite: femininity. If one defines masculinity as power-seeking, dominating, and violent, it follows that femininity is power-receiving, dominated, and non-violent. Cutbank accedes to this when he characterizes femininity as a “fuck-me” attitude as opposed to the “fuck-you” of masculinity. While masculinity is the powerful hand of capitalism, hierarchy, and patriarchy, femininity is its support network which passively receives this power and reinforces and supports its structure. If one subscribes to this vision of the masculinity/femininity dichotomy one is directly reinforcing these genders and their roles. To overcome this problem we must reject these short-sighted analyses of gender.

Furthermore, we must reject the idea that the exertion of power is something one must seek to avoid and abolish. Ben Cutbank quotes Robert Jensen to make his assertions about male power. Jensen writes, “When we become men—when we accept the idea that there is something called masculinity to which we could conform—we exchange those aspects of ourselves that make life worth living for an endless struggle for power that, in the end, is illusory and destructive not only to others but to ourselves.” To pretend that it is possible to live your life in a way that is separated from the struggle to power is ludicrous. What is even more ludicrous is to assert that the struggle to power is based in male-ness and not in the construction of reality. This constant struggle to power is not purely negative and “destructive”, but it is the base of all positive and creative acts in addition to the negative and destructive. Surely, patriarchy is a system based in the power and domination of men over the rest of the world. But to argue that personal exertions of power are themselves as problematic as patriarchy is a weak argument. Cutbank takes this line of thinking further by refusing to separate the struggle to power from male-ness and patriarchy and he refuses to recognize the concept of power in its own context.

He follows by quoting a passage by Lierre Keith. Keith writes, “Men become ‘real men’ by breaking boundaries, whether it’s the sexual boundaries of women, the cultural boundaries of other peoples, the political boundaries of other nations, the genetic boundaries of species, the biological boundaries of living communities, or the physical boundaries of the atom itself.” The concept of the “breaking of boundaries”, which must be seen as an extension of the exertion of power, is similarly essentialized in Cutbank's text. Cutbank uses this quote by Lierre Keith to argue that the acts of pursuing scientific discoveries, of struggling for political power, and the study of physics become akin to male domination of female bodies and the violation of female bodily autonomy. This argument is sadly similar to many held by some in the anarchist scene who refuse to separate male-domination and male-power from the concept of the will to power itself. The pursuit and exertion of power is not something we should condemn, it is something that we should encourage and partake in. Only by empowering those on the receiving end of domination, oppression, and exploitation can we hope to stop instances of patriarchal exertions of power and violations of personal autonomy and boundaries.

To combat patriarchy and its brother, masculinity, Ben Cutbank says that men must begin “taking direction from the women around them.” He argues that masculinity must be fought by allowing women to assume leadership roles and to analyze calls for militancy and the use of violence through a feminist lens. By gendering calls for militancy and violence as masculine and therefore animal-like and irrational, and by calling upon the rationality and level-headedness of femininity to temper these irrational actions, Cutbank further reinforces gender roles and the binary instead of attacking them. Although it is crucially important to develop practices of empowering women to take on leadership roles and to be outspoken, we cannot pretend that this is a solution to patriarchy. Power-sharing within a system of patriarchy is still patriarchy. Simply promoting femininity to a place of equality with masculinity ignores the problematic nature of femininity and avoids the task of deconstructing the gender binary. Empowering women while critically analyzing the concept of gender must be a parallel project.

It would be vastly useful to critically analyze the use of violence and force and their effects on the viability of generalized resistance. This includes looking at the roles of masculinity, femininity, patriarchy, and power. Instead of the almost Leninist tactic of looking towards feminism for leadership and guidance, these projects should always be undertaken with a focus on the proliferation and intensification of resistance and through a lens of the deconstruction of gender itself. If we follow the logic of Ben Cutbank and those who think like him it will lead us down a path of inactivity and powerlessness. Constantly deferring to the hypothetical oppressed “other” for guidance, we would allow under-developed and shoddy essentialist analysis to undermine the critical task that lies ahead of all insurrection-minded people.

Comments

Third Wave R.I.P.

3rd wave is a masculine interpretation though! Don't you see the contradiction?

Cos it's a western neo-colonialist identitification which has no relevance to indigenous women and their cultural paradigms.

Not really. Thinking historically is the least of our problems.

True, but history imparts its stereotypical mindsets. Feminising men and masculinising women was gonna be 3rd wave, but it somehow failed, why? Because historically and religiously patriarchy dominates all institutions. Read Shakespeare's 'Romeo and Juliet', power and historical mindset gets in the way of all true love.

Yep, gender-bending and gender deconstruction hasn't changed who's in power, and in the case of third wave, which is now mostly anti-feminist anti-equality backwash-doesn't want to.

Great articles and critiques on @news as of lately! Also, fuck cadres.

is this the author of 'how fucking others keeps you from fucking yourself"?

Q: What's worse than radscum?
A: Self-hating male radscum.

Funny thing is that the author of "Masculinity Is Not Revolutionary", Ben Barker (Ben Cutbank, Kid Cutbank) writes that men should support women in leadership roles with men assisting them. What he doesn't mention is that he is in the Leadership role of DGR Wisconsin:

Hello friends and allies,

Industrial civilization is destroying the planet. The evidence is all around us: rivers devoid of life, prairies wiped out, migratory bird populations dwindling, indigenous communities struggling to survive, the devastating practices of mining, deforesting, and fracking. The land called Wisconsin is under constant attack from ecocidal maniacs. It's time we fight back.

Deep Green Resistance (DGR) is a movement that starts with this understanding and this urgency. The goal of DGR is to deprive the rich of their ability to steal from the poor and the powerful of their ability to destroy the planet. This will require defending and rebuilding just and sustainable human communities nestled inside repaired and restored landbases. This is a vast undertaking but it needs to be said: it can be done. Industrial civilization can be stopped.

There's no better time to join in this fight and the Wisconsin chapter of the DGR movement is recruiting. Whatever your gifts are--art, organizing, and so on--if you have the passion to defend this land, we urge you to consider joining us.

The process of joining DGR Wisconsin is simple. First, you can choose the capacity in which you want to get involved. Then, we'll set up a phone interview and determine if you are a good fit. If you are interested, please visit our website and follow the steps: http://deepgreenresistancewisconsin.org/join/

What has DGR Wisconsin been doing lately? Here's our latest report: http://deepgreenresistancewisconsin.org/2012/08/21/mid-august-report/

In resistance,

Ben Barker (Kid Cutbank)
Deep Green Resistance Wisconsin
http://deepgreenresistancewisconsin.org
facebook.com/dgrwisconsin
contact@deepgreenresistance.org
(262) 208-5347

Come deconstruct gender with me forever on etsy.com.

# So-called feminists that answer patriarchy with misandery.

so-called anarchists who answer violence with violence

selfdefense?

yes, duh.

ho hum response to ho hum 2nd wave theorizing.

more interestingly, what is the deal with DGR and 2nd wave feminism? i suppose the essentialism and overtones of authoritarianism compliment each other nicely.

A normal coincidence of generation and time. The 50-something feminists in DGR are teaching the 20 year olds. We thought stupid shit when we were 20 years old because of who our teaching generation was at the time. Give these kids a few years, and they'll break like we did.

You can't count on others following your trajectory; that's why some of us are merciless with our critiques. If you don't want others to flounder around with bad ideas like you once held, we try to help them transcend them by explaining how we have been merciless with ourselves.

uhhhhh, sounds mercilessly hyper-masculine. where's the joy?

masculinity is joy, you fucking flower.

Lierre Keith

You could have made a case for 'reinforcing gender roles' (cause there's always a choice lol), but otherwise this is awkward and poorly written propaganda. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess a young impressionable male wrote it )?) Assignment?????

I'm not a huge fan of Keith (and not at all a fan of Dworkin) HOWEVER the original article was concise and made some very good points. (KILL ALL MEN, who is not down with that?)

SERIOUSLY What Keith says about boundaries IS VERY IMPORTANT.

“Men become ‘real men’ by breaking boundaries, whether it’s the sexual boundaries of women, the cultural boundaries of other peoples, the political boundaries of other nations, the genetic boundaries of species, the biological boundaries of living communities, or the physical boundaries of the atom itself.”

In which book did Keith say that, very interested in reading it, awesome!

It's in her celebrated third book "Fuck off, Literal Troll"

^^macho troll^^

ugh wow vomiting forever

but we already knew this about you.

Not a bad critique, but I had hoped it would've gone further.

The genders are all corrupted by domination and all are culpable. While the masculine could be associated with all things bad, the feminine is an enabler to the masculine gender. In relation to youth, the feminine gender is patronizing and violent. Perhaps more commonly violent than the male gender towards children and is far more justified in its aggressive and totalizing role towards youth.

The genders outside of hetero-normative behavior are also culpable to power. There is no egalitarian gender to champion the cause of destroying patriarchy. This does not mean we can't make destroying patriarchy part of our struggle against domination. It would be more interesting if patriarchy was more firmly defined by anarchists.

The broad generalizations on behavior and linguistics that feminism uses to create the idea that social structures of domination are gender enforced needs to be more deeply criticized. What I've witnessed from feminism is totalitarian, accusatory, vigilante, fear-mongering, hatred. Feminism so desperately wants a different society and places so much blame on one particular set of power relations that the equation becomes skewed. Social milieu's that accept feminist domination tend to be vicious as they attempt to shape their tiny world into a world they feel comfortable living in, which is never.

If we examine that anarchy can not exist now because of domination, that true autonomy will not be able to take form as long as a social order intervenes in society, then why do we insist on allowing feminism to permeate in our social life to eliminate the threat of masculinity as a representative of patriarchy?

Instead of focusing on building relationships that aim to attack power, more often feminism eats away at such attempts, especially during lulls in attack, often leading to the dissolution of social groups by over-examining perceived insults and slights, by accusing real and imagined sexual relationships of rape and molestation, by insisting that people should not express their individual power in groups in favor of a collective weakness.

Feminists see they should intervene in any personal relationship, often aggravating a situation rather than attempting to fix relationships between individuals. By provoking males, it affirms their view of the world that men are horrible and women are victims that are empowered by feminist groupings. The truth is that feminism is totalitarian mob violence. Feminism engages in witchhunts and those that take informal and formal power within various radical groups often must tow a party line.

Feminism is alienating, it doesn't look at all individuals as flawed and demands perfection else suffer damnation. It neuters the masculine gender of its ability to be a force that can express power in the relationships and it forces the feminine gender to be locked in a passively "empowered" role where what is strong and what isn't is defined by the demagogues of feminism.

This is all extremely depressing and hateful, but I'm curious where you got your stats here:

"In relation to youth, the feminine gender is patronizing and violent. Perhaps more commonly violent than the male gender towards children and is far more justified in its aggressive and totalizing role towards youth."

Without going into particulars, yeah, in some cases you're right. But in those cases I feel that the alienation would still exist, and be much more pronounced no doubt in some different and still even more useless batshit context. It sounds like you're getting lost in abstractions to find a reason why there are feminists who are just hateful paranoid obnoxious people. You don't those. You could probably find it in their upbringing and the culture they come from. If feminism isn't making them better people, than it's a "you" thing, not a feminist thing. Feminism is an idea, ideas are tools. You figure out how to use it so it bests serves you in relation to the people next to you. I have those same experiences, but they're usually with people who would be vapid insencere people to begin with. Not because they're feminists. Radical feminism is imperative to womens liberation, and womens liberation is imperative to Anarchism, whether it be Spain in 36 or rural Montana in 2012 (countdown to Armageddon), I don't really see how you can be an Anarchist and not a feminist. At least not a revolutionary Anarchist. From someone who has been through it with self described feminists. I don't really have a lot of respect for people who don't identify themselves as feminists.

"I don't really see how you can be an Anarchist and not a feminist."

It is because the name "feminism" is misleading. Most feminism is not anarchist feminism either, including the kinds of feminism some anarchists have practiced unknowingly. Radical feminism is completely at odds with anarchists and self desire. Have you ever noticed on how similar radical feminism is to Christianity? It is full of self-defeat, it targets modes of behavior that would otherwise be powerful, it suggests weakness as empowerment. It attempts to control and curtail behavior, thought and action. Radical feminism is very much not anarchist. Radical feminism is the Stalinism of feminism.

All things male are actually attributes that have never been exclusive to men. When women actually embrace their individuality and express power, when women don't base their life on battling binary thinking and instead focus on expressing self power and attacking domination in all its forms, it becomes clear that women are not limited by their gender, they are limited by the spiteful and weak forces of society. Is it really a strength to create a glass ceiling? Or is it a weakness? To demean and dismiss women is that a strength or a weakness?

According to binary thinking, the essential attributes of the male are all about strength and thus they attempt to destroy these attributes. Rejecting this bullshit means the misogynists are wrong and fear others' power and when that power is expressed, the misogynists shrivel up like a crackhead's dick. Social structures fall like a house of cards when people express their power contrary to prejudice. Social structures grows more powerful when binary thinking attempts to weaken everyone else. The arguments of disempowerment have got to go.

Radical feminism CAN turn into dogmatic fundamentalism, but in a community where sexual assault still exists... Maybe radical feminism isn't for everybody, I'll give you that. As always it depends on the individuals approach to it. But feminism is part of attacking that social structure. I"m sorry. And for honesty's sake, for the sake of actually knowing your enemy and what it's composed of, feminism is an absolutely essential ideological component of that. I'll agree with you vehemently though on one thing, no one needs a castrated male too scared to express his sexuality or desire. But most feminists I know aren't that. Most feminists I know are hyper sexual and very kind and honest people, not broken down losers who go home and wallow in alienation and loneliness; i.e. future pornagraphy addicts who hate women but see women as part of society. It's not the ideology, it's the people who follow it.

This definition of feminism is completely ahistorical, it defines feminism as anything that has ever helped women. I feel like you're not understanding what radical feminism means in this context. It is a specific tendency, it does not mean "A feminism with a radical critique of society." It is referring specifically to a historical tendency that is anti-sex, anti-men, anti-trans, and thinks that patriarchy is the only oppression, or at least the root of all oppression. It sometimes in it's more modern form gives passive lipservice to an idea of intersectionality, which is also fairly ideologically bankrupt.. if you do understand what this means, then you're being super dishonest. Fascism is also an idea, so is patriarchy. So it's just the fault of people, not the idea, that these ideas produce atrocity?

There are some feminist tendencies that have some overlap with anarchism. Not many though. The argument being made appears to be similar to this idea that Anarchists should work with Trotskyists because we want the same thing, the abolition of class society. We are still at odds with one another. If you can't see the difference between believing in the liberation of women and feminism, then i'm not really sure what to tell you.

- some stupid bitch

I can tell you really care about the liberation of women.

right, because anyone that disagrees with your ideological position that attempts to compartmentalize experiences into your wack-ass worldview must not care about women. This dance is getting old, learn a new one.

I didn't say 'care about women' - I said 'care about the liberation of women' - big difference. Hey! It's very clear we disagree - and I could say the same to you.

Your saying feminism has never helped women sounds 'whack-ass' to my mind. Are you serious about this? Can you point me to something that supports this view? Do you think civil rights didn't help black people as well?

Yeah, you'll find that people do shitty things than make up shitty ideologies to back them.

I also didn't post what you're responding to by the way. And feminism could also be seen as a crucial step to the road to womens liberation. I mean, you're right, feminism is a kind of band aid ideology and a kneejerk reaction, but honestly, I've had to use feminism to get over alot of my shit. And that was a truckload of shit.

And p.s. please stop trolling me. I can't take it anymore. I really can't. You people won. I can't take this everytime I check my e-mail, "did you say blah blah blah," it's creepy, it's weird, and I sincerely want it to stop. Please, whoever out there's doing it, go fuck yourself. I wouldn't respond to some pseudo religious horseshit that compared radical feminism to Trotskyism. I could compare Anarchism to fascism if we're talking about the initial fall of the government in Catalonia in 36, or what the fuck ever. Make the point that shitty people exist everywhere no matter what they call themselves, I did that. Now stop fucking trolling me. If it's here, it aint me. I don't even know what you mean by binary, and I don't care.

No more. Fucking seriously. You won. Leave me alone.

Wait...one last thought because it actually was me. This whole thing is a fucked up way of communicating. Internet confuses the shit out of me. But patriachy is the oldest form of exploitation between human beings. Yeah, radical feminism is essential to womens liberation. I'll stand by that. I think feminism is a band aid, and I think some people use "radical feminism" to back up their anger and distrust of society, I've also seen it used even more disengenuously, but once again, I stand by my belief that peoples politics are second to their actions as individuals. Shitty people do shitty things and then look for moral justification. Non-feminists can use your lack of adherence to the word for exploiting women, and do. I don't know if you necessarily have to identify yourself as a "feminist," but in the abstract you have to acknowledge that that is essential to a Utopian dream of Anarchism.

I'm still not coming back. But I'm sorry as a woman you feel that sexism and gender abuse will end when we do away with nation states and capitalism. It won't. It just won't. And yeah, liberal feminism is just a tag line. But feminism is essential to the Anarchist struggle. It's like saying Anarcho-communists and Anarcho-syndicalists can't work together, I don't see the Trotskyist dynamic. The end result isn't a feminist society in a matriarchal sense. I was raised by a matriarchal mother who spouted bullshit 60's crap, and I've been unjustifiably threatened by a radical feminist, it still doesn't change my belief that gender equality is something that you have to work for, while acknowledging that we live in a society that is patriarchal, sexist, and all the other ists that we're trying to do away with. This is the same b.s. as people who say that racism doesn't exist. The end result is to be able to do away with most ideology and theory and live as Autonomist (I might be using the word incorrectly) beings. But really? Racism? Because most "anarchy" that's taken place in societies over the years has usually resulted in some form of pogrom; i.e. a lot of dead motherfuckers with different skin color.

I think feminism is essential to womens liberation. I whole heartedly believe that.

Actually I see sexism and gender classification as institutional constructs, and it's quite easy to do away with the whole nasty fucking presence, domestic, cultural, statist, capitalist, it's a mental soul thing, so easy, like nihilism, just burn the rule book, so much fun just not being burdened by authority, just by burning law books, simple, burn gender books, problem solved. Stomp on sexists, problem solved, so easy :)

you are an idiot.

Yes, stomp and burn on idiots also, yes, in the nihilist tradition, n ot that there is one, but yes, BURN!!

What is the difference between hyper sexuality and liking sex? Why do we defend ourselves by insisting we're Hyper Sexual? I see this a lot, so just curious - I pretty much agree with most of what you've said.

Jeezus you are incredibly eloquent.

I'm starting to think most of you guys should start your own thing, like, let it be known you're anti-feminist and want an all-male and all-male-positive cheerleeding section/enabling thing. I mean, I pretty much know that now, but maybe new people don't.

it's called misogyny. it's normal.

are being feminist and male-positive really incompatible?

I don't really see why "male-positive" is required ... sort of like standing up against the oppression of white people by all those spiteful non-whites who've read a history book or ever interacted with society.

Sure, maybe you'll encounter some reactionary identity shit that's impossible to resolve because someone's got a chip on their shoulder but does that mean you have to push back by asserting *male-positive*? Fuck no.

Yes, this is true. All of the anti-feminist diatribes here sound like more intelligent versions of the arguments for white power.

i actually know ben cutbank. he's a pretty nice kid. but he's totally under derrick's spell. DGR is a fucking cult. It really is unfortunate.

Dworkin said you'd say that.

Hi, I know Ben too.

Your give him a backhanded compliment "pretty nice kid".

So let's see, you attempt to minimize his argument because of his age. Hmm could smack of ageism.

And you slam him because he is under Derrick's "spell". He has been bewitched then..kinda like being a little crazy..so let's call him bewitched, so we don't have to even act like you have to deal with his argument.

We can just do a, less than 1/2 second semi-semi clever no thought comment, like so many others here.

Why don't you give him the respect of showing you've read his article, but commenting on his article, not his age.

As to your comment about DGR being a "fucking cult", I would say that its an organization that doesn't have a strong position on fucking, unless it's someone wanting to push for breaking boundaries when "no" has been clearly articulated..so, I don't really see it as a "fucking cult".

Think of DGR a cult is wrong. It is not religious in nature and sees religion as just one institution, among many, that patriarchy uses to keep people mystified, and under the influence of those who would exploit the world to their own ends, regardless of the harm it does to others.

I would say that the last thing you wanted to do was try and understand what was said in Ben's article. How could anyone even suspect you've read it.. because, you don't take any issue with anything that was said.. I see a lot of protecting patriarchal values in these comments, and belittling of someone who is willing to put his head out a little, and suddenly see those who I would think would be his friend or ally, willing to be the first one to put it on a chopping block.

The display of horizontal hostility here is not that surprising, but still.. thanks for nothing.

DGR is a cult in that it's members do not think critically and accept whatever Derrick and Lierre have to say. They then go on to repeat Derrick and Lierre's ideas wherever they go (only reworded slightly). You all even do chores for Derrick and Lierre....

"Hey guys, go on amazon and right some kind reviews for Veg Myth for me, will ya?"

or

"Hey, everyone knows right-wing troll are paid to talk badly about the left... Why don't you all go on infoshop.org and anarchistnews.org and say nice stuff about DGR on it? We need to have a presence and balance out all the right wingers trying to cause horizontal hostility."

----"OKAY DERRICK!!!! ANYTHING FOR YOU DERRICK!!!"

DEEP GREEN LENINISTS, GONNA DO ANYTHING IT TAKES TO STOP THE CIVILIZATION!!!! WE SELL T-SHIRTS, MANUALS ON HOW TO BE TEH MILITANTS!!! AND MANUALS ON HOW TO STOP OR AVOID CRITICISM----ER I MEAN "HORIZONTAL HOSTILITIES".

This piece doesn't say anything unique or new about masculinity or feminist perspectives. It's a reply to a blog post, a post written by a Jensen acolyte and member of a "DGR Cadre". I'm not saying it "shouldn't be here" but engaging with this just seems like a complete and utter waste of time.

We are the cancer.

The ablation of the masculine would destroy feminism. Without the abdication of masculine power, and its subsequent submission to femininity, the gender-relation of m2f would become a negative-phallus, sucking out the vagina into itself, consuming its motherly affection not as fuel for mother-destruction, but mother-production. The endgame of this second second wave is merely to produce a new gender-relation, in which the feminine injunction becomes "be free from Y" and the masculine injunction becomes "allow X to be free", thereby reproducing the exact same scenario, only mutually upwardly mobile instead of essentially reproductively divergent.

Gender survives – with language and little else – in amnesia patients. There is no hope.

ABOLISH YOUR SELF ; PUT YOUR OWN PENIS IN YOUR OWN VAGINA THEN PULL IT OUT BACK AND FORTH FOREVER UNTIL EVERYONE ELSE COMES ; STRAIGHT AS IN "WE'RE FUCKED".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNMwRH5UGYY

All this talk of mother makes me wonder when the next issue of Inconsiderate Audio is hitting the block

Mother, tell your children that the show's delayed.

Tell your children that it's so far away.

Mother.

(not sure. looking for a decent, dynamic feature to tie together some other ready content in to a good episode. send content, or get people you know to send content, or to hit me up about their ideas for shit.)

When I strap my dick on, it's shaped like someone else's. When I slide it into my lover, its shape stimulates her, makes her spasm, makes their uterus dip into the empty space where there is no cum because my dick shaped like someone else's wouldn't squirt. Even the person who's dick made the mold would have pleased her. We reproduce the penis because we have holes in our body where it fits well.

DEATH TO THE DICK, LONG LIVE NECROPHILIA.

You are part of the capitalist cancer! Now I shall be forever flacid because of your gross artificial fibreglass penis dominating my consciousness! Where can I purchase these mass-produced phallic monstrosities? Can I have tailor made versions produced? These are issues of the utmost importance if civilisation is to survive!!!

Ben Cutbank, leader of DGR Wisconsin, is not an advocate of Anarchy nor are they sympathetic to anti-authoritarian/anarchist ideas (quite anti-Anarchist based on the fact that they are a "Leader" of a Deep Green Resistance group (Deep Green Resistance ridicules Anarchist views, such as rejection of authoritarianism)).

This should be mentioned in the beginning of the rebuttal. To refer to the idea that this article is being discussed in "anarchist circles" without making note of the philosophical background of the author (Ben Cutbank) is a dilemma.

Also, for someone to be so influenced by Lierre Keith (who holds unusual views of trans people) is difficult.

Liberal Thistle Pettersen of Deep Green Resistance Wisconsin agrees with Ben Cutbanks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJwIAlx5R0s

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro6Qfm1ySKQ&feature=relmfu

Well of course the DGR cadre members "agree" with one another on Jensens & Kieth's ideological positions. DGR is an organization that kicks out anyone who does not "agree" with their leaders.

“Cutbank leaves open the question of how this masculinity relates itself to the male gender, how femininity relates itself to the female gender, how these two concepts relate to one another and to themselves, under what conditions they appear (be they social or biological), and how their inherent attributes have manifested themselves as such”.

this is a philosophical ‘pitfall’ that has been around since Heraclitus and the Buddha. they said no-one was listening. Mach said the same thing 2500 years later, and on and on we go.

1. matter ‘asserts’ and space ‘accommodates’; i.e. Western culture split ‘asserting matter’ and ‘accommodating space’ into two mutually exclusive, separate things, and recast ‘dynamics’ in the sole terms of ‘asserting matter’, making space, the accommodating aspect in the conjugate asserting-accommodating relation a passive player, contributing nothing to the world dynamic.

2. Heraclitus said that the world dynamic was ‘flow’. So said aboriginal cultures. Modern physics confirmed it; e.g. the world is a transforming energy-flow and matter is dynamic form within the transforming energy flow. in a flow-space there is no longer any separation between ‘asserting’ and ‘accommodating’, the basic dynamic includes both and ‘asserting’ and ‘accommodating’ do not exist as separate dynamics.

3. Visual observation, however, does create imagery based on what we might say is the ‘asserting’ or ‘masculine’ aspect. This is only ‘appearances’, on in Schroedinger’s language ‘schaumkommen’. If we are observing a hurricane, we see the rotating pinwheel [the spiralling arms], the material dynamic which is ‘local, visible’ and material’, but the dynamic includes a rotating field which is non-local, non-visible and non-material. if we want to talk about physical reality, we cannot reduce our understanding of physical phenomena to the ‘local, visible, material’ aspect. But our Western culture confuses the local, visible, material observational data for ‘physical reality’. Newton did it and he knew it was wrong in the sense of ‘incomplete’; i.e. it was Fiktion but it was a useful Fiktion (read his Author’s Prologue and summarizing Scholium in ‘Principia’)

4. We live in a culture that confuses ‘schaumkommen’ for ‘physical reality. That is, we live in a culture that confuses ‘dynamics’ to be purely ‘material-asserting’ and ignores the non-local, non-visible, non-material aspect or ‘field’ aspect if you like. The rotating pinwheel that we call ‘the hurricane’ is feeding on the atmosphere’s energy like a tick feeds on its blood-filled host. It is not that pinwheel will stop rotating if the hostspace stops accommodating it, the pinwheeling rotation and the accommodating, nurturing flow of energy are ONE dynamic. Because we can only see the rotating pinwheel, the asserting material aspect, we tend to just ‘go with that’ and describe that as ‘dynamics’. If there are male dynamics going on, there are female dynamics going on because these two do not split apart, they are one dynamic; i.e. they are ‘flow’.

5. The classic ‘wake-up’ call for the Western culture in this regard is ‘environmental disaster’ that we are ‘inadvertently’ causing. Why/how are we causing it? Because we believe that ‘construction’ [male material asserting aspect] and ‘destruction’ [female accommodating aspect] are ‘two separate things’. If a part of the space of the forest you are in is ‘accommodating/nurturing’, it gives you its trees to build a house. The trees are now gathered into a new form; i.e. the house. What we have here is ‘transformation’. That is the dynamics of ‘flow’. If you see new construction, you can be sure there is at the same time destruction since there is only ‘transformation’ but ‘construction’ is most visible because it is the new form into which the older forms have gathered and the older forms are no longer there. That is the non-local, non-visible, non-material aspect of ‘flow’ or ‘tranportion’.

6. Politicians and economists think we get something for nothing, that we can get ‘construction’ without ‘destruction’ therefore they urge ‘growth’ in the sense of the ‘growth of construction’ but of course that can only lead to more non-local, non-visible, non-material destruction. Some thing is getting sucked dry commensurate with the increase in construction growth. This destruction or ‘consumption’ is the draining of the nurturance of space, as in the case of the hurricane seen as a rotating pinwheel [the nurturant energy consumption is part of it but it this energy that is being sucked out of the atmosphere is a nonlocal, non-visible, non-material dynamic.].

7. Females give of themselves. Females tend to cultivate a nurturing space. The males tend such in energy and burn it in their asserting. That’s why a femininist poet says; “My grandfather was a famous engineer, my grandmother has no name” . Our culture does not acknowledge the ‘nurturing space cultivating’ aspect which always conjugate to the ‘asserting material aspect’, the latter being the visible aspect. We see the farmer working very hard and we say that he is producing wheat. The wheat is like the rotating pinwheel, it is the visible aspect of the spatial flow of nurturance. these are not two dynamic but one dynamic, ‘flow’. However, we treat the visible aspect as if it were ‘physical reality’. That is what is screwing us up.

8. Nietzsche’s anti-Darwin writing point out that ‘genetics’ couldn’t happen without the flow of nurturants from the space that the genesis is situationally included in. He said that this outside-inward flow of nurturance and the inside outward materially asserting genesis were conjugate aspects of ONE evolutionary dynamic that applied generally in the world. Lamarck had said the same. Today, biological researchers understand this but the orthodoxy won’t admit it so they get kicked out if the are too vocal about it [see the Ben Stein film ‘Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed’. Unfortunately Ben Stein didn’t get it either; i.e. the researchers discover that asserting material can’t possible explain actual phenomena like a newt reproducing its own organs, or stem cells delivering the types of cells that the body space they are situated in needs in that place; i.e. outside-inward orchestrating/organization influence has to be playing a role [epigenesis is in conjugate relational with genesis; i.e. there is only ‘transformation’, however the assertive aspect is visible while the spatial-accommodating/nurturing aspect is nonlocal, non-visible and non-material, as in the rotating field that was the invisible conjugate aspect of the rotating pinwheel.

Conclusion: We live in a culture that understands dynamics as ‘local, visible, material asserting’ or ‘what things-in-themselves do’ and confuses this for physical reality. When the plague of locusts moves through the valley stripping it bare, the nurturance depletion that is showing up is not something ‘the locusts did to the valley’, it is the plague of locust; i.e. they are made out of that stuff that went missing, just as the rotating pinwheel in the atmosphere is made of the stuff that went missing in the atmosphere [the flow of energy/nurturance]. i.e. ‘an army marches on its stomach’ [C’est la soupe qui fait le soldat’ – Napoleon]

The stress on the male aspect, the visible, material-assertive aspect, and the blindness to the flow of nurturance from the living space is built into the western culture, not just into western males. Both males and females in the western culture therefore value ‘assertive accomplishments’ and do not value contributions to re-charging the living space with nurturance, refilling the cookie jar, the clean clothes supply etc. The values of the culture are such as to reward and respect that which is most visible, material, and assertive, and the epitome of this lies in the power to make whatever one wants happen. This is the desire for ‘power over’. As Nietzsche pointed out, in his anti-Darwin writings, this will to dominate that is modeled into Darwinism fails to acknowledge that deficiency is the motive force of evolution. The web of relations in the community dynamic sucks the ‘university’ [the new ‘organ’] into existence. The situational, spatial opening of possibility induces the rising of potentialities to fit the occasion. the new thing does not develop in an inside-outward asserting by some random variation in the genes or genetic construction process, it is situationally induced at the same time as its visible aspect is asserting itself materially. As Mach puts this conjugate visible rotating-pinwheel – invisible rotating flow-field relation; “The dynamics of the inhabitant are conditioning the dynamics of the habitat at the same time as the dynamics of the habitat are conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitant”

We can’t see how we are conditioning the dynamic habitat we are included in and depend upon, but we can and are experiencing it. The masculine appearing activities of the ELF was to rectify unsustainable excessive-consumption of the accommodating (female) nurturing aspect that seemed to have reach the point where nurturance supplying capacities might be permanently damaged , so it was kind of a robin-hood-like re-balancing initiative and/or a wake-up call to remind others that the masculine, material assertive production-ONLY view of dynamics is a blindered view.

Great comment, Emile!

138'

This might be the worst response to an article that I've ever come across. At no point in this review does the author show in any way that he has engaged with Cutbank's article with political or intellectual integrity.

The reviewer writes, "By gendering calls for militancy and violence as masculine and therefore animal-like and irrational, and by calling upon the rationality and level-headedness of femininity to temper these irrational actions, Cutbank further reinforces gender roles and the binary instead of attacking them." I struggle to see how the reviewer could even find it reasonable to write this, as it is false on so many levels. Cutbank is the first to state that violence doesn't belong to masculinity; masculinity holds no monopoly on force. Cutbank writes, quite clearly, "Applied appropriately, militancy is an approach to activism that pledges a steadfast dedication to physically intervene, when necessary, in the violation of living beings and the destruction of communities. This militancy is often rooted in healthy communal norms and an allegiance to the bodily integrity of all beings. Applied inappropriately, militancy is a reinforcement of men’s machismo." Second, the opposition of rationality-irrationality at no point enters Cutbank's piece. Third, the empowerment of women in political spaces seems to me the greatest attack on gender roles. All of this leads me to ask, did the reviewer even read Cutbank's article?

The reviewer further writes, for example, "Here Cutbank is defining what he describes as “masculinity” based on entirely negative, oppressive attributes. Not only is this a dangerous analysis of a complex construction such as the male gender, it completely ignores all attributes of the masculine gender which are not oppressive and domineering." This interpretation is only possible from outside of a radical feminist analysis and is obviously much closer to a third-wave/queer reading, in which gender is seen in terms of performativity and identity rather than hierarchy and domination. Cutbank strives for the elimination of gender, while the reviewer is wedded to its redefinition. But for radical feminists, masculinity IS domination - and what the reviewer fails to see is that this is no way an essentialization of what it means to be male. The ultimate failure of the reviewer is that they cannot seem to separate concepts from words, that when Cutbank uses the word masculinity it means something very different than their own "roughly" third-wave usage. In short, these two pieces are written in entirely different political languages. Shame on the reviewer for lacking the humility and acumen to recognize this, and then daring to write such an inappropriately scathing review.

I am deeply appreciative of Cutbank's piece. It is activists like Cutbank that are shifting political culture from a space of male domination and violence against women to a space of radical egalitarianism. I stand behind Cutbank with all of my being.

I was wondering if anyone here posting had actually read Mr. Cutbank's article, for I couldn't find any evidence that anyone was engaging with his article directly. So, thanks for actually taking the time to read his article instead of jumping onto the DGR bashing bandwagon, like so many others here seem anxious to do. I am also very grateful for Mr. Cutbanks's willing to challenge ideas about the place of masculinity in radical communities and for your lucid reading of his article and your defense of his piece via your comments on this page.

My genuine thanks to both of you.

(Chairman Lierre)

stfu derrick

re ben cutbank’s original article, and further to my above comment , cutbank is working on some very basic ‘geometry’ as to how we think about the world in general and expressing it in terms of ‘militancy’ and ‘gender’. for example, do ‘dynamics’ emerge from the fields of tension/pressure in a relational space [Mach] or do ‘dynamics’ jumpstart from a local source; e.g. is an earthquake;

(a) ‘caused’ by slippage, at some particular point, on the opposite faces of a fault plane [e.g. we ‘blame’ the great San Francisco earthquake of 1906 on local slippage at a particular point along the San Andreas fault? [‘simple science’], ... or,

(b) derived from the earth being ‘under tension’ and undergoing ‘spatial relational transformation’, such tensions becoming manifest in the circulation of the lithosphere that is in turn interdependent with relational ‘celestial’ dynamics? [Mach]

compare this to cutbank’s alternative views of 'militancy';

(a) militancy is a reinforcement of men’s machismo. It’s a too easy jump given the hallmark militarized psychology and violation imperative of masculinity. To learn more about why militancy is applied inappropriately, we have to talk about gender.

(b) militancy is an approach to activism that pledges a steadfast dedication to physically intervene, when necessary, in the violation of living beings and the destruction of communities. This militancy is often rooted in healthy communal norms and an allegiance to the bodily integrity of all beings.

in both cases we are talking about ‘action’ and ‘where it comes from’ [its animative sourcing].

mainstream science, it is often said, is ‘masculine’ since it is in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’. there is no ‘feminine’ in mainstream science, but it is there in the ‘relational space’ of Machean physics, and in the corresponding philosophies of Poincaré, Nietzsche, Bohm, Schroedinger, which have never been assimilated into ‘mainstream science’.

note that the explanation of the earthquake can be either in terms of ‘time’ and having ITS OWN beginning and end , or in terms of an ongoing transformation of a relational space (a bump or belch in a continuing transformation, like the earthquake bumps and volcanic eruptive belches of an entire earth/universe in transition).

‘masculine action’ is ‘in time’ rather than in space e.g. ‘This is in my way. Let’s get it out of the way, right now. Let’s finish this job off’

of course, the web of relations in which this action transpires is transformed in the process, a relational transformation that is not acknowledged in the local ‘time-based’ view of dynamics; ‘Hey let’s kill these bugs, bring that tank of DDT over here right now and we'll get the job done.’. ‘Hey, that Saddam Hussein guy is a pain in the ass; let’s go after him with a shock and awe blitzkrieg so that we can get that mission accomplished right quick, and have it over and done with.’

‘masculine action’ = dynamics per the mainstream science model. it sees dynamics in terms of ‘what things-in-themselves do’ [in ‘time’], and it does not take into account how relations in the relational space the action transpires within are being modified by such action. This is how ‘environmental problems’ arise.

we could therefore say that ‘masculine action’ as in ‘militancy’ is ‘mainstream science taken literally’ [as if science were REALLY addressing the physical reality we live in, which as Poincaré, Mach, Nietzsche and other philosophers have pointed out, IT DOES NOT, it deals with 'appearances', notionally 'disconnected/independent' things-in-themselves].

the ‘appropriate militancy’, as described by cutbank, is one which orients to the restoring, cultivating and sustaining of balance and harmony within a relational space. THIS MAKES TOTAL SENSE.

but now cutbank goes on to say;

“To learn more about why militancy is applied inappropriately, we have to talk about gender. Gender serves the purpose of arranging power between human beings based on their sex, categorizing them as feminine or masculine.”

but one's ‘worldview’ over-rides the physical equipment package one is carrying. woman are more often tuned to the Machean view which acknowledges the relational nature of space; i.e. she realizes that ‘in getting the job done and getting her man’, all hell may break loose in the web of relations that includes all his other female friends. ‘getting the job done’ in a start-to-finish time based sense is not realistic. she may be getting knives in the back years later. in her ‘natural state’, she may be less inclined to support a ‘quick clean up job in Iraq’ or a ‘quick fuck’ [let's get the job done of taking our jollies] out of the context of any web-of-relations that the action transpires within.

cutback’s comments on gender bypass the assimilation of behaviour-shaping world views; i.e. they bypass taking into account the two different ‘options’ in how we view dynamics, as (a) local/non-relational and as (b) nonlocal/relational, and cutback instead shifts the focus to how we are “arranging power between human beings based on their sex”.

this is a red herring which leads to his ‘wouldn’t it be nice if’... men would ‘step aside while women assume roles in leadership’ and ‘listen more, taking direction from the women around them...’

this recommendation to adopt some very contrived and mechanical behaviour [white-washing over the top of any understanding of the animative sourcing] not only doesn't consider the fact that we have these two different ways of understanding dynamics, but obscures that avenue of inquiry by suggesting that 'inappropriate militancy' is innate in males.

Which comes first, gender as animative sourcing of patriarchal behaviour, or world-view as animative sourcing of patriarchal behaviour? if one confuses the scientific/rational view of dynamics for reality, then one's behaviour is certainly going to be controlling and patriarchal, whereas if one acknowledges the ‘web-of-relations’ nature of our living space, the patriarchy will not develop, as it did not in the amerindian/aboriginal culture.

cutback is on target with his classification of ‘appropriate’ and ‘inappropriate’ militancy, which points to two different views of dynamics, but he ‘has it backwards’ in assuming that the source of this difference is ‘gender’. the rise of the rational/scientific view of dynamics was strong in ancient Greece and the notional superiority of men [non-relational view of the world; i.e. the view in terms of ‘things-in-themselves’ and ‘what they can individually do’] is already present in the Greek philosophy of 500 B.C., in association with ‘scientific thinking’;

“Biblical exegesis of female inferiority was supported by a science developed by the Greeks, first by Aristotle, then perfected by Galen and confirmed over and over again until the 17th century.” ---Vivian Fox Historical Perspectives on Violence Against Women

In the western world of rational/scientific ideas, going back to at least 500 B.C., males became patriarchal IN THEIR HEADS and thus communities became patriarchal. In the regions not infected by Western civilized [scientific] thinking, where aboriginal communities developed, males did not become patriarchal in their heads and so their communities were generally anarchist and egalitarian.

Patriarchy does not come from physical gender, it comes from a way of thinking; i.e. the 'rational' or 'scientific' way of thinking of dynamics in the non-relational terms of ‘what things-in-themselves-do’.

Science 'got to males' by investing all 'meaning/value of life' in 'what things-in-themselves do' [physical achievement]

The relational view of Machean physics is 'non-rational' since every event, instead of being a stand-alone event that has a start and finish in time, is instead a feature within a continually transforming spatial plenum. the earthquake loses its independent event status and becomes a feature of the belching, shifting, transforming relational space of the earth which is under the tensions of the celestial dynamics it is included in [eg. by way of the gravity field which is everywhere in the universe at the same time].

Mainstream science does not, therefore, address physical reality, which is relational and non-rational, it deals with 'appearances', and 'events' such as earthquakes which APPEAR to be 'self-contained' and thus explainable as 'events in their own right', which have a local causal source, an absolute beginning and an absolute ending 'in time'.

this 'what things-in-themselves-do' scientific worldview has huge ego-inflating power which rational males do seem to be prone to. for example if we inquire into 'what causes a crop of wheat', in terms of a local, self-contained event, using the scientific model of dynamics in terms of 'what things-in-themselves do', we come up with the understanding that the farmer is the causal source of the crop of wheat. his aboriginal view of himself as a gopher burrowing around and moving seeds and basically doing some rearranging in an ongoing relational dynamic,... then shifts to the ego-inflated view that 'I really did cause that to happen', and since males can cause more to happen physically than females, he not only gets an artificially inflated ego, he gets a superiority [to females] complex.

I think the whole patriarchy theory needs a massive redo as far as analysis goes, feminism doesn't get it right because of its inherent biases, patriarchy and matriarchy in any given species phenomena are behavioral epigenetic expressions and habits as opposed to constructs by notional agents.

There are no social constructs only social expressions.

WTF thats fuckin bullshit goverenment dont come behinmd t fuckin fronyt door of private autonmus peoples inm there own private place Imean we all fuckin pay taxes and fuckin woerkin for thre fuckin capo state anb its like a fuckin prison lioke thge fduckin screws walk round with a fuckin torch sayin hhhhhhhhey you2 wot the fuck you doin ina that room, togethere you tehj same fuickin sex!11! thasa noner o teh fuckin businmess thas thre fuckin truth.,.,8balkl

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
CAPTCHA
Human?
k
Y
E
u
v
L
a
Enter the code without spaces.
Subscribe to Comments for "An anarchist response to &quot;Masculinity Is Not Revolutionary&quot;"
society