Add new comment

Why did they go to Rojava in order to be part of a feminist movement/commune instead of staying in their respective countries and establishing those relationships with the female spaces and feminist communes or projects where they lived? Were these people interviewed so stubbornly stereotypicaly male, too bent on seeing military combat, or was integrating and being accepted into Rojava comparatively easier than integrating and being accepted into a local feminist group or project?

This is not to question whether they made "the right choice" each was free to do as they pleased. This is also not to paint any squat in a negative light. This is not an accusation, but a prompt to examine some dynamics.

For example, what would happen if they had been around to defend this instead "Feminist Struggles/Housing Struggles/News: Liebig 34 – summary of recent eviction and it’s resistance" [ or any of the other squats that have recently gotten evicted.

I pick this article, about that squat, and posted on that site, because there we the the overlap of communalist (bookchinist), feminist (of different varieties) overlapping in spaces and projects with anarchists, both in the concept and project sense as well as the literal sense of these people coexisting in same place (squat, rojava, or that website).

Both in Rojava and in that squat we can see different conceptions of what a space/organization/notion of female autonomy looks like, that others have labeled as female only spaces. The way that the Rojava organigram scheme is set up, as mentioned in the article, tries to incorporate the female autonomy group, through representation, into larger group which includes males. Those interviewed here expressed their difficulties and room for improvement with regarding trans and non-binary and agender people etc. On the other hand there are many queer and female (or simply every but cis-males, like mentioned in Liebig34 article) centered projects outside of Rojava that do not, and do not need to, concern themselves with their relation or collaboration with males, but manage to be inclusive to trans and non-binary people.

It's difficult for me to express my unease (note, unease, not a strong word) with this treatment of both gender and politics as a let's say male let's say anarchist, because my first inclination was, and to a tempered degree still is, to be sympathetic and even enthusiastic to these projects. In thinking I might have affinity, I would like to participate, were it not for the fact that "male" and anarchist, to the degree that communalist politics are just democratic schemes of representative government. In developing further critiques of gender, and politics, one can find many more dynamics and aspirations to critique and to wish them well from a distance.

My own anecdotal evidence and someone else close, as well as anecdotes online which could be fake since we can't know, is that people can be rejected from spaces for many different reasons. Freedom of association, no problem there. But this decrying of toxic masculinity, of gun culture, all problems stemming from the male and patriarchy, while mostly spot-on, falls short. I think excluding males from groups that would shaped them away from these problems, while basically being funneled into the worst groups by other factors will make these problems worse.

So basically gun guys go to Rojava to find out war hinders the revolution, and that the important "not sexy" (their words) work of the revolution is done in the moments of calm, by women in their autonomous groups. So do all gun guys, or manly males, have to go to Rojava so that they can learn this valuable lesson? Is this something they had already learned before going there? With this I have not even begun to explore the limits of Rojava model, or many feminist models with regards to dealing with male as a problem. Let's look at quotes: