subscribe or follow us:                    

Gender Anarchy And White Penis Power

29 comments

Posted by PunkJohnnyCash on Aug 27, 2010 in Anarchism, feminism, Racism, Social Issues | 29 comments

The ruling class will always have a strong impact on society, as long as a ruling class exists. The ruling class has for thousands of years been dominated by the male gender. Is it any wonder that this ruling gender has impacted society to favor themselves? In the United States we see ‘ forefathers’ who founded the very structure of the government and our system. Not only did they all have dicks, but they also had slaves. We see the very foundation of the United States built on the concept of the superiority of the white penis. This people group, those born with white penises, dominated the formation of society. The foundation of all that would come after would be built on the foundation of those white penises.

Culture that is formed and altered by the direction of one people group will naturally grow to favor that people group.  This is why ‘it’s a man’s world’. This is why the system seems to favor a white male over a black male.

Society is often structured to perpetuate ownership of the woman. The very institute of marriage is one that comes from the purchasing of another human being to be used for the mans desires. We still often partake in the practice of the father giving ownership of the woman to the husband in the marriage ceremony. The woman is then often expected to give up the name of her father for her new owner, her husband.

As an anarchist I believe in no rulers, now power over one another. Society has this present often without the need of the government. This is seen in patriarchal systems of many churches in the united states. The woman is not worthy to teach the male. Male supremacy rules supreme in many circles.

Media often reduces the woman to an object of sexual desire and not much else. Women are still seen as the bearer of children and the home maker. Little girls are socialized at a young age to look pretty for the men so they can fulfill the life long dream of finding that husband, having that wedding and making those babies. Isn’t that a wonderful goal as a human being? You get to be the one the white man puts his white penis into. What an honor!

What use it abolishing the macro rule if the micro rule maintains? I am not claiming anarchy will naturally abolish the micro rule of gender or race, but I am claiming that it is not sufficient to look only at the macro tyranny and rule and to turn our heads to micro oppression.

Who is the ‘Head of the Household’? If we end the state and the male gender remains dominant over more than 51% of the population that is female then we still have a tyranny of the minority over the majority.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Comments

Powered by Facebook Comments

  • Anonymous

    See, my problem with this kind of talk is that it inherently abuses those of us who happen to be white and happen to have penises and are in no (and desire no) position of authority, whether over other whitely penised folks or otherwise. There is probably a great deal of truth to the assertion that whites with penises tend to be in charge because whites with penises are already in charge, but we are arguing for a society where nobody is in charge. I did not ask to be born with white skin or a penis, not that I’d take it back if I could choose, but the fact that I share certain genetics with certain people who are evil does not make me like them in any way.Anarchy does not mean “without big white penis states” – it means “without ruler”. If there is a ruler in the household, if there is ownership – either of women, or men, wives or tax livestock or wage slaves or debt slaves – there is still ownership of one person by another, and there is still rule, and that is not what an anarchist advocates for. I doubt you’ll find many who are inconsistent on that position anyway.

  • justenrobertson

    See, my problem with this kind of talk is that it inherently abuses those of us who happen to be white and happen to have penises and are in no (and desire no) position of authority, whether over other whitely penised folks or otherwise. There is probably a great deal of truth to the assertion that whites with penises tend to be in charge because whites with penises are already in charge, but we are arguing for a society where nobody is in charge. I did not ask to be born with white skin or a penis, not that I'd take it back if I could choose, but the fact that I share certain genetics with certain people who are evil does not make me like them in any way.

    Anarchy does not mean “without big white penis states” – it means “without ruler”. If there is a ruler in the household, if there is ownership – either of women, or men, wives or tax livestock or wage slaves or debt slaves – there is still ownership of one person by another, and there is still rule, and that is not what an anarchist advocates for. I doubt you'll find many who are inconsistent on that position anyway.

  • Anonymous

    Wow, people read this and immediately launch into a classism debate. Oppression can and often does intersect. One can have white privilege and male privilege, but also lack class privilege. One can have class privilege, but lack race and gender privilege. The one lacking all 3 (poor females of color) is on the bottom rung.

    A poor white male has power over a poor woman of color because white men place more value on the words of a white man over a female, especially one of color. That white male cop taking your statement will lean towards believing you, a fellow white male. That white male judge? Same thing. That white male politician? Again, you are more valuable in their eyes. And this country is run by a majority of white men. If you think that’s not power, then I invite you to trade.

    That white man working at Starbucks doesn’t have to worry that his co workers think he got the job because he’s black or a slut. That white man working at Starbucks has a better chance of having his boss also be a white man.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1341640832 Jad Davis

      There’s a tendency, I think, to personalize this sort of general analysis and to become immediately defensive. What’s important is not, necessarily, to accept “blame” for the actions of one’s gender or race, but rather to empathize with the oppressed and express solidarity with their struggle against people of the same gender and/or race as oneself. I doubt any reasonable person blames white male anarchists for the institutional oppression of women, but the defensive reaction tends to distract one from examining his contribution, even on the personal level, to sustaining the status quo. The defensive reaction itself often serves, perhaps only mildly so, this purpose.

      • Anonymous

        Maybe, though I think the tendency is closer to conflating class oppression with racial oppression or gender oppression. A poor man can still “bond” with a rich man over their hatred of women and minorities. Thus, their maleness and race are their power.

        A black man and a white man can have hatred of women in common. Thus, their maleness is their power.

        It’s also typical to equate critisism with blame. A man is given male privilege and benefits from it, regardless of if he wants to or not. Pointing that out doesn’t mean all men want it and are to blame.

        I don’t blame white male anarchists for the institutional oppression of women. I am, however, aware they benefit from it.

    • http://www.gonzotimes.com/ PunkJohnnyCash

      I wrote a recent article on racism in law etc… Pointing to disparity between races in prison and in the justice system. I got a similar action. It’s a class issue race isn’t an issue. Well, somehow people can’t conceive that race, gender and class could all be issues as well as others that are not mentioned. The world is either or, black or white apparently. Issues can’t be that complex…

      • Anonymous

        I also think it’s interesting that the very same people who think it’s always a class issue do NOT view it that way when there’s a female judge or a POC judge. Then they have an agenda. Only white male judges can be objective. Women judges will be biased for women. Black judges will favor black people. But suggest that happens with white law enforcement, and white judges and suddenly everyone becomes color blind.

        Like Magic!

        You simply cannot divorce the fact that race and class are intertwined. Most of the impoverished in this country are POC.

        Some people refuse to see race, which doesn’t actually contribute to ending racial issues. And when you don’t see a problem in the system, it doesn’t mean you’re outside of that system or above it. It simply means that system works for you.

        • http://www.gonzotimes.com/ PunkJohnnyCash

          Well said.

          I think I may commit some copyright infringement on some of that…

          “when there’s a female judge or a POC judge. Then they have an agenda. Only white male judges can be objective. Women judges will be biased for women. Black judges will favor black people. But suggest that happens with white law enforcement, and white judges and suddenly everyone becomes color blind.”

          That may have been one of the greatest responses I have heard in a long time….

        • http://www.gonzotimes.com/ PunkJohnnyCash

          Well said.

          I think I may commit some copyright infringement on some of that…

          “when there’s a female judge or a POC judge. Then they have an agenda. Only white male judges can be objective. Women judges will be biased for women. Black judges will favor black people. But suggest that happens with white law enforcement, and white judges and suddenly everyone becomes color blind.”

          That may have been one of the greatest responses I have heard in a long time….

          • Anonymous

            I roll at the speed of awesome LOL

            I suspect that “activist Judge” is code for ” female” or ” brown”. So far I’ve yet to see otherwise.

        • http://www.drunkenatheist.com Vicki Moore

          “I also think it’s interesting that the very same people who think it’s always a class issue do NOT view it that way when there’s a female judge or a POC judge. Then they have an agenda. Only white male judges can be objective. Women judges will be biased for women. Black judges will favor black people. But suggest that happens with white law enforcement, and white judges and suddenly everyone becomes color blind.”

          That shit killed with Sotomayor’s nomination. I’m not a fan of Sotomayor’s (for a lot of reasons), but one thing I like about her is the infamous quote about how being Latina molded many of her opinions. Conservatives and many libertarians flipped their shit, while my boyfriend and I were like, “oh, right, I forgot. White male judges are impartial and everyone else is playing ‘identity politics.’ /eyeroll”

  • http://twitter.com/lewiscollard Lewis Collard

    >Little girls are socialized at a young age to look pretty for the men so they can fulfill the life long dream of finding that husband, having that wedding and making those babies.

    Right, and then they form an orderly line for the men; meanwhile the men, dressed in nothing but soiled, ripped loincloth (because we all know that men never need to do anything to make themselves attractive to the opposite sex) make guttural noises and club their chosen woman over the head and drag her back to his cave. That’s exactly how it happens, kids.

    I’m not sure if I find that view less degrading to women than old-fashioned sexism. At least the latter merely said that women were not fit to exercise their agency, rather than that they are actually incapable of it.

    • Anonymous

      OOOH, so it’s men who are starving themselves to death, ripping all the hair from their bodies and spending millions on breast implants! I wondered who was doing all that. And that’s exactly like dressing in clean clothes and exercising manners. Yup. Similar in every way. I can’t walk down the sidewalk and spit without hitting a sign that says No Fat Dudes.

      When you uphold the status quo, are you always certain it stems from your own agency? That’s a question that has validity no matter who it’s being applied to. Do you practice displays of femininity because you chose to or because it’s so normalized it’s hard to even be aware of it? Same goes with masculinity. And religion. And government. Ignoring that people are taught what’s “normal” in their culture is ignoring the entire context and backdrop that agency is exercised in.

      • http://twitter.com/lewiscollard Lewis Collard

        >OOOH, so it’s men who are starving themselves to death, ripping all the hair from their bodies and spending millions on breast implants!

        You’re right, they’re not, and in case it’s not clear I don’t have any interest in defending that. My point was not that we should deny the existence of undesirable social pressures on women, but rather that PJC went way too far in the other direction. Not only are marriage and child-bearing inherently oppressive (p.s. they’re not), but also any attempt by women to look good for men is an act of submission to the Patriarchy, which can only be explained by brain damage caused by repeated bludgeoning by a big, floppy White Penis. As much as I respect PJC, that dog don’t hunt.

        • Anonymous

          When you’re living in a Patriarchy,almost everything is an act of submission. There’s not much wiggle room, and straying from it is punished pretty swiftly.

          For humans to pro-create, the “look good” requirement is last on the list. Not first. The first is ” fertile”.

          • http://www.gonzotimes.com/ PunkJohnnyCash

            fertility and a pressure to bear children is huge. This is something I am just now learning about. It’s something I was blind to until the last few months. Look at language. Childless, barren, her womb is dry. Not much language exists for the liberated state of a woman who does not bear children…

          • Anonymous

            I feel I should clarify alittle (I was cooking catfish during the last post and it was almost done LOL)

            When I shave my legs in an attempt to prettify myself for a man, I’m reinforcing the status quo and making it more difficult for women who choose not to shave their legs. Regardless of my intentions, my making myself attractive will be used as a tool of oppression against women. I’m from Texas, so I feel uncomfortable walking out of the house without make-up. But I’m aware, nevertheless, that my conforming to feminine standards is going to be used. Even on days I want to dress up and feel pretty, I’m under the influence of societal standards of pretty. Even if I am acting with total agency, that agency is still suspect to the culture I am in. It’s difficult to exercise my own agency, because pretty has been defined already.

          • http://www.facebook.com/nphyx Justen Ⓐ Robertson

            In point of fact you’re correct, I guess what I am wondering is what exactly, if anything, anybody is expected to do about it. Like, if there are women who don’t want to shave their legs, should other women who *do* like shaving their legs go around unshaven for their sake, to avoid ‘reinforcing the status quo’? Wouldn’t it be better if you just did what you want, and didn’t concern yourself too terribly much with what the social standard is supposed to be?

            My vision of liberty is not one in which everyone goes around turning over rocks, looking for the bigotry bogeyman, all the time. Or goes around walking on eggshells, concerned about the deep societal repercussions of every choice. My vision is one in which those of us who are liberated stop concerning ourselves with what the upright apes around us get themselves up to, and start living as examples of what we think people should be. We can’t fix those fuckers, and moral condemnation and expressions of outrage never changed a mind in the history of all humanity until they were matched with a sharp stick, a whip or a gun. We also can’t undo what’s been done; nothing any of us as individuals or collectively could do over our entire lifetimes will fix centuries of repression, bigotry and genocide. Those lives will never be brought back, the victims will never be made whole, and the perpetrators will never be brought to justice. Beating eachother up about it now is not gonna help.

            So I guess what I’m asking is, other than acknowledging the problem, what do you want anybody to do about it?

        • http://www.gonzotimes.com/ PunkJohnnyCash

          I did not mean to offend that much. I am however doing some reading on gender socialization etc…

          Alice Eagly has some interesting stuff. I would suggest this article: http://www.oneonta.edu/faculty/farberas/arth/arth200/gender.html

          I’ll try to tone it down a bit. If it is any consolation I have a white floppy penis also….

          I need to work more on that non-violent communication I recently posted: http://www.gonzotimes.com/2011/03/marshall-rosenberg-on-non-violent-communication/

  • http://www.drunkenatheist.com Vicki Moore

    Honestly, I don’t fucking understand why this is considered so controversial. My boyfriend still called himself a big-L Libertarian when we first got together. I have NEVER had to argue these points with him. He already fucking knew it! Part of the reason we even segued from a friends with benefits arrangement to a full-fledged, official boyfriend-girlfriend relationship is because he saw this shit.

    Basically, he saw my anti-patriarchy arguments mirrored in his own anti-state arguments.

    I bounce things off of him on a regular basis, in part because I know my biases quite well and have been trying to not fly off the handle when I see them confirmed. We have had radically different experiences, due in part to our life circumstances; I grew up white, working/lower-middle class/working poor, queer, and female compared to him growing up Jewish (in a Jewish enclave), upper-middle class, straight and male. I know that sometimes I will have a perspective that was molded by those life experiences (and vice versa). I want to make sure that my background in women’s studies isn’t coloring my opinion too much.

    You know what happens? We virtually always come to the same conclusions, and most of the time, our arguments are very similar (if not the exact same thing). When I saw this post, I asked him if he knew that the system was stacked against African-Americans before he started his criminal justice degree. I received a “yes” with a “fucking duh” type of inflection. I then asked him if he thought that saying this means his white ass is being oppressed. I received a “no” with the same “fucking duh” type of inflection. Once we were done ranting to one another, I asked him if he knew the origins of marriage, to which he responded “it was all about family contracts.” Again, with this “fucking duh” tone.

    He gets it, and he’s fitting into many of the same demographics that your critics do. A few weeks or so ago, I quipped that I have way more respect for men than masculists do because I don’t accept the argument that men act in a certain way because that’s the way it is. I know middle class white men who understand these issues, understand why this shit is fucked up, and understand not only that the odds are stacked in their favor, but that this is WRONG. These are not men with strong left-wing backgrounds. They’re men who can look at these issues, think critically about them, and work past any lingering defensiveness they may have.

    It’s uncomfortable having to check your privilege. I get that. Again, I do fit into at least one majority group (white). More than once, I’ve said some clueless cracker ass cracker shit and been called on it. It’s not comfortable or fun, and yeah, I can see how it puts people on the defensive. The thing is, people have to more willing to work past the defensive bullshit, look at the actual problems, research them, think critically about them, etc.

    Another thing that gets me with the whole defensiveness aspect is this: even if I’m sitting here, labeling you a misogynist (or racist or homophobe or classist or ableist or whatever-ist), if you know you’re right, why do you care? I am just some opinionated internet asshole. My words shouldn’t piss anyone off to the extent that they need to get so damn wound up for days on end. They’re just words and frankly, I’m no one special. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a boost to my ego to see people so pissed off about anything I could say, but I just don’t get why it matters so much. If you want to call me a ZOMG! FEMINAZI! or a misandrist, whatever. I’ll roll my eyes at the accusation, possibly respond with a sarcasm-laden comment and snark to my boyfriend for a half hour. It really doesn’t impact my daily life and I honestly don’t understand the point in allowing some internet jackass having that level of control over me. If you want to make wild, baseless accusations about me, go on with your bad self. It’s not going to change my point of view and I’m really not going to let it impact my life, so why let my words impact your life so damn much?

    (Obviously, most of the time I used “you,” I was speaking in the general sense, not “you” as in “you, PJC.”)

  • http://twitter.com/TheSmokingArgus TheSmokingArgus

    I must take issue with the insinuation that all members of the Continental Congress had or owned slaves, this is flat out false.

    Many in attendance were abolitionists, forever abhorred the institution of slavery, or railed publicly and repeatedly about its evils.

    The lesson for me was not the group’s imperfection, but that despite being far apart on areas of philosophy, i.e slavery, they nevertheless were able to work together to beat back a greater oppression.

    This seems to me to be a lesson The Liberty Movement could learn from, instead of all the endless philosophical purity litmus tests encompassing the varying degrees of governance, whilst the Central Authority erodes more of our liberty and pockets larger and larger amounts of our wealth.

    • Anonymous

      Yet…those slave abhorring Founders were only able to BE Founders because they and those before them murdered the shit out of Native Americans. Which, IMHO, was a greater oppression than they were on the receiving end of with the British.

      Half of my family still lives on a reservation (aka concentration camps) and they were there, starving when suddenly some white folks realized enslaving Black folks was Bad. Somehow that never translated to ” maybe we shouldn’t be killing these people”. Nope. Later on they recruited freed Black men to aid them in the killing of Indians.

      • Anonymous

        If you knew any history at all you would know the Indians fought on the side of the Confederacy. Then when they lost the Union slaughtered them all. Is this “concentration camp” you speak of the same that every tribal member receives $4,000 a month from the casinos?

        • Anonymous

          There are over 500 different Indian cultures today. There were more during the Civil War era, so which one’s are you talking about? THE Indians? Which Nation would that be?

          MY Nation, for instance, didn’t. In fact, we were anti slavery prior to the colonizers ever showing up. And we were hunted down because of it.

          No, the majority of reservations have no plumbing, have dirt floors and have been designated 3rd world conditions.

          But thanks for playing.

      • http://twitter.com/TheSmokingArgus TheSmokingArgus

        Yes it is true the American Indian was and are the guinea pigs for all the evils perpetrated by the self-ascribed elite class.

        Yes, it is sad that we see NO American Indians in Congress, that they had their culture utterly whitewashed via the testing of the ORIGINAL government schools, that in shackling them with the invisible slavery of welfarism.

        Moreover, the fact remains, We the People, allowed/allow these evils to go uncontested, thereby granting our “consent” to the devastation.

        However, please do not paint with such a broad brush painting all the Founding Generation as anti-Indian butchers, as it was yet again more often than not the radical followers of religion who championed the wholesale slaughter and not the white race.

        Dr. Franklin was as outspoken on the treatment of American Indians as he was on the institution of slavery, writing:

        “If an Indian injures me, does it follow that I may revenge that Injury on all Indians? It is well known that Indians are of different Tribes, Nations and Languages, as well as the White People. In Europe, if the French, who are White People, should injure the Dutch, are they to revenge it on the English, because they too are White People? The only Crime of these poor Wretches seems to have been, that they had a reddish brown Skin, and black Hair; and some People of that Sort, it seems, had murdered some of our Relations. If it be right to kill Men for such a Reason, then, should any Man, with a freckled Face and red Hair, kill a Wife or Child of mine, it would be right for me to revenge it, by killing all the freckled red-haired Men, Women and Children, I could afterwards any where meet with.

        “But it seems these People think they have a better Justification; nothing less than the Word of God.

        Further, Dr. Franklin’s influence and appreciation of American Indian culture and governance, most specifically of the Iroquois, and their Confederation laid much of the foundation of the Articles and Constitution.

        Playing the race card and painting with a broiad brush whereby one condems entire segments of humanity whether they be white, black, or red is a fool’s errand.

        The simple fact of the matter is that there is a SMALL minority who view themselves as superior and the rest of humanity as mere chattle.

        That WE have allowed them to lay waste to our Liberty cannot be laid at the feet of any one ethnicity, race, gender, or any other people-group, but is a human liability.

        • Anonymous

          1) there’s no such thing as the race card. Racism isn’t a game for minorities.

          2)It doesn’t matter if some founders felt bad for Indians, they still gained via genocide. You can’t erase that with feeling bad about it

          3)if someone murdered your family and sold me your house, how much would you care if I said ” Well, that’s horrible and shouldn’t have been done” while my ass was sitting in your kitchen?

  • Anonymous

    “Media often reduces the woman to an object of sexual desire and not much else.”

    Translation: women reduces themselves to an object of sexual desire and not much else.

    “Women are still seen as the bearer of children and the home maker.”

    Are you saying that they are not?

    “Little girls are socialized at a young age to look pretty for the men so they can fulfill the life long dream of finding that husband, having that wedding and making those babies.”

    The wedding is for the woman’s benefit. Men don’t give a shit about the wedding. Why wouldn’t a girl wan to get married: she becomes legally entitled to half a man’s assets for no work at all. Why not get married several times and earn more then what very rich men are worth? Girls today are not socialized to get married anymore, they are socialized to enter the work force.

    “Isn’t that a wonderful goal as a human being?”

    Yawn. A high sexual market value has always been a goal of human beings since the beginning of time.

    “You get to be the one the white man puts his white penis into. What an honor!”

    To bed any man of higher status then themselves is an honor. To bed men lower then themselves is not in the biological conditioning package of the female psyche in either the human or the animal world.

  • Anonymous

    Oh good. Pop evo psych crap!

    • Anonymous