<table><tr><td>[A response to a debate that took place tonight, at Sylvia Federici's talk, at the holdout in Oakland]
‘Not-men’ is a half-assed idea. It takes a problem, and it makes a problem out of it. Let me explain. As was said tonight, this category treads dangerous water, insofar as it excludes bodies from its hallowed ground. For example, transmen. But this categorical way of thinking not only excludes bodies.</td><td><img title="What do you think about slave morality?" src="http://anarchistnews.org/files/pictures/2012/scaredbros1.jpg"></td></tr>...
It reduces a complex field of interactions to the immoral activity of a certain class of people, namely men—those intimately tied to us, and those we have yet to encounter, those we merely pass on the street. We know nothing about these men on the street, except that we fear them, a fear which keeps us and everyone else fixed in their place—statically tied to the categories imposed on us by Christianity, or whatever. But hey, you seem to like the pious, the notion of redemption, of the redeemed. “If you follow the ten commandments of materialist feminism, then you can cross over into the sea of not-men, synonymous with good men. If not, then you become bad men, immoral, and you must be beat up for being perpetrators or like, um, not soft spoken.” This is a really easy way to be in the world, making distinctions that match the very ones that have already been imposed on us. To speak of a distinction of oppression, that some are more oppressed than others, or that different ways of being oppressed must be catalogued, given their proper taxonomical due, is just to participate in society’s favorite game—making ever more fine-grained distinctions between man and man, between man and animal nature. The goal here is society’s own—to shuffle points of power, to make sure power stays around, by sharing it out. Black presidents, women CEOs, queers on TV. You can be whatever you want to be. Go fuck yourselves.
Capitalism is a machine for making money by separating people from one and another.
There is a dire need for women and queers to come together to talk about gender. But talking about gender cannot remain the property of those who are labeled women and queers. “We have the experiences that allow us to talk about these things. They don’t.” Silence among men and censorship of them upholds an environment of uncomfortable misunderstandings. But whoever said that homogenizing our view of oppression, of shouting its name with one voice, will lead to its abolition? By not letting men speak openly about their experiences, you set us back forty years. A lot has changed since the heyday of the women’s movement. Today, some women are our enemies, and not all men are our enemies. Today, we don’t give a fuck about what you were born with. Saying you have taken account of all that—by changing the terminology while doing exactly the same things—is not enough. What you are interested in is boring single issue activism, and that is why we hate you. You say patriarchy is sort of like a distinction between subject-and-object, that we don’t quite know what it is yet. Actually, we know what it is. As the OG materialist feminist, Christine Delphy, points out, it is a “system of subordination of women to men in contemporary industrial societies”, having an economic base, which is “the domestic mode of production”.
Does that even make sense any more? In any case, to make judgements about which of our friends are responsible for this tired system erases its systemic character, thus ensuring its endless reproduction. What we learned tonight, is simply this. What you want is to be more comfortable while the world burns.