A while ago, just after the Anarchist Library had rejected the works of Foucault, theory twitter lost their minds over another work. The said work was Eleven Ways to Kill a Child written by Mallory Wournos. And as someone who has finally read it and discussed it with a friend, I would like to share my thoughts on this controversial article.
The article itself is not as ‘transgressive’ or thought altering as it wanted to be. Sure, it’s rather controversial but it never adds another section where it further talks about morality and further challenges the reader to look beyond the shock and confusion to real introspection. I don’t know if this is something the author expects the reader to do or not but it’s more so a skill developed by interpreting art than theory oftentimes.
But what even is the interpretation you can glean from the article? Well, first I have to give a brief overview of what’s even talked about in the article as most of you have probably not read it and probably never will. Never at any point does it make an argument for or against infanticide. It just states the cold hard facts concerning why infanticide happened in the past. And with the power of facts and logic, it points out that humanity’s view on infanticide has not been uniform. It never has or never will be set in stone and that it was actually pretty common until the 19th-century.
It then further discusses how infanticide transgresses according to Wournos, one of the most fundamental identities which carry society into the future, how infanticide is such an abhorrence societally that it’s considered the work of mental illness or the devil, and then they further go on and discuss briefly how it also transgresses against our idea of a woman. So, transgresses against the idea that woman is naturally inclined to be submissive and nurturing, that for them, the family is the ultimate achievement and their life’s purpose. After that, the author lists out various ways of killing a child with added historical context and accounts of it occurring.
But never does the author call for the murder of children. It’s simply the discussion of the murder of children (great argument on my part amiright) and why that said murder happens. Many people see Anarchism as ‘soy’ and ‘Reddit’ but it’s not like that. The article is simply pointing out that this is one of our societal blind spots. It’s something we’ve tried to forget and wished we’d forgotten. It reminds us that…
Despite its continued practice, its relevance to women, and its transgression of motherly values (which proclaim the family as the ultimate achievement for anybody with a uterus), infanticide seem to be unworthy of discussion.
It’s a self-proclaimed challenge to look beyond the disgust. Infanticide something that still happens (even in the ‘developed world) and still has relevance but we still refuse to even think about it. Ignoring bad icky things doesn’t make them go away. It’s definitely not a topic to be taken lightly but what good does brushing it under the rug ever achieve?
Did you think about your value systems, the value systems of others, the importance placed on birth and death, or the limits of freedom? Or did you simply lose your mind over an article that you had never read? Did you want to laugh at how ‘deranged’ some anarchists are? I’ve heard someone suggest that the aforementioned anarchists are the only ones ‘edgy’ enough to bring up topics that hard-boiled serious Marxists and Leninists won’t consider because perhaps the course of historical progression of communism and internationalism is of utmost importance, sidelining anything other topics of discussion. Did you never look beyond the shock and disgust for a second to think? Any self-respecting ‘theorycel’ would approach this article with a little less derangement and a lot more intellectual honesty, especially since it’s just a short six-page article so it’s not like word count would stop anyone from reading it.
I don’t care if you agreed or disagreed with the article. That really doesn’t matter. I don’t care if you’re losing your mind over it because you actually read the thing. What does bother me is the intellectual dishonesty fostered by clicks and laughs online. Modern social media is designed in such a way that the point of it is to spread information like pass the passel and the algorithms and UI are designed to reward and encourage it. And this doesn’t help the situation either, resulting in people not engaging with the thing they’re dunking on but instead posturing to get more clicks for more dopamine. And it feels really good to have this feedback, feedback that you are so smart and so funny and so correct. That you’re this intellectual dunking on these horrible deranged anarchists. Because at the end of the day, all of this was never about the article but about you.
Comments
"Many people see Anarchism as
anon (not verified) Tue, 08/13/2024 - 09:20
"Many people see Anarchism as ‘soy’ and ‘Reddit’ "
...why would i care about those people? why should anyone?
anyway i'm glad to see discussion of this article, which i like, and which can be read at https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/various-authors-black-seed-issu…
imo "11 ways to kill a child" is in part a violation of taboo for its own sake-- not saying that's ALL it is, but i think it is trying to demonstrate that anarchist writing should be willing to challenge taboos, which i broadly agree with.*
i think a lot of people's idea of political struggle is convincing other people online that you're right or defeating them in argument by making them look bad. that's not my politic and i personally think that's a waste of time. but imo reading challenging texts like "11 ways to kill a child" is not a waste of time. so, IF dingdongs online shrieking about the article are driving more people to read it, then... ?
*except for having sex with kids, a subject i really don't want to hear about from anarchists or anyone else ever again
"except for having sex with
EmmaAintDead Wed, 08/14/2024 - 08:35
In reply to "Many people see Anarchism as by anon (not verified)
"except for having sex with kids, a subject i really don't want to hear about from anarchists or anyone else ever again"
By the article's own merit and the intent being ascribed to it by yourself and op, the very existence of that taboo is reason enough to bring it to the forefront.
It's nice to pick and choose but if "we should pick away at the bond spots of society" is where you're landing then by Job land with both feet.
ffs emma ... it's been
lumpy (not verified) Wed, 08/14/2024 - 09:38
In reply to "except for having sex with by EmmaAintDead
ffs emma ... it's been addressed so many times and the internet toilet gets plugged EVERY. TIME.
WHY DO YOU LOVE SEWAGE?
that topic is a tiny little hill with an absolutely bizarre amount of mummified anarchist edgelord corpses on it. i was just at a damned gathering where wolfi had to duck and cover because of the ill-advised edgelord shit that person wrote a million years ago
READ THE ROOM
If you were really at a
anon (not verified) Wed, 08/14/2024 - 09:44
In reply to ffs emma ... it's been by lumpy (not verified)
If you were really at a gathering with Wolfi then you should be able to easily describe his genitalia. Proceed or be doubted. Your choice.
ahhh yes, the make-everything
lumpy (not verified) Wed, 08/14/2024 - 09:46
In reply to If you were really at a by anon (not verified)
ahhh yes, the make-everything-creepy-af troll... hello again! you warty, moldy, lil' goblin guy, you!
Christian shame made you
anon (not verified) Wed, 08/14/2024 - 09:52
In reply to ahhh yes, the make-everything by lumpy (not verified)
Christian shame made you think genitals are creepy. Anarchists oppose this moralism. You would know this if you were the real lumpy. All goblins are beautiful. AGAB.
what's that about neech's
lumpy (not verified) Wed, 08/14/2024 - 09:55
In reply to Christian shame made you by anon (not verified)
what's that about neech's genitals? you need different books so badly ...
Look I'm just saying that the
EmmaAintDead Wed, 08/14/2024 - 09:57
In reply to ffs emma ... it's been by lumpy (not verified)
Look I'm just saying that the "fuck morality" crowd has an Achilles heel and they're not gonna get anywhere until they can address that without everyone pissing themselves and crying and rolling around in the puddles of piss and tears. It's always a shitstorm, yes, and it's always one the antimoralists lose immediately.
It's one thing to be playing ball in a field when you unwittingly step on a land mine, it's another to say "WE ARE THE LANDMINE FIELD BALL PLAYERS AND WE WILL NOT BE STOPPED" and then step on a landmine.
ok ... i see your point
lumpy (not verified) Wed, 08/14/2024 - 10:05
In reply to Look I'm just saying that the by EmmaAintDead
ok ... i see your point better now, perhaps that's fair
BUT i don't agree that meaningful gains can ever be made there ... the "fuck morality crowd" (i'm in this crowd btw) isn't going to move the overton window any time soon.
to me, it looks like this: there's the vast ocean of people who don't think much at all, this is the latent, unconscious nihilism supreme. then there's a HUGE bloc of people who are the morality police because they get off on it, they love power, so they'll never be persuaded of anything different because they don't want to be.
and then there's the weird little book club of people who actually read and think critically about morality, a tiny little island in the ocean where the GPS doesn't work very well and there's never any cell service
Get a room
anon (not verified) Wed, 08/14/2024 - 11:00
In reply to ok ... i see your point by lumpy (not verified)
Get a room
you'd need morality to
lumpy (not verified) Wed, 08/14/2024 - 11:29
In reply to Get a room by anon (not verified)
you'd need morality to justify that ;)
I only fuck on golf courses
EmmaAintDead Wed, 08/14/2024 - 12:03
In reply to Get a room by anon (not verified)
I only fuck on golf courses
I got this impression this
anon (not verified) Wed, 08/14/2024 - 10:17
In reply to Look I'm just saying that the by EmmaAintDead
I got this impression this anti-morality crowd are really just poor at theory and analysis so that they confuse morality with moralism... they THEY get full moralistic about immorality themselves, enforcing their own morals upon others.
Morality you can't escape it!
agree with whatever other
alex (not verified) Wed, 08/14/2024 - 21:10
In reply to Look I'm just saying that the by EmmaAintDead
agree with whatever other anon here who said there's a difference between morality and moralism as a general point, but i also think this response is missing what i read as the point of the article anyway, which is that sometimes people do awful things in the full sense of "awful", and absent any law or social norm to tell us all when "awful" is worthy of condemnation or not, we should be able to recognize the reasons that people have for doing things, and differentiating between one kind of act and another. a mother killing her child is not immediately, without regard for the circumstances, the same as a person who seeks to destroy a child for his/her own satisfaction in the act, and neither are "demons" or inhuman in any sense. current events seem to indicate that the destruction of children is pretty close to the heart of what makes and sustains institutional power. the question is why we (broadly) are so comfortable demonizing here, excusing there, hiding in another place, and celebrating when all the normal bars on what we are or are not supposed to consider civil and decent are removed. i am against the destruction of children on principle and i think moralism (the codification of moral language as a social process) masks, intensifies and encourages that destruction in practice
"By the article's own merit
anon (not verified) Wed, 08/14/2024 - 09:55
In reply to "except for having sex with by EmmaAintDead
"By the article's own merit and the intent being ascribed to it by yourself and op, the very existence of that taboo is reason enough to bring it to the forefront."
Fucking @!
Seen quite a few rural families within privyy rural communities where entitled adults like parents and their close relatives literally getting laid with kids while other adults got their minds elsewhere or are asleep. This is still real shit, and happens in both liiberal progressive or conservative Xian types of milieus, including all the CHUDs.
To me it's either the anarchist's job is to help breaking taboos... by bringing this stuff in public view as much as possible. And I don't mean supporting kiddie porn, but making the reality known as far and wide, like exposing these families wherever possible. Child abuse best happens within private circles of those reaching any level of privilege.. Epstein was really just the tip of an iceberg.
....sorry, by "anarchist's
anon (not verified) Wed, 08/14/2024 - 09:59
In reply to "By the article's own merit by anon (not verified)
....sorry, by "anarchist's job" I didn't mean to force jobs upon anyone. Just saying that it's "the kind of work that's super-relevant for anarchists to do" as it undermines patterns of abuse permitted or amplified by authoritarian dynamics and structures.
"...resulting in people not
anonymous (not verified) Tue, 08/13/2024 - 09:40
"...resulting in people not engaging with the thing they’re dunking on but instead posturing to get more clicks for more dopamine."
my brother in christ, may i introduce you to this journal called atassa...
Good article.
Mickey Bundy (not verified) Tue, 08/13/2024 - 11:32
Good article.
intellectual dishonesty from
anon (not verified) Tue, 08/13/2024 - 15:28
intellectual dishonesty from Twitter's cabal of people-who-definitely-aren't radlibs? who would've thought?!?!
I think the author is naive
EmmaAintDead Wed, 08/14/2024 - 08:40
I think the author is naive in thinking this will reach the audience of leftists who let big name Twitter accounts do the reading for them, let alone sway them towards engaging in any amount of immediated thought, but it's genuinely nice to see that attempts are still being made.
I look forward to this author's "why I left the left" article in a few weeks when all those Twitter accounts start calling the author a pedophile and rape sympathizer.
Add new comment