University Anarchist Group Defends Attack on Fraternity House


Tuesday’s DTH editorial “Anarchy alarm” is right to describe the vandalism against Chi Psi as nothing more than a violent reaction: There’s no group claiming it, least of all us anarchists in UNControllables.

Therefore, condemning it really misses the point.

Readers would be better served by trying to understand what would drive people to lash out against symbols of patriarchy.

Many of us are all too familiar with how it feels to be constantly harassed walking down the streets of Chapel Hill.

A broken window is a modest act of vengeance compared to the daily reality of catcalling, homophobia and sexual assault perpetrated by college men in Chapel Hill.

Whether certain incidents can be linked to specific fraternities is not the issue.

The anonymous War on Society (a news blog, not a group) communique referenced in “Anarchy alarm” is a generalization against fraternities, because patriarchy is generalized.

Patriarchy is pervasive yet invisible. Violence done by privileged men against those with less privilege nearly always goes unnoticed.

When that violence is returned upwards, it is hypocritically treated with shock and horror.

For the past year the DTH has been exposing UNC’s complicity in a culture of sexual violence.

It should be no surprise that some people chose not to wait for courts, police and University investigations to fight back for them.

To actually engage with some real, live anarchists rather than anonymous internet comments, come visit the UNControllables table in the pit Thursday from 12:30 p.m. to 2 p.m.

James Hoopes ’15
Latin American studies

From the Daily Tar Heel



DTH = The Daily Tar Heel

Come visit us IN THE PIT!

North Carolina HARDCORE.

Yo, we're the UNControllables, everybody move up!

bad jokes, are bad.

i liked it better when i imagined they had a table somewhere in the student union.

um actually they kinda did.

WHOA comments on the DTH site on this article are amazzzzzing

For easy access of lolz and trollz to play in comments >_<

from what i understand after reading the Anarchist FAQ, real anarchists don't go to college.

real anarchists don't go to real colleges



according to crimethinc. we can go to real colleges as long as you sneak in and then recuperate bagels and toilet paper (preferably the french stuff) for your squatted mansion.

seriously, bro - this is 2K13 - troll harder.

Why North Carolina anyway? Couldn't you have gotten the same piece of shit overpriced degree at some dinky liberal arts college and saved a couple of tens of thousands of dollars. Aren't these the institutions we should be inherently against? I mean, is it a Michael Jordan fetish or something? Because in retrospect that was a oretty sweet shot.

honestly, Michael Jordan just turned fifty years old and that was a pretty sweet shot - but still... if we are going to look at the dichotomy of fetishes amongst great college shots, duh - it's Christain Latner who actually attended Duke.

also, maybe they got a full ride or a really good deal? or maybe they will never pay it back and the college debt crisis will becoming human strike.

here's a thought, they weren't always anarchists. Maybe they became anarchists procrastinating for their homework by learning how to read zines on screen.

Second page, first page, second page, first page, read normally at the middle, then reverse!

I'm against Matriarchy.

we must make sure not to put matriarchy (or better, matri-anarchy) in symmetry with patriarchy. It doesn’t imply another system based on biological distinctions. Matriarchy means the predominance of “motherly” values and structures. All those who create and help produce life (including men) shall have authority, and social structures shall be modelled upon the needs of sustaining life. This type of authority will naturally be much more easily accessible to women or mothers than today’s. It won’t need apparatuses of enforcement and centralized bodies of control. What I call bolos (large communistic households, as they were mentioned by Engels) would be ideally compatible with matriarchy. Bolos (if large enough) presuppose the dismantling of external social machines like armies, states or big companies that are the backbones of patriarchal domination. Deprived of this corset, men will just be human beings, free to participate in everyday household life. They will be closer to “their” children and will have the chance to be as “motherly” as the (biological) mothers. Men will become as rational, logical and gifted for mathematics as women are today. Their “natural” strength will be much more appreciated than today, when they just sit hunched over their PCs. Matriarchy doesn’t mean a specific lifestyle, there can be as many matriarchies as you wish, for life always expresses diversity. The roles of men and women can be articulated in infinite ways. (Thus there will be no confusion with traditional or fascist notions of “heroic motherhood” or “female gentleness.”) We all can be monsters or saints — that’s not the point.

Blockquote used to be obvious. That was a quoted paragraph.

No matriarchy is just as bad as patriarchy and is really becoming the norm in a lot corporations, families and churches.

Do you have the time to describe this corporate, family and church norm?

Society Against Itself: Political Correctness and Organizational Self-Destruction
by Howard S. Schwartz

You might learn a thing or two.

I'll let you know how it goes.

In terms of the quoted paragraph, this is an obvious straw-man as any type of "matriarchy" that has become a problem in corporations, families and churches is just the anatomical hierarchy that the author was clearly criticizing. The matri-anarchy examples that the author provided were Çatal Hüyük and Knossos. They developed advanced "technology" with centralized command only in temporary emergencies. The author also said civilization is this emergency centralization that got out of control, and it's fathomable that popular culture is grappled by something close to a constant state of emergency.

PS—Anon also posted that these kinds of matri-anarchies "(if large enough) presuppose the dismantling of external social machines like … big companies", i.e., corporations.

your appeal to matriarchy still reifies gender. move on.

You really believe that (or just trolling)? I don't see gender reification at all: exactly the opposite (breaking gender rules, not based on anatomy). Although it was written in terms of sexes, it may be dated, but for what it's worth, it also betrays the popular notion of what it means to be a man.

The logic of this escapes me.

UNC college men = patriarchy
Patriarchy = bad
Frats = UNC college men
Therefore, frats = bad

"A broken window is a modest act of vengeance compared to the daily reality of catcalling, homophobia and sexual assault perpetrated by college men in Chapel Hill."

This implies that any act of violence or sabotage against any college men at UNC is okay - regardless of their actual involvement in specific acts of catcalling, homophobia, etc. That is insane.

igtt 2/10 for equal signs

equal signs = signs equal signs = signs equal signs = signs equal signs = signs equal signs = signs equal signs = signs equal signs = signs equal signs = signs equal signs = signs equal signs = signs equal signs = signs equal signs = signs equal signs = signs equal signs = signs equal signs = signs equal signs = signs equal signs = signs equal signs

It's the logic of second-wave feminazism.

Youre a troll, but hell, might as well.

Its not that all college men equal patriarchy - its that structures like fraternities, equal patriarchy.

So we can fix your math:

frats = patriarchy, based on lived direct experience every day in our town
patriarchy = bad.

simple math.

will smashing frats end patriarchy? no. is it fucking great that someone did this? yes.

How is the structure of a frat = patriarchy? Cause there's dudes?

yeah. dudes = bad. matriarchy = awesome. get with it.

sororities and fraternities = same shit, different hole.


If the conclusion 'this fraternity = patriarchy' is based on lived direct experience, why hasn't a single defense of this action cited any lived direct experience? Not even vague hearsay about lived direct experience.

There is an element of chivalry about this. Anarchists attack random fraternity to defend women from abstract concept.

good point. couldnt possibly have been women or trans or queer people who ARE ANARCHISTS who did it. that would be crazy. i mean, women anarchists? whats next, letting them vote?

Women or trans or queer people who are anarchists can commit acts of chivalry.

according to the communique this action was comitted in solidarity with other folks defending themselves in similar or different manner. this wasnt an act of chivalry, it was an a gesture of solidarity. it was no more chivalrous or paternalistic than when some folks smash a bank as a general gesture of defiance to banks, in solidarity with whomever else may feel similarly.

and btw traditionally, and specifically in the way you were using it, chivalry refers to a man doing something for a woman, as a gesture of dependence or an implication of weakness.

try trolling better.

Also, transmen are men.

Also, since male anarchists and groups they are in are routinely denounced as patriarchal, will windows start flying through anarchist homes soon?

It seems arbitrary to only target frats when nearly everyone has been denounced as patriarchal/racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc at some point. Why not just direct violence against everyone randomly? Everyone is guilty of these things, right?

because power is like diffused in society or something. minaj....feminism so since nothing has any origin and society just happens randomly we should just start bullying men and then, like, anarchy.

#srsly guyz #kill the tumblr in your head

would still make more sense than saying that frats are " symbols of patriarchy."

yeah totally. anarchist collective houses totally represent structure of social and economic elitism on par with fraternity houses and the greek system in college towns. brilliant.

It sounds like the two other smashing incidents (a group of around 20 people screaming in front of a different frat, a car window smashed) that were reported on in a recent DTH article may have not been unrelated after all. This comment is from on their "men's rights" tab:

"UNC fraternity member here whose house was attacked (they've attacked at least two now that I know of). In our case, the group came dressed in all black and threw a rock through a house window and broke a car window, called us racist, sexist, and homophobic, and then sprinted away. We reported it to the police and when they arrived notified us that it's a group of anarchists that don't care if they're arrested. The police left without arresting anyone in our case and it seems like they aren't even bothering with an investigation."

This second attack would have been sometime in mid february, the first being reported on january 14th.

so if we convince the police we don't care about being arrested, they won't arrest us? cool

Why not smash the ROTC building instead of attacking personal property. This is why property destruction is getting a bad name. Black blocs smash innocent people's cars and small businesses and make us all look bad. Attacking corporate property=good, attacking personal property=bad.

um. so some clarifications. most property that is owned by businesses doing nasty evil things is owned people. People own those businesses. People are at the other end, eventually, of even attacks on corporate property (shareholders, investors, etc.). as for calling fraternities, or hell for that matter, small businesses, "innocent," well, i guess we can all see where your politics are coming from, and can at least thank you for your honest and transparency.

1. Youre free to go smash the ROTC building instead if you like. SOmehow i have a feeling it wont happen, and youre blowing smoke out your ass.

2. The 'youre making us look bad" line is, like, REAL, tired. And cliche. Try a new line. One that isnt also used, btw, in defense of corporate property. which you seem willing to allow other people to attack relative to this action, though im pretty sure you would opposed on other grounds were you to find out that the frats were owned by a corporation. (some of them are owned by such economic structures, i believe, but really who cares, its beside the point.)

THAT'S why property destruction is getting a bad name? Do tell...

You're anti-man crusade has nothing to do with anarchy.

Really don't give a fuck about good ole boys clubs grooming the next generation of capitalists. The shit those people get away with, the cat-calling, their stupid lame-ass ceremony shit... anyone that sympathizes with those who deserve what's coming to them, really don't care how they feel about it.

Sure, I agree, shouldn't just fuck up someone's car for no reason, but not because it's their "property," which is an abstraction I as an anarchist inherently reject, but because part of that also includes not being an asshole and fucking with a random person for no reason.

So these morons vandalized students homes because of something that doesn't relate to the latter. That's even worse. "Whether certain incidents can be linked to specific fraternities is not the issue." I bet these people think 1980's college sex comedies are an accurate portrayal of the people and groups at uni.

No. According to the dates, this happened around a week before the first news about the suit those women were filing against the university (and the later campaign/hearing against gambil to intimidate her).

So it was a general attack on faternities at UNC for sucking, it sounds like. Seems reasonable to me.

Actually, i went to a frat party once by accident, and those college sex comedies were actually pretty spot on. Take it a one step further, i wouldnt even have been suprised if the men raised on those comedies are acting on what they've been taught men are supposed to behave like, in part by shitty movies like that (and also by reactionary narratives by defensive men who paint other men who stand up against patriarchy as traitors, and women who do so as bitches, anti-men, or feminazis.)

Add new comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
9 + 7 =
Solve this simple math problem and enter the result. E.g. for 1+3, enter 4.
Subscribe to Comments for "University Anarchist Group Defends Attack on Fraternity House"