TOTW: Femicide

ni una más

During these past 2 years, Covid deaths were not the only death toll that caused alarm. Various countries are in uproar due to the increase in femicides. Some States have declared a state of emergency, while others which have not are exhorted by feminist activists to do so. Femicide is a subset of homicide, doubly vilified as a hate crime against females. A less popular alternative term is gendercide -a fatal instance of gender violence- yet this term has not made the headlines as much as Femicide, which has become a rallying cry. In some places, gender violence has come to replace the term ‘domestic violence’ in cases where a male cohabitant abuses a female, despite being a broader term also intended to cover violence targeted against the LGBTTIQ+ population.

At the same time in many countries, abortion rights once again stand precariously, while not yet attained in others, unlawful abortions still considered homicides. Thus, liberal feminists find themselves demanding both body autonomy and state intervention, sanctioned feticide and punitivity with regards to femicide. Their key allies and opponents both coming from Congress and the prosecution stand. Taking the State up on its offer of increased surveillance and intervention inside every household, hoping to find protection behind the thin blue line. Going against the grain of the demands to defund police that followed the uprisings of 2020 in U.S.A., which were a reaction to the many murders by police, various prominent victims were black men, but also women, both cis and trans.

Liberalism finds no contradiction in reforming one law and not another, extending the government’s domain in one area and not another, protecting some rights for some people and not others. But does the state protect women? Liberal feminism relies on the violence of the State to enforce its progress. Yet the State fails them when it fails to prosecute abusers, while women are imprisoned for self-defense against said abusers; when it doesn’t provide abuse victims with the necessary resources, childcare services for working mothers, and sanctioned abortions and contraceptives as part of vital health services.

In contrast, there is said to be a feminism that practices what anarchism preaches, showing the way out of this impasse. A heroic and illegalist feminism scoring high in creativity, relevance and timeliness, with a great capacity to mobilize and hold down space. Bomb-throwing feminists that attack banks and churches. Willing to match femicides, with regicides, clericides, parricides. Pitting homicide against boyfriends, attacking the couple-form itself, and infanticide against their own children. Femicide against Womanhood and the pink-washed State, attacking gender itself. Rejecting the defensive role of innocent victim and becoming the guilty aggressors on the offensive.

What are the unexpected consequences of a feminism that takes up anarchy? How are notions of (conventional and transformative) justice and fairness unsettled in the face of unrepentant and unrestrained hostilities by feminists? How does a sufficiently sophisticated radical decolonial abolitionist intersectional queered transfeminism dispense with anarchism? How does an anarchafeminism or a queered anarchism fare in comparison?

There are 14 Comments

where i live one of the measures that are trying to be implemented to counter femicides is a change in curriculum since elementary schools, akin to what's happening in USA with "critical race theory", in this case it's called "gender perspective". the problem is that, as great as the changes or additions to the curriculum may be, they will at most help a generation be more tolerant and understanding and inclusive of the whole (a)gender spectrum (it's not like they'll teach kids relationship anarchy anyways), but it won't make a dent in the current likelihood femicides.

what's at the base of these, among many things, is the toxic dynamics that take place within monogamy as a patriarchal institution and the couple-household as an economic unit many people rely on. church has a huge role in preserving that, but also the entertainment industry and all other industries that make a profit off of normative romance.

school shootings and femicides are both carried out by the same misogynist incel type, so if that could be nipped in the bud, it would be great

the relationship anarchy angle is usually under-stressed and it’s important because as gender identities become questioned and more fluid and still become integrated within conventional monogamous relationships and households, retaining the same socioeconomic dynamics and pressures and micro power plays and manipulations are endemic, the limits of gender as the sole explanatory variable become more evident. things like jealousy, control freaks, sense of ownership and entitlement over the other, income discrepancy, resentment over who works more hours, who does more chores, who’s getting less sleep, who snores more, who doesn’t behave in accordance to the other’s stated or unstated expectations, etc.

still currently and historically gender has been very weighted towards the female gender getting the shittier end of the stick, but if there’s more equality, the shittiness inherent in a certain model of domestic life as inescapable little hells hidden behind walls will become more apparent as its own thing.

“ jealousy [...] income discrepancy, resentment over who works more hours, who does more chores, who’s getting less sleep, who snores more, who doesn’t behave in accordance to the other’s stated or unstated expectations, etc.”

... are you suggesting that these relationship hobgoblins are supposed to disappear upon the abolition of gender, monogamy and marriage? That seems a bit too ideological and naive to me IMO. Anecdotally, I can tell you that many non-monogamous relationships run by trans, gender fluid and non-binary people come across many if not all of the things you listed above, such as jealousy, resentment etc. As a matter of fact, I’ve seen countless non-monog relationships fall apart as a result of jealousy caused by the scheduling/time management issues inherent to balancing multiple intimate partners. Further, how does the author of the above comment feel about raising children? Maybe that’s something you’re not interested in. Fair enough, if so. But for those of us who are, it would seem remiss to overlook that so-called “relationship anarchism” is not exactly the kind of stable familial structure you’d think one would need to run something as challenging as raising kids.

Jealousy, conflict, etc. I believe are just things we all have to learn to navigate and live with. It is what it is. The perfect ideal relationship with zero issues is a utopian fantasy. I think in life there is no getting away from problems, only choosing what variation of problems we deal with.

Thoughts?

these are moot qualms

to stress the distinction, relationship anarchy is not equal to polygamy. most polyamorous relationships are merely multiple concatenated simultaneous monogamous ones, to put it wrongly, but to make a point.

the point is to not settle for the normative baseline, and to challenge it. in the same way that an extended family, aunts and grandmothers and cousins, can raise a kid, a group of friends with no blood relation could do so as well. orphans exist and foster homes as well, regardless of a context of overbearing amatonormativity. your concern for the wellbeing of children in non-traditional households seems very conservative.

the argument is that society funnels people into Romance (modeled after a particular conception heteronormative monogamous relationships) as the household (re)productive unit maker. the (neo)malthusian couple as the fulcrum of biopolitics on populations. each household a little patriarchal domain micro-state that self-regulates labor and gendered roles.

by disrupting, troubling and re-organizing the conception and rationale of householding, what is sought is the unsettling of society’s oppressive foundations.

instead of nuclear families that go to work to pay a mortgage and raise kids -which compose society-, groups of friends who conspire to decompose society. the organization principle is no longer reproducing and sustaining the activities and roles that perpetuate this society, but those that will destroy it.

therefore, leave your spouse and kids to fend for themselves if they want to perpetuate the current set of relations that cannot be described as anything else but abusive.

the only utopia here is the fairy tale of Romance and a happily ever after. the harsh reality is romance kills, enslaves; it’s merely domesticated, gendered and civilized lust. society is hell, time for a breakup

read these for starters

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/sandra-jeppesen-queering-heterose...

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/susan-song-polyamory-and-queer-an...

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/clemence-x-clementine-against-the...

i don’t think reading grad sociology theory or bombing banks is going to help women get out of abusive relationships, but cops dont help either. and if they’re living in a pattern of abuse they’re not going to suddenly magically turn into an action hero all by themselves. it’s even complicated with an intervention from people who care and offer emotional support.

bombing banks and state helps if they’re funding the aggressors, like in the case of women water and forest protectors who got killed by mercenaries in latin america. and maybe reading undergrad level relevant social work or psychology theory would be of more help than reading sociology, or even about anarchism or feminism in these cases

the problem about the issue of femicides is that it's framed in a similar manner to other social issues, when it's a bit different. for example, if we compare it to environmentalism, let's say Extinction Rebellion does a big demo and raises some awareness, maybe someone notices it and decides to adopt a lifestyle that generates less waste, maybe to reuse or recycle, to walk and bike instead of use a car, or even to sabotage some logging company or pipeline. but with regards to femicides, if you're already not killing women, and not in any likelihood to do so, not being in an abusive relationship or any urges to become a serial killer, what else is there for the general public to do? the raising awareness, all the campaigns, the pussy hats and ovary puppets and tired genital jingoist slogans, even property destruction in no way affect the people in abusive relationships. maybe the squats that are linked, if they become safe havens for people to escape abusive households and relationships can have a direct effect.

Ah coMmuNizATiOn! Nothing more than a different shade of lipstick for the authoritarian pig pyramid scheme for the babbling baloney of blowhards getting people to do shit for the clique.

Fuck off, communizt! This is an anarchist jurisdiction!

if there's any group that is unsurpassed in the number and cruelty of aggressions against women, it's cops. whether in the line of duty or in their own personal relationships. same with racist aggression and murders. i think the fact that being against the institution of police is not a given within anti-racist and feminist circles, is a good case for anarchism having something to contribute in these fronts

that’s not the only sad way this topic plays into doubling-down into its causes. like when churches do marriage counseling, and hammer on on the importance of family, keeping relationships together when they shoulda split or never been together in the first place.

the questions at the end are hard to answer, but i'll have a go at them knowing i'll fall short. i can tell there is a tension between the proliferation of feminist discourse in academia, its partial institutional embrace and mainstream acceptance and the rebellious aspect of a feminist counterculture. the partial embrace of feminism by institutions makes it seem viable to appeal to them for demands and concessions. direct attack at these institutions may seem to endanger ongoing negotiations or progress already made. the ease with which rhetoric legitimized by academia can be resorted to in case of appealing to institutions and a mainstream liberal public is a convenience that would make people opt for that instead of anarchist rhetoric which would inevitably elicit a strong negative reaction from most. meanwhile, street tactics that have been at times mainly associated with anarchists, have generalized to the whole political spectrum. people from all sides and agitated by different causes are willing to partake in blocs, vandalism, occupation of symbolic spaces, etc. but becoming vandals, street hooligans, insurgents, petty criminals or whatever goes against some of the rhetoric of most political inclinations except anarchism. then you have some dissonance of certain groups appealing to law, decency, order, civility etc, civilization or mainstream values while still deciding to partake in rowdy actions that tarnish their good standing and innocence before the authority they are appealing to. it seems all withered political tendencies have reinvigorated themselves with the freedom allowed by anarchic practices.

the only problem i can think of anarchafeminism or queer feminism is when it seems to be a hasty retrofitting of the most boring and mildest forms of anarchism, with the latest of feminist academic jargon, instead of a development and incorporation of all the feminist anarchist and queer anarchist writing that has existed for ages. so it becomes a quest to be up to date with the latest academic buzzwords in order to gain a sense of competence and merit some form of intellectual authority from which to speak and make claims.

Add new comment