Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

shit MANarchists say

Actually, it was Homepride, and I'm being a privileged cow moaning about it because it was nice of someone else to make me some food.

But my point about bad identity politics being like jar pasta sauce still stands.

Also it's made round my mouth itch :( That could have been the sweets though.

/derail
 
Well, there's a lot of women on the thread so I thought I would provide a simple analogy of the contents using a medium they would understand.
 
Thanks. I was considering asking for some sort of explanation using kittens earlier, but I was afraid I'd be laughed and and told to go away :(
 
meat version: melt butter, cook onion, garlic, lardons, add mince (any mince meat - ive had horse, veal and donkey in italy), brown. add 1/2 can italian toms or passata, squirt of puree, S&P. add fresh cooked pasta after 40 mins and mix. it shd coat the pasta not drown it like dolmio so you can still taste it.
veggie version: butter, onion, garlic, 2 or 3 diff mushroom types, toms, puree, S&P. 10 mins, add cooked pasta. always take pasta to sauce, never drown it, top with plenty of parmesan. use italian pasta it tastes better. butter is used in north of italy and gives it the distinct flavour, olive oil is used the further south you go. you're welcome!
 
Had no idea what this term was until I read this thread and looked it up.

Manarchists are the non-hot variety of anarchist. Manarchists are macho "anarchists" who talk too much at meetings, adhere to the cult of the great thinkers (drop Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon, Chomsky, etc. . . all the time), negate others' experiences, take up space, exert their privileges to their fullest, and generally perpetuate heteropatriarchal bullshit

Manarchists flourish at house shows, where they might drunkenly talk at you about the working class, without allowing any of the transfolk and women present to speak. They are also found at meetings where they have all the ideas but none of the time or energy to do the work. They can sometimes be identified by the PBR cans that grow in their hands and the famous now-defunct leftist organization and/or crust band their outer coverings reference.
Click to expand...

Jesus fucking wept. :facepalm:

For anyone more familiar with this 'scene', is the disregard shown here for left-wing figures like Kropotkin, Bakunin et al. significant at all? Who are the significant thinkers for these sorts of "anti-macho" 'anarchists'?
 
Ole said:
Jesus fucking wept. :facepalm:

For anyone more familiar with this 'scene', is the disregard shown here for left-wing figures like Kropotkin, Bakunin et al. significant at all? Who are the significant thinkers for these sorts of "anti-macho" 'anarchists'?
Click to expand...

At a rough guess, maybe Emma Goldman is in there somewhere?
 
also, as it clearly refers to american lifestylists, i think the scenes are pretty different.

i suspect that the author means that those they perceive as manarchists have only read the basics, the big names, so that they can drop these names, rather than as part of a wider reading and understanding of critical theory. like students talking loudly about goethe on the bus so that everyone knows they've read something big and clever. all the anarchofeminists i have known would definitely respect such names as a base for theory but not the be-all and end-all. whether that is the same in the US i haven't a clue.
 
bluestreak said:
i suspect that the author means that those they perceive as manarchists have only read the basics, the big names, so that they can drop these names, rather than as part of a wider reading and understanding of critical theory.
Click to expand...

What a remarkably charitable soul you are. I mean, there's no obvious evidence to support such an interpretation, but you've gone above and beyond the call of duty to find an excuse.
 
To the persons asking about kyriarchy, I think it's a pretentious way of saying oppression or oppressive power, just like manarchism means sexism.

The kind of people who use it are very young adults (I'm not linking because of this)


kyriarchy.jpg
who ask whether a clenched fist symbol, when used by white races of the world, is racist:
sV2fR.jpg
 
The raised-fist salute existed before the black power movement, so an argument could be made that Black Power appropriated it for themselves. :)
 
This is where I first came across it: http://www.thefword.org.uk/blog/2008/04/kyriarchy_not_p

When people talk about patriarchy and then it divulges into a complex conversation about the shifting circles of privilege, power, and domination -- they're talking about kyriarchy. When you talk about power assertion of a White woman over a Brown man, that's kyriarchy. When you talk about a Black man dominating a Brown womyn, that's kyriarchy. It's about the human tendency for everyone trying to take the role of lord/master within a pyramid. At it best heights, studying kyriarchy displays that it's more than just rich, white Christian men at the tip top and, personally, they're not the ones I find most dangerous. There's a helluva lot more people a few levels down the pyramid who are more interested in keeping their place in the structure than to turning the pyramid upside down.
Who's at the bottom of the pyramid? Who do you think are at the bottom of the pyramid who are less likely to scheme and spend extravagant resources to further perpetuate oppression? I think of poor children with no roads out of hell, the mentally ill who are never "credible," un-gendered or non-gender identified people, farm workers, modern day slaves...But, the pyramid stratifies itself from top to bottom. And before you start making a checklist of who is at the top and bottom - here's my advice: don't bother. The pyramid shifts with context. The point is not to rank. The point is to learn.
Click to expand...
 
Regardless of anything else, just for its realisation that power doesn't only rest with 'rich which Christian men at the top' makes it interesting. Wade into any typical discussion elsewhere on the internet and you'll hear "rich white men" thrown out in a pretty lazy way. Okay, so it's the rich white men who seem to dominate politics and business and control in the west, but that ignores a whole host of other dominations that permeate all relations and structures. And besides, Obama, Thatcher, etc. Their presence doesn't negate the preponderance of 'rich white men' but it shows that 'white man' isn't the deciding factor - it's power, influence, the ability to leverage that for control. And who can come by that power more easily than others changes depending on the social grouping/institution/geographic area/etc.

So, as far as I understand it, kyriarchy is attempting to think about that power itself, and about how different people can appropriate it depending on various conditions. It might be superfluous to have another hollow term floating around when there are already the tools to think about these things, but discussions of kyriarchy are happening amongst people who wouldn't ordinarily think in those terms. The people who would otherwise simply leap for the 'rich white man' label instead. So insofar as it exists as a concept in those places, I don't see it as a bad thing.
 
Vintage Paw said:
Regardless of anything else, just for its realisation that power doesn't only rest with makes it interesting. Wade into any typical discussion elsewhere on the internet and you'll hear "rich white men" thrown out in a pretty lazy way. Okay, so it's the rich white men who seem to dominate politics and business and control in the west, but that ignores a whole host of other dominations that permeate all relations and structures. And besides, Obama, Thatcher, etc. Their presence doesn't negate the preponderance of 'rich white men' but it shows that 'white man' isn't the deciding factor - it's power, influence, the ability to leverage that for control. And who can come by that power more easily than others changes depending on the social grouping/institution/geographic area/etc.

So, as far as I understand it, kyriarchy is attempting to think about that power itself, and about how different people can appropriate it depending on various conditions. It might be superfluous to have another hollow term floating around when there are already the tools to think about these things, but discussions of kyriarchy are happening amongst people who wouldn't ordinarily think in those terms. The people who would otherwise simply leap for the 'rich white man' label instead. So insofar as it exists as a concept in those places, I don't see it as a bad thing.
Click to expand...

The word oppression covers the concept - those who are not 'rich which Christian men at the top' can oppress others. Shouldn't we consider any down-side to inventing streams and streams of new words? The newest one I've come across is leftsplaining, a version of mansplaining that leftists do. The more words you create, the harder it is for people who might be foreign to understand what you are saying, the more likely they give up even if they are interested, or turn off something completely.
 
To be honest people should just explain things in clear language rather than invent new words all the time that only they can understand. "Leftsplaining" 90% of the population isn't gonna know what that is. Why can't people just use english instead of this type of mental masturbation
 
Vintage Paw said:
Regardless of anything else, just for its realisation that power doesn't only rest with 'rich which Christian men at the top' makes it interesting. Wade into any typical discussion elsewhere on the internet and you'll hear "rich white men" thrown out in a pretty lazy way.
Click to expand...

As usual, though, it's a successful stereotype because it's accurate, so it's an easy one for people to spit out in an argument.

Okay, so it's the rich white men who seem to dominate politics and business and control in the west, but that ignores a whole host of other dominations that permeate all relations and structures.
Click to expand...

It ignores any Foucauldian and post-Foucaauldian notions about the nature of power/knowledge at all.

And besides, Obama, Thatcher, etc. Their presence doesn't negate the preponderance of 'rich white men' but it shows that 'white man' isn't the deciding factor - it's power, influence, the ability to leverage that for control. And who can come by that power more easily than others changes depending on the social grouping/institution/geographic area/etc.
Click to expand...

Quite. Wealth (or whiteness) aren't much use if you can't exercise influence, and access to influence is still far more of a matter of social capital than it is of how much money is in your bank account.

So, as far as I understand it, kyriarchy is attempting to think about that power itself, and about how different people can appropriate it depending on various conditions. It might be superfluous to have another hollow term floating around when there are already the tools to think about these things, but discussions of kyriarchy are happening amongst people who wouldn't ordinarily think in those terms. The people who would otherwise simply leap for the 'rich white man' label instead. So insofar as it exists as a concept in those places, I don't see it as a bad thing.
Click to expand...

I don't see it as a bad thing either, but I'm disappointed that it only looks at the exercise of power as a "top-down" phenomenon - oppressor on oppressed - rather than attempting an analysis of power as a circulating phenomenon. Power relations can be fluid, after all.
 
ViolentPanda said:
I don't see it as a bad thing either, but I'm disappointed that it only looks at the exercise of power as a "top-down" phenomenon - oppressor on oppressed - rather than attempting an analysis of power as a circulating phenomenon. Power relations can be fluid, after all.
Click to expand...

I agree. In terms of my own views on power etc., it might help to know I'm a bit of a fan of Bourdieu. That's how I generally think of social and power relations. And it gives plenty of scope to think about feminism, capitalism, racism and anything else.

Perhaps I'm too optimistic. But as I've said earlier in the thread, I still think that if you have someone in front of you who thinks in terms of kyriarchy, it would be possible to use that as a foundation to get them to think more critically about those power relations, since they're already starting to think a bit more beyond traditional conceptions of 'man = powerful; white = powerful; straight = powerful' - even if they haven't gone the whole hog yet.
 
frogwoman said:
To be honest people should just explain things in clear language rather than invent new words all the time that only they can understand. "Leftsplaining" 90% of the population isn't gonna know what that is. Why can't people just use english instead of this type of mental masturbation
Click to expand...

It also runs the risk of making you sound like a tit (especially if it originated in America).
 
frogwoman said:
To be honest people should just explain things in clear language rather than invent new words all the time that only they can understand. "Leftsplaining" 90% of the population isn't gonna know what that is. Why can't people just use english instead of this type of mental masturbation
Click to expand...

It's the idea that if you create your own terminology, you feel more in control of something. I can completely understand why groups do it, particularly when they are specifically fighting some sort of oppression. I agree with you though; there would be far more scope for people joining together and recognising common goals and realising all these fights are for the benefit of everyone, and it would be potentially less alienating to others, if there was none of this new terminology and ground-staking. But, I can still understand why it happens.
 
from a "students for justice in palestine" thing i just recieved

All About Love
Inspired by the idiom and book by bell hooks specifically and radical women of color feminism generally, this workshop is about transforming the often arduous and difficult work of organizing into a labor of love. As organizers we tend to burn out because of how much effort and energy we spend in order to organize effectively. Oftentimes our efforts go unrewarded and are even demonized. The speakers will discuss what moves them and how they move to resist creatively. Tanya Keilani is the co-creator of Love Under Apartheid and will speak about the project. Jamil Sbitan will be discussing Palestinian literature and how it can be folded into activism for self determination, and Feride Eralp will be discussing guerrilla theatre and performance as resistance. Participants will discuss the consciousness, aesthetic, or creative work compelling them to transform social justice awareness into praxis.

the conference actually looks like it has some good things on it but i wish they wouldn't say this kind of shit "social awareness into praxis"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
New Bosses-same old game: business as usual for the Labour Government ACG online public meeting, August 21st at 7pm
Replies
1
Views
558
charlie mowbray
C
C
a 30th Birthday Anniversary ride for Critical Mass London - Sunday 14/04/24
2 3
Replies
70
Views
3K
cm.london.30
C
Pickman's model
General Strike 100
Replies
19
Views
959
Kate Sharpley
Kate Sharpley
Orang Utan
Anti-Racist Counter Demos Summer 2024
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
7K
hitmouse
hitmouse
C
Anarchism Down Under-London ACG Public Meeting , Monday Sept. 25th
Replies
0
Views
319
charlie mowbray
C
Back
Top Bottom