This Has Everything to Do With You (Personal)

  • Posted on: 6 November 2012
  • By: worker

<table><tr><td>JW is the father of my as of yet unborn baby. J and I met in Chicago circa 2011. Early on he identified as a queer, politically driven eccentric. A year into our friendship, we decided to enter into a consensual albeit drunken (at the time) sexscapade. It is at this time that W and I conceived the new love of my life, the forthcoming Sabrina Madeline.

Sabrina Madeline (due early 2013) will likely never have a true, meaningful relationship with her father. From the beginning, I knew I wanted to be a strong, independent, single mother. No Boyfriends! No Bosses! I did however reach out to W in an effort to at first notify him I was pregnant, and also to ask if he would want to be part of the baby’s life. W expressed admiration that I was keeping our baby. He also said he would be part of the baby’s (and inextricably from my) life. This conversation first took place in June of the current year. I really wish for our (me and baby’s) sake he had kept his words of praise and support: “I want to be part of their life.” </td><td><img title="accountability" src=""></td></tr></ta...

This isn’t the case. The last time we had any contact was in July 2012.It is not that I am angry that my baby will be born without a father cause fuck fathers. It makes me angry that JW continues to propagate this image of anarchist rock star through Facebook (and probably Twitter) yet not have enough time to reach out to me or inquire about the well-being of our child, like he used to. How can this man who claims to believe in dismantling all systems of control and oppression (including but certainly not limited to gender roles) simply ignore his responsibility to not just me but his daughter? If he believes in accountability and addressing points of contention why will he not even return Facebook messages that are directly asking for at the very least (and probably most importantly) emotional support? I know (and if you’re his “Friend” you do too) that he’s posting and organizing through Facebook all of the time. JW evidently does not stand for a great security culture or a culture of emotional support.

Ultimately, I want to address through this Anarchist News the fact that he is rolling around with his friends of radicals trying to build this culture of resistance and community and at the same time evading his unborn daughter. If this radical wants people to work with him and trust him, he should address what I perceive to be his most immediate responsibility, Sabrina Madeline (yes J that’s her name).

Directly: I wouldn’t be so angry at you if you had been honest with me from the beginning as to your intentions with me and your child. You have shown you have no respect for female bodies (because you continue to ignore me and your daughter). You weren’t there for me mentally, physically, or financially. With 10 weeks left for the Birth of Sabrina, I am still working full time for minimum wage trying to support myself and give our daughter the most nutritious of foods. You have left me no choice but to shame you publically because you ignore me. And no, selfishness is not a virtue. Have fun dismantling capitalism and patriarchy while you leave me and your daughter to navigate these treacherous Midwestern terrains, especially in such uncertain times, without even a single word.

No Gods! No Masters! No Boyfriends! No Deadbeats!

-Fembots Have Feelings , Too.




Anarchism is a scene.

Anarchist News is the new Maury


you should just post his real name. he deserves to be publicly shamed.

You should post your real name, you deserve to be publicly ashamed of posting this garbage.

Hopefully Sabrina Madeline never has access to the internet and never googles her own name and never finds this article.

sorry that your not getting support but for real this is not anarchist news. this is anarchist drama.
there is probably a better place for it. wait...!

there we go. thats mean, i know...


In all seriousness though, having been and anarchist for years I have to give this woman credit for sticking to her beef with one dude and not hawking a bunch of generalizations about men or anarchists based on the narrow group of idiots she hangs out with. This is possibly the first article about "accountability" that I have read that didn't make me feel like I was being called a rapist for having a dick.

so wait this is somehow new to you? as if @news hasn't posted all kinds of sketchy gossip as 'news'?

And since when are our personal life choices not political? If he were with her, and beating her up every night behind closed doors, would that be OK too?

You're going to love that girl. It's going to be great, with or without JW. But honestly, this article is fucking hilarious. Please tell me you are not older than 19. If so you need to grow the fuck up for your baby's sake at least.

wait, what the fuck did i do?


dang, I was too late for "in before 'fucking breeders" comments

Misogyny, one of the cornerstones on internet anarchism.

of* w/e

so ... is it misogynist when women think breeding is stupid? I'm a self-identified genuinely curious white manarchist that doesn't give a shit which gender pronoun, since we're in to the identity politics already.

yes. apparently you can add "essentialist" to your list of identity qualifiers.

You're off your rocker. Men are just as responsible for breeding as women.

ZPG has nothing to do with misogyny and everything to do with misanthropy.

um, not really


Well, since breeding is exclusively a woman activity and all women are good for is making teh BAIBES!!!1! then you're right. Any comment against the disgustingly cruel practice of child-rearing is misogyny! Down with manarchism!

Obviously the above statement is hyperbolic and stupid. But questioning breeding isn't misogynistic. What about women who don't wanna bring kids into this culture? What about people who do bring kids into the world, and when they do, they expect others to help them watch it?

It is the woman, not the GUYYYYYYYSSSSS in this situation that decided to have a baby. The guy allegedly doesn't want anything to do with it and the woman is mad about it because she's super excited to breed. So your comment makes no sense.

Yeah, you're right. A man has the luxury of not dealing with pregnancy, or the related swelling and exhaustion, or dirty diapers, or feeding another helpless human being that's half made of his own DNA, or worrying when she gets sick, or losing sleep, or any of that other mundane stuff that so gets in the way of being a wannabe rock star.

It's the woman who winds up pregnant; the rock star can easily waltz away and say, "Sorry, but you're not laying YOUR bummer on me."

But he could just as easily have wrapped up his Rock Star dick, if he didn't want this complication coming back to bite him, so why in hell didn't he?

Because he's a selfish asshole! And now it sounds like he's a hypocritical selfish asshole, all out trying to make some grand political statement about whatever change he wants to see in the world, while his attitude toward HIS tiny corner of the world is that it can just go to hell, not his problem.

May the next window he breaks land all over his phony Rock Star dick.

So cruel of the administrators to actually post this here ... I'm assuming there's *some* oversight around here, yeah? ... Hello?

no there isn't. @news is a forum to circulate and amplify any and every item of trivial gossip emerging from our dysfunctional scenes. anarchy = society, yall!!!!

false. I tried to re-post an article from the new slingshot critiquing bay area window smashing (basically saying that smashing isn't enough, you need a propaganda war too) and they didn't post it. also, one of those stories on Leah ended up getting pulled.

go back to grub street, hack!

That story had already been posted (about 10 days before your resubmitting it).

This is better than covering a story of an awesome prisoner hunger strike that never got covered that coulda used a lot of support.

As someone who's gone through this shit, nobody's sane surrounding a pregnancy. Maybe he'll straighten his shit out (I did), maybe he won't. Whatever he's going through, this isn't going to help.

this has nothing to do with me. don't post this shit here.

you are owed support by your friends and comrades, but you are owed nothing by people who have never met you and don't know the specifics. this isn't the best way to resolve this- shaming only works if it is done by a community someone doesn't want to loose face in. a-news is not a community. try something else. i am willing to bet this will not have the outcome you want it to, this will only lead to more drama.

I wish you and your child good health and safety in the ugly world of extreme climate change we are looking at. Your daughter will be my age in 2059, right in the middle of this! Today's children will have to be tomorrow's revolutionaries and engineers both. Your child nneds to learn the future-proofing skills of self-reliance. These include decentralized alternatives to as many many things we have been taught to expect from stores or power grids as possible. If you ex won't participate in person in that, to hell with him. When the shit hits the fan and she has housing that he never learned to build, the shoe might be on the other foot. What is J going to say if Sabrina grows up to be more important or a "bigger star" that he is?

Survival skills,mechanical/engineering skills,math and language skills, agricultural skills, all of these will be precious globally just as they are today in NY. It is up to you and hopefully someday your child's father as well to arm your child with these skills.

The only place I know of I would have to draw a line is on the question of asking someone to take a job to boost their monetary income, thus to increase their ability to contribute. Fortunately, most people for whom that would be a priority would avoid me as a parter as I would seek to avoid them as sexual partners. I've never once in my life even known of someone getting into that dispute, just seen ugly newspaper stories.

I have never had sex outside of the openly casual sex context(most partners same sex anyway) and don't ever want to, but taking a job at Wal-Mart or McDonalds is something I could never do. If you ex somehow though this would be an issue (did a relative bring it up?), make sure he knows that's not what's being asked.If you are asking primarily for emotional support there's no excuse at all. What he would be willing to do short-term for an abandoned child, he should be willing to do long-term for his daughter.

He should offer to share anything and everything he already has or expects to get or create with his daughter. Same for anything he may ever inherit, regardless of value. If he won't do that and is sitting on money or resources needed elsewhere, that's acting like a capitalist. In fact, it's acting the way rich countries expect to act during food shortages triggered by climate change.

In AIM (the American Indian Movement) it is a long standing policy that anyone who abandons an elder or a child must step back from activism and can no longer consider himself part of AIM. A man who won't share what he has with his own child can't be trusted to share anything with the rest of the community either. There is a big difference between a random member of the community and an organizer who expects to REPRESENT the community. If he can't deal with this, he should step back from organizing and do something else with his life.

JW is an idot anyway and deserves to be called out for being an idot. have fun with LB. LOL

It would help combat these deadbeats if more @'s joined us in stomping on Julian Paul Assange with both feet. Just if yo got a moment to spare from trollin' that is. TIA.


The charge in Assange's case actually concerns not using a condom, Swedish laws declare unprotected sex to be rape under some specific circumstance, not sure what that circumstance is.

The two women who charged or attempted to charge Assange have been proven (the texts have been recovered) to have texted each other about how much money they were going to wring out of Assange.

lastly, the reason Assange refuses to return to Sweden is fear of extradition to the US, which is UNRELATED to this charge. He did agree to meet with Swedish cops if it was done on safe neutral ground to answer their questions, and Sweden claims they only want to question, not arrest him. Assange suspects with good reason the real intention of the Swedish government is extradition, so he won't give them that opportuntity. In the US he would face the communicaitons management unit at Pelican Bay or some other supermax at the least, possibly Guantanimo Bay, possibly even EXECUTION.

It is the helicopter pilots shown in "collateral murder" who should be executed, not Assange for publishing that video or blowing the whistle on diplomatic cables concerning the formner regime in Tunisia or Canadian interference in US politics on behalf of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

"under some specific circumstance" = when you TELL THE PERSON YOU ARE PENETRATING YOU ARE WEARING ONE, and their consent is predicated on that, you dipshit

I don't know of any other country that charges that as rape than Sweden-and this charge againsgt Assange is entirely too convenient for the US, which wants to extradict Assange from Sweden in turn. Since I want to see the US defeated througout the Middle East, I cannot support US actions against a man who have caused great problems there for the US.

I don't believe Assange is a rapist, but US troops have been known to rape...

In the US it's okay to rape your wife, too-- it's not as "real" of a rape. Does that make it okay? Since when is the legal system in a state the measure of justice or "real" consent???

The Assage case isn't ABOUT the allegation of rape when you get right down to it. It's about Uncle Sam being upset about things like the "collateral murder" video. Will Sweden vow not to extradict Assange to the United States? Why do Swedish prosecutors refuse to question him in the Ecuadorian Embassy as he has offered?

"Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past."

Assange is a self serving douche. This is clear when it concerns his relationships with women. The question is how much does that translate to his "politics" (I don't know, I guess we're anti-politics know, but I think in this case, it's a legitimate use of the word) to his overall role in historical development (hell, we're probably anti-history too, if not we'll soon be). That is, does being a greedy lover indicate (sometimes, or in this particular case) being greedy in other ways too.

I think Assange is a man who played his cards too loud, although I'm unsure, in the end, if any of anything could have been avoided.

Right, Edgar J.

Who cares about the thousands of men, women and children raped and tortured by US/NATO troops in the Middle-East over the past 11 years?

But think of those fully consenting liberal privileged women in liberal, privileged Sweden, over these dubious accusations of rape...

Uh huh.

So, there's this thing called a "continuum". when people use it to talk about abuse, consent, violence and power and control they're talking about a broad spectrum of things.

In this case, I would put both incidents you describe on such a "continuum" and think about how they may be related, and if one enables another, and if one makes room for another.

I would spend the time to break this down further for you, but I have the feeling I'd be wasting my time. So, "continuum". That's all you get.

That, and if you think fucking someone nonconsensually isn't rape, you're an idiot and quite possibly a rapist. Thanks for all the wasted time, energy and focus it takes to heal, get grounded,etc. after dealing with an attack.

Or, maybe you're just friends with rapists and think nonconsensual sex is different from rape. Luckily, if that's the case you're wrong.

Wish people who believe shit like you're barfing up here had to use their real names to say it.

I'll keep this in mind next time I'm hanging out with JW - lol, the fuck

A is for ASSHOLE

Abandoning a comrade when she is at her most vulnerable is cowardly at best and I would not trust this man for anything, least of all the care and upbringing of a child. Sabrina will be better off without his influence, this is a hard thing to understand now, but I faced a similar situation many years ago and I am now glad the father was not in the picture.
Surround your self and Sabrina with strong women, women that do not back down when faced with challenges and adverse situations. Eventually he will be merely the sperm donor, not the recipient of the many rewards parenting offers. Be strong.
No Gods! No Masters! No sacrifices! No honor!

Jeremy Wammond?

Its shit like this that makes me not associate with other anarchists in Chicago.

Same here. This shit is why I stick to my neighbors and roommates here. Get more done anyway.

For me it's shit like this, plus the fact that I don't like crust punk or black metal.

I went to the fucking Halloween parade and witnessed an angry screaming match between two participants, and then someone thrashing around to some hardcore played from tinny little cell phone speakers.

Come to my neighborhood. mariachi music and good food everywhere.

I'm gonna guess: Pilsen or Little Village?

Nope. no trendy shit round these parts. just latin kings and freight trains...pilsen is a step up. I like it rough.

You sound hard as fuck!

Shit, somewhere around 50th and Pulaski? Am I getting warmer?

Not so west... U a cop?

Dude, you just got almost doxed, and taking it in stride. I'da asked the exact same thing, only angrier.

Nah, just seeing whether I know who this is!

(Good instincts, though.)

i just wanna add to the 'chicago anarchy sux and i live here' thing going on

4star blows but i don't wanna hang out with the whiny children. what is there to do?!?


If you get a response other than "run as far and as fast as you can", lemme know.

So, apparently they got these things now, they're like little rubber tubes, that are rolled up and stored in a little package full of lubricant. So what you do is have the guy unroll them on his dick before you start fucking. Supposedly, it prevents STD's and pregnancy and from what I hear they do a pretty good job of it too.

Speaking of jobs, you should probably put them on even before oral sex. Apparently you can transmit herpes and gonorrhea from oral sex, both as a giver and a taker, if you catch my drift. And if you're planning on eating vagina, use what's called a dental damn or something like that, which is basically the exact same thing as the thing for your dick, but it's just a flat sheet of latex you lay on the coochie before you begin with the licking and sucking and all that. They say saran wrap works too, but the verdict is still out on that. If you want to be safe, go to the sexy clothe shoppe where they usually sell them there.

Barring all that, I would suggest that the hands are miraculous instruments of eroticism, and there's no reason why you can't simply have someone do for you what you do for yourself every night before going to bed, and not have a great least until you get to know each other better.

Remember kids, without safety, there can be no Anarchy!

Nice patronizing and unhelpful commentary for the mom-to-be.

Patronizing, maybe. Unhelpful, no. If you consider that I don't even know this person, or extensive details surrounding her situation, then you'd realize my comment was meant for the general @news audience and its intention was to prevent situation like this from recurring elsewhere. Kindly Fuck off and maybe go bother people who aren't trying to help.

oh ok, so you were just patronizing everyone else.

Maybe I'm sexually repressed and I don't "get it" enough, so I gotta be judgmental at people's stupidity. There, I said it.

ha! dental dams!

this post has officially raped the jesus.

Is there a Godwin's law for rape jokes?


is "raping the jesus" like jumping the shark? because i'd say the jesus raping post was the turning point where that happened in this series. new characters, like honey boo boo, and the whacky horny neighbor downstairs, just aren't generating the excitement and ratings from the early days when it was a tight ensemble being- doing a closet drama within a war epic minseries.

dude, i'm an oogle just like these folks...i ain't never hearda no condomns and, plus, when i'm all drunk'n'shit i can't feel a thing if unless it's a real good manarchist fuck

Speaking as a sperm-donor with minimal contact with my spawn, I can feel the sadness here. JW probably promised a lot of things, but when the actual burdens of semi-regular fatherhood started looming, he probably just changed his mind. Yeah it stinks that he's able to bail because he's not carrying a baby to term. But people are allowed to change their minds, right? Things can change again in a week, in two months, in a year. Hope you find the friends and support you need for raising a black diaper baby in a cruel world.

Easy for him to change his mind, sure. She's still pregnant.

Swallowing most of my reaction to the sperm donor thing, but WTF?

Don't trust anyone who uses Facebook to build a cult of personality. If you're that shallow, anarchism as a political ideology to you is as meaningful as....well as a friend of mine says: saying you're an Anarchist is like saying you're emo.

I think I want out. You people suck.

Nah only the people who spend all their time on here and facebook waxing dramatic about their anarchist scene drama bullshit, those are the ones who suck.

And also, the incredible amount of male-biased "booo hooo you should have gotten an abortion you idiot woman" shit makes me sick, especially coming from supposed anarchists. Then again, it's a bunch of keyboard-warriors saying this, so fuck 'em.

Keyboard warriors and self-described anarchists all in one package. That's like two six-lane bullshit highways intersecting at a yield sign. Don't expect good things.


You can't force anyone to be a father if they don't want to, especially when the baby isn't even born yet. Furthermore, you said you wanted to be a single mother at first. If you made that decision intitially and then it became too late to have an abortion then that's your fucking problem and your stupid life decision, not anyone else's. You can also give the kid up for adoption if you don't want it.

RECAP: You made the decision to have the baby regardless of whether the father was involved or not. Then he expressed in interest in being involved, which had nothing to do with your decision to keep the baby. Then he apparently flaked on that, even though the baby isn't even born yet. Either way, you admit that them being involved had nothing to do with your decision to keep the baby, therefore your argument boils down to "He said he wanted to do something, and now he doesn't want to!" Well that's life, people make decisions and then change their minds. Given the situation have literally no idea how you can claim that he bears any real responsibility for anything.

Men who engage in intercourse with women are IN NO WAY obligated to be a father. This is typically American pro-life bullshit: "Be a man! Be a father! You made a big decision when you decided to have sex!" Actually no, no you didn't. The big decisions came after when you found out you were pregnant and those decisions are all yours and you were free to make them with no one telling you what to do.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: The only thing more appalling than this post is the fact that it is on the internet. And the only thing more appalling than that is that it's on a-news. I can't believe you idiots posted this yet you removed the more detailed post about Leah cooperating. You moderators are fucking idiots these days. This bullshit scene drama does not fucking belong on the internet. And I don't give two shits that you're initialing out the names. If you didn't want people to know who this person was you wouldn't have written this thing at all.

If you want to make a "communique", take action against the system you fucking liberal identity politicking piece of shit.

"Men who engage in intercourse with women are IN NO WAY obligated to be a father."

For this line alone IGTT 6/10

Funny, for that same line, IGGT 12/10 Fucking harsh, I'll agree, but also kinda spot-on.

Seriously kids, this shit gets real. One of the effects of the 'sexual revolution' is that sex doesn't come along with strings attached. Consent for sex is just that: consent for one act, one night, not marriage or anything like it. Wanna freely engage in drunken "sexcapades"? Go ahead, but understand, there are risks...

A word of advice, from a parent. Nobody tells you what getting pregnant was actually like until you do (or your partner does), then the horror stories come flooding in. Chances are, you and everyone you know are the product of some unbelievably fucked situations. Some got sorted out, and some never did. Even at the best of times, this tears your life apart. This is why all the older folks lectured us so fucking much growing up, and why so many have such disdain for sex.

Nobody can force a guy to be a father, that's a choice he has to make himself.

"Nobody can force a guy to be a father, that's a choice he has to make himself."


Enjoy your male privilege, you fucking sexist!

Meanwhile, check out how limited access to safe & affordable abortion is, how limited $$ is for people wanting to raise kids, and HOW GENETICALLY RESPONSIBLE SOMEONE IS WHO GETS SOMEONE ELSE PREGNANT.

I can't believe the immature, idiotic, misogynistic, glib, entitled bullshit coming out in response to this post.

Someone whose body can get pregnant gets pregnant...miraculously? A virgin birth? That's not very "no gods no masters" of you.

What about the realities involved in getting pregnant, being pregnant for nine months, giving birth, and raising a child? That's "women's work" to you?

Kill yourself, you fucking psycho.

Better yet, make sure you tell everyone you ever plan to have sex with again for the rest of your life that this is how you feel about bodies that can get pregnant. I hope no one (male, female, queer, intersex) ever touches you again. FUCK YOU.

Okay, I agree with you about fathers having responsibility to their children and to mothers.

But does this responsibility also imply a role in decision-making about the pregnancy? Or is it - you have an absolute responsibility to me as a mother and to your child, but you have no role or voice in the pregnancy (including decisions about ending it)?


Here's the thing.

Your body, your choice!

This means:

Take responsibility for birth control if you don't want kids.

It means: you are not entitled to decide what someone else does with their body if their body gets pregnant.

There's also the implication that consequences arising from sex are shared. In other words, you as a (cis)man don't have to carry a baby in your body, barf every morning for months, sit around feeling exhausted, watch your body change, and then shit out a red-hot iron football OR spend a shit-ton of money and probably significant travel time going to a doctor, making your way through screaming protestors, have someone stick something up your orifices, scrape around and cause intense pain, feel hormonal changes like woah, and do it pretty much alone in a certain way, no matter what the support. You, as a (cis)man, don't have to remember all the ways you were told your whole life you were killing an innocent unborn blah blah gift-from-God with this cocktail of hormones, physical pain, and social stigma.

You DO get to put some of your time towards raising the product of your sexual choices. So, you don't get to tell your prego sexual partner what to do with their body while it's pregnant, since it's THEIR BODY.

BUT: you DO get to be a parent. Whether you like it or not. That's life. If you don't like it, cry me a river. If you're seriously arguing that the person who gives birth should be stuck raising a kid after casual sex, sounds to me like you think people whose bodies can't get pregnant can have casual sex but those whose bodies can get pregnant really carry the weight of not only child-bearing but child-rearing. Child-bearing is their choice, since it happens in their bodies. Child-rearing is the responsibility of everyone involved in making the kid.

I agree with you about child-rearing being a shared responsibility.

Do you think mothers have the responsibility of notifying fathers? I know people who had children that resulted from one-night stands with people they didn't think much of, and the people who had the kids never contacted or notified the father at all.

So, wait.

* Birth control: shared responsibility.
* Decision on whether to terminate pregnancy: 100% the choice of the child-bearing partner.
* Raising the child: shared responsibility, regardless of whether or not both partners consent to it.

I'm with you up until the third point. If random happenstance results in pregnancy, and the non-pregnant partner makes it clear from the beginning that they have no intention of supporting a child (financially or otherwise), then I think it should be up to the pregnant partner to make an informed decision as to whether they want to terminate their pregnancy, or raise their child alone. If they choose to terminate it, the other partner could be obligated to contribute financially to the procedure and any resulting medical costs, but that should be the end of it.

Yup. Here, I'll keep it simple:

1) Before pregnant: everyone chooses their choices.
2) During pregnant: person with pregnant body chooses their choices.
3) After pregnant (a BAY BAY appears):
Subsection (a), where we live in a utopian future where everyone chooses their choices with the same access to necessary resources (including medical treatment, education, and people to foist undesired babies onto): everyone chooses their choices, and all choices have equal impact!
Subsection (b), also know as reality: everyone chooses their choices, but not in a vacuum, so in fact these choices have disparate impact!

To recap, in your typical heteronormative, ciscentric version of the scenario in question:

1) man chooses preferred method of birth control (often we skip this step and just assume woman should spend her money/time/body on it if she doesn't want babies, but let's assume this person is responsible). woman chooses preferred method of birth control. At this time, both assume responsbility for procurement, use, and outcome of birth control use.
2) sadly, unwanted pregnancy occurs, even though both used preferred method of birth control for their consensual sexual encounter.
3) woman decides what she will do with her body. keep the baby in it? kick the baby out? this part has disparate physical, emotional, and financial impact on the woman.
4) woman has baby. both man and woman contribute time and money towards raising said baby, or time and energy towards ensuring care for baby.

the end of logical puzzler. perhaps "disparate impact" is the key to understanding this one.

It should also be noted that they had sex while drunk, which complicates obligation since some would say it wasn't even actually consensual to begin with.

"Kill yourself, you fucking psycho."

I find it incredibly ironic that you are calling someone else a psycho. You have incredibly reactionary right-wing views toward sexuality. INCREDIBLY right-wing. Like Ann Coulter right-wing. It just so happens radical feminism overlaps perfectly with many right-wing views, especially in terms of sexuality.

So a man that has sex (consensually) with 10 women over the course of a few years....If ALL TEN come back with babies, he's now obligated by your morality to take care of them? Bullshit.

And don't give me this shit about abortion being expensive and not available. The author of this LIVES IN FUCKING CHICAGO, the center of pro-choice activism for decades. She couldn't gotten an abortion anywhere. Furthermore, I completely 100% stand behind the statement that you can't force a man to be a father. Two people have sex, they both make the decision to use birth control or not. If pregnancy occurs, ultimately, if you want to get all "it's my body my choice!" about it, it's the woman's choice alone whether she wants to have the baby. And that choice carries additional baggage. The baggage that it is HER who made the choice, not him, so he isn't obligated to do shit if he didn't want to have the baby. Furthermore, I'm completely of the opinion that if the woman doesn't want the baby, the man should be obligated (through social mores or whatever) to help pay for an abortion or whatever. But you can't claim that because a man wants to have sex with a woman that also wants to have sex that he is sentenced to a lifetime of children, simply because that's what the woman wants to do. Fuck that. That is insane coercion.

You are so ignorant. I hope this is trolling.

Seriously...what if your child is retarded, what if they're autistic, what if they are crack-babies who beat you in the face?? Oh, just dig a hole and bury them! Fuck that! Super-Eugenisize me!...I really hope this is trolling...

Since when are people with bodies that can get pregnant the only ones responsible for birth control??? If you believe that, defend it without sounding like a fucking misogynist. Oh wait, you can't.

Guess you're against hierarchy until it benefits you.

(eat shit and die)

(birth control... and its attendant implications, including parenting if something goes wrong)

(do the world a favor: get a vasectomy! Then you'll never have to worry about the lying scheming after your child support money// and they'll never have to worry about you. it's a win-win)

"But you can't claim that because a man wants to have sex with a woman that [I think you meant WHO, since women aren't objects] also wants to have sex what he is sentenced BOOOHOOOO CALL THE MOTHERFUCKING WAAAAAMBULANCE, CHANGE YOUR FUCKING PAMPERS to a LIFETIME of CHILDREN, simply because that's what the Evil Mastermind Man-Trapping WomanOnlyAfterHisMoneyAnd/OrWorld-ClassCompany wants to do... Fuck that... That is insane 'coercion'..."


I don't think that word means

What you think it means

Not who you're replying to -

I'm pretty sure that morally/legally obligating someone to take part in an 18+ year process of child-raising just because they wanted to have sex = coercive.

It's totally possible for child-bearing people to make an informed decision to terminate their pregnancy or put their child up for adoption if it becomes clear that their sexual partner has no interest (or capability) in raising a child.

"just because they wanted to have sex" does not equal "just because they wanted to have sex and were too much of a dipshit to work out how condoms work". Get out of here, Julian Assange and/or abstinence-only sex education!

Insane, no. Coercion, yes. Even if it's all right and proper and shit it's still coercion. Words be meanin shit yo.

ANews supports Deadbeat Dads. Cool. Maybe it is "coercive" for women to have to raise a child as well. Maybe they couldn't bring themselves to abort, or made the wrong decision in that few month window of their lives which was perhaps fraught with anxiety or worse...

Welp, The more you know...I can't WAIT for the glorious anarchist guys are great.

Listen dipshit. I'm not supporting these assholes one bit. You need to get over the idea that your entire set of personal beliefs is some kind of referendum that people can only vote yes or no on. You can coerce deadbeat dads all damn day as far as I care. Fuck'em and the horse they barebacked in on. The thing is that words mean stuff and "making some do something" like "making them take responsibility for the goddamned children they helped create" is also known as coercion. Coercion is the backbone of any justice system, even a restorative one. Without coercion you're just waiting for people to change their ways, perhaps moralizing, but the point of this piece was to "publicly shame" a dude into doing something. To bring the force of social pressure and material support that may be related to is down on duder until he does what he's supposed to. That's coercion. That's what that word means.

You didn't hear what I just said at all, did you? It is completely beyond your comprehension to understand that a woman can also be 'coerced' into taking responsibility for a human life they made by fucking...

Please read a book. Or get a life. Preferably both.

Lol. That's pretty easily comprehensible. I think were just arguing because of your toxic personality and not because we disagree on this issue.

Take a look at these comments. It's obviously NOT comprehensible, and is perhaps the only valuable insight on this idiotic trollbait artcle here.

It certainly is a valuable "insight".

It certainly is.

That and the scare quote that people normally use to indicate that the use of a term is somehow in question. At least that's how the books I read and people I talk to do it. That would be a pretty solid reason to assume you're still arguing about the use of the term and not just changing the subject to the fact that women are coerced too.

You see what I did there? Women are coerced, not 'coerced', because it like... actually happens that way. It's not a premise that I'm self-consciously adopting even though I think it's wrong, so I don't need to put it in quotes.

You need to put scare quotes around your entire comment, sound scared, as if everything you've ever believed is in question.

Have you heard of these things called "condoms"? Also, what about a woman who has sex with a number of men over the course of a few years, and gets pregnant repeatedly, is she now obligated by your morality to take care of all of them? Seriously, I'm not mad keen on the idea of children, that's why I take some fucking responsibility for myself and use contraception. It's really not that hard.

Oh my god abortion is soooo expensive. Traveling to an abortion clinic if one isn't near by is soooo expensive.

You know what's expensive? Raising kids for 25 years. THAT'S fucking expensive. If it's a question of finance, the choice is clear. And yes, I think the father should help pay for such costs of an abortion if that's what the woman wants because they both made the decision to not use birth control.

OMG you're right! We DO all have access to free birth control!

We DO all have extra money to spend!

We DO all have health coverage that includes access to safe abortion and aftercare!

We DO all live in states where the pregnant person can consent to the abortion without being subjected to medical rape (texas), watching emotionally manipulative videos about precious unborn babies, getting permission from parents, getting permission from husbands, or getting permission from boyfriends.

We DO all live in states with birth control clinics, or like Kansas, one clinic!

Wait a minute... I think that one clinic in Kansas just got shut down after its one abortion provider was shot by pro-lifers a few years ago.

Oh, well, I guess we at least all have cars or friends with cars!

And we have emotional support.

And we're raised in a society that respects the choice to have an abortion as a fundamental human right.

And we live in a society that provides for everyone, so if someone wants to be a single parent it's totally feasible.

And we live in a society that values single women with kids as highly as single women without kids. Welfare is looked upon favorably!

All you fucking "freebirds" with your tired On The Road "free spirit" bullshit... get out of here with this ridiculous idea that your responsibility ends when you grace someone with your cum... get over yourselves, grow the fuck up and deal with reality

I really fucking hope you kill yourself. If you consider yourself an anarchist, you're not an anarchist that I have any intention of working with, ever.

Implying that everyone in the world should be subject to your morals regardless of their personal/environmental situation is 100% fucking authoritarian and has everything in common with "radical feminism" and nothing in common with anarchism.

Way to steal their line, asshole. Everyone, we got a real McCoy over here. Not an anarchist? I guess I'm wondering here, Captain Anarchy, when did anarchism not include respecting women? I guess I must have missed that. But I get man, you don't play by anyone else's rulez. That's how you don't let the women folk and the the bossman get you down. Plus, those lady brains could never understand your thought provoking theory. That there's mens work. Go back to your tumblr dickwipe!

You hope somebody kills herself because you're too lame to use a freaking condom? Hope your dick gets oozing pus-filled warts, then shrivels up and falls off leaving a gaping, painful abscess that only maggots will find attractive.

Thanks for taking precious time from jerking off to CrimeThinc to grace us with your insightful analysis.

Also, side note:

I love how you assume the lowest insult you can throw is that you won't work with someone, EVER.

Did it cross your mind that perhaps your sophisticated contributions aren't as highly valued by Authoritarian Feminist Witches as they should be? lol.

Should have thought about that before he had sex!

Stupid post aside, logistics and semantics too...go fuck yourself. What, next are you going to tell her to pull herself up by the bootstraps. You a single mom?

Hm, yes, the pro-life movement is all about oppressing men and forcing them to be fathers...


It is, actually. It is primarily about oppressing women, but it is also an issue that oppresses men. That's one reason why men and women can find common cause on the issue. What a terrible thing, right?

Maybe someday you realize that the sentiment of "Fuck that, I don't want to be a parent" can come from either a man or a woman or a genderqueer person and that the sentiment is equally valid no matter who it's coming from.

Even if she wanted an abortion, she'd have one hell of a hard time finding a doctor to abort a healthy baby at six months.

And men (or "men") who don't want to be fathers, and engage in intercourse with women anyway, ought to fucking wear condoms. It's not that goddamned difficult. Probably not even his first kid...some jerks like this think they're doing the world a blessing by shooting their golden sperm around with wild abandon, just to prove they can breed. The little puke may not give half a shit about his daughter, but watch him try to get miles of pussy out slinging some sad-eyed sob story about "the child I've never known...there was nothing I could heart still bleeds."

Seems to me this is a fine communique against the "system" whereby some (not all, some) dirty asses of the male gender think its ok to bail on their own children because it's more fun to play teenager well into their self-involved middle age.

Oops, or miles of dick, or both. Forgot he was "gay," but same principle (or total lack thereof).

Hahahaha of course this is from Chicago! Chicago is literally the stupidest, most counter-revolutionary place on the planet.

what about Madison?

Have you forgotten 2009-2010 Chicago? Idiots calling themselves "anarchists" were chanting "What do we want? RACE WAR! When do we want it? NOW! Where do we want it? IN OUR PUTRIDLY SMALL ANARCHIST SCENE!"

Alright Chicago! Now this time, with feeling!

Do you mean Philadelphia? This sounds like Philadelphia 1970s to the present.

What color "anarchists" were chanting that, assuming this post is real?

On Turtle Island,I would only accept hearing that chant from armed Latino, other Native American, or African-American folks challenging the Tea Party or the Nazis to a fight.

Probably a couple dorks pretending to speak for APOC

most likely yelling at Crimethinc.

Glad I live here even more glad I avoid these people.

As a person who lives in Chicago:

You are sadly correct.

abort that little parasite, don't use your misandry as an excuse, humanity is a disease.

the destruction of any particular male anarchist is always the highest goal of any anarchist practice

The destruction of any plantar wart is always the highest goal of any apple-cider vinegar treatment.

The destruction of any lower levels of consciousness is always the highest goal of any transcendent practice, man

"because fuck fathers"
"my daughter and I neeeeeeeeed you"



Damn, what a jerk. Have you ever been pregnant? Hormones? Confusion? Loneliness? Anxiety? She wants to be a strong single role model for her daughter, but who doesn't want someone else (esp a purported friend) along for the ride?

"Hormones? Confusion? Loneliness? Anxiety?"

Are you saying pregnant women are incapable of rationality and should be condescended to or ignored when they say things? She said "FUCK FATHERS", but you are dismissing what she said because she's "hormonal". What.

I'm still baffled that you can't take an anti-breeding position without it constituting misogyny ... does that include my larger misanthropy? I'm not just picking on women, I think everyone should die equally ... and soon. That makes me a misogynist?

Fuck the anti-breeding position, who about just "I don't want to be a father." Isn't the whole fucking point of pro-choice politics that women shouldn't be forced to be mothers? What but for men the same force is okay?

If your response to this is "Wahhh wahhhh men are soooo oppressed into being fathers" then you're a piece of shit. Yes, it is a fucking big deal, it's a fucking huge life changing thing to be a parent and no one should be forced into it. And I'm not going to accept that men should suck it up and be a dad if they don't want to simply because women have it worse in other ways. Yeah, maybe we can let some misandry comments slide, but 25 years of hard labor on a child? Fuck that.

I am staunchly pro-choice. But I also think that anyone who abandons their children, whether they were 'wanted' or not, is the lowest form of slime on earth. End of story.

Oh really? Let me ask you, how many potentially procreative sexual acts have you engaged in in your life? If all of them came back to haunt you in the form of babies, you really think you should be responsible for all of them, when it wasn't your decision for them to be here?

Since a woman is the one who ultimately decides whether or not a child will be brought into this world alive and kicking or sucked out when it's a blob, it is mostly her responsibility to make sure any dude she's sleeping with knows that she will not have an abortion upon conception before gettin it without a condom. Cuz when you don't want an abortion, gettin it without a condom is kind of like TRYING to conceive, yea? ~~~~~~~~o(( It sucks that men don't take responsibility, it sucks that friends and communities don't take responsibility for each other, but...many of us are still children who can barely take care of ourselves much less real children. Generation Fuck Up.

-a misogynist woman who doesn't like breeding unless it produces those super duper cute anarchy babies that i can hang out with, no strings attached cept sum stinky diaperzzzzz

so maybe the take away here is talk about reproductive preferences before having potentially procreative sex and remember condoms can break and people can change their mind. Also would it be strange to say that people of ALL genders are responsible for having these conversations? If its any help I have these conversations all the time even though its a little awkward i still have a sex life. Despite what you'd think folks will still do things they have to have actual conversations about and consider in a sober rational light...

If you didn't engage in some form of birth control, then the answer is Yes, you should be responsible, because it was part of your decision for them to be there, as you didn't wear a fucking condom like they taught you in ninth grade.

you're so hostile, i am agreeing with you.

Don't assume your sexual partners will have an abortion or help raise off spring. Assuming either of those things is problematic.

Plus, don't assume your sexual partners don't have STDs. Wait, why are we having to explain this shit? Are all anews commenters actually 11?

Wait, wait,

because "fathers" in general can't refer to:

1) God
2) Good Old Boys
3) Priests
4) Fathers in general, you know, the ones who are known for raping and abusing at least 1/3 of their wives & at least 1/4 of their kids

Forgot "Founding Fathers"...


Sorry about your situation.
But seriously why is this on @news and why are we even commenting on it further.

For the love of everything that is sacred, worker, please post something else so people have a new post to talk about.

It's si disgusting that the people writing comments on this post have chosen not to reach out and support a "comrade" (of you can call her that after the way you're reacting to her being open about her situation). What some HAVE chosen to do is pipe up and defend patriarchy and sexual violence by rationalizing the case against Julian Assange? Awkward.

The writer of this piece wants support from her community - the larger anarchist community - and I would argue it is news because it is calling into question a very specific problem, as one commenter noted: men continue to organize against gender norms in the abstract while not challenging them sufficiently in their everyday lives. Women are as guilty, of course. But the writer is asking for someone to talk to and get excited about her baby with. If JW is going through his own problems, he should be upfront about that so she at least knows what's going on.

Anyone calling this straight up drama is the one that needs to grow up, not the author.

"you are owed support by your friends and comrades, but you are owed nothing by people who have never met you and don't know the specifics. this isn't the best way to resolve this- shaming only works if it is done by a community someone doesn't want to loose face in. a-news is not a community. try something else. i am willing to bet this will not have the outcome you want it to, this will only lead to more drama."
This quote is probably true, but i posted it here, because i am offering you support if i know you, and i'm guessing that if i do know you i'll be able to tell you in person. I say it here so you can count on it.

A grandmother now, i had 4 children by 4 different fathers free from patriarchal control. First was adopted due to being beaten while pregnant by her dad, my dad and a boyfriend. Reconnected 10 years ago and she is so much a part of our lives now that it is magical. Yes, i had too many kids, but it is done with and raised them outside the system without fathers. One father has been involved in their lives, but minimally. I raised them in the mountains living off the grid, hauling water, chopping wood, growing food, unschooling. Took them with me to the frontlines, especially traditional Indigenous peoples welcomed us as children are central to their cultures defending sacred lands.

Sadly children are not part of an overwhelming approach to anarchism these days, tho many hate hippies, Rainbows who live frontline struggle are more likely to include children in their outlook. So many haters of breeders just ignore kids as if they don't exist until their old enough to influence. Not a healthy alternative to dominant unculture. I knew the fathers did not care about the kids and never expected them to bother. As they have grown, each kid made choices to connect or not with fathers.

I know struggle as mostly solitary. Too much sexism, lack of stance preventing and against rape, lack of participation in raising kids whether their yours or not, too many capitulate to dominant system once kids are born. Not easy doing without to extremes. Having children alone guarantees poverty. Activist parents, especially women, are poor to an extreme limited in how much they can participate. How a future can be built when most do NOT care about kids baffles me. Guess if you hate breeders, you can hate the kids as well. No wonder occupy was such a drunken cuss fest. Too much nasty behavior which is a basis for failure. Way too much vicious incrowdism among PNW anarchists. Depressing.

Other mothers tend to know more how to resist as parents. Some men are devoted to their offspring. Just way too many act like they have nothing to do with impregnanting. Just get vasectomies if you do not believe in having kids.

Just wonder how you all think a workable alternative will happen when mothers are left holding the entire bag way too often. As if it is our sole responsibility. Patriarchal thinking full tilt. It is my belief that all men who come inside a woman's vagina whether she gets pregnant or not is responsible for the kids and their future, but hey, that's me. I know the reality of how much most men care. As a grandmother i see the reality. Best of luck to you. Give up on the guy caring. He just doesn't and he won't change anymore than way too many men will ever do anything to prevent, stop or end rape, sexism, battering or femicide.

That's because modern day Anarchism is individualized hippiedome and/or fetishized violence festering under a bubble of narcissistic disconnect. If we could actually build a community and hold each other accountable, maybe put into practice some of hese wild cool ideological concepts that we purport to adhere by, maybe we could truly do away with the fucked up values we claim to disregard.

Reproductive Futurism! Thin of the children! Wooooo!

This hurts. When I see insulting, wired barbs of verbal assault like this thrown at anyone of the female species, it makes me sick. It makes me lose hope in not only male accountability within the american anarchist community, but in all of humanity. Sometimes I wonder why I even align myself with groups when people like most of the commentators on this page, have the audacity to align themselves with my same values, and hopes, and wants, and needs. I will never have a child, but have any of you stopped to think that if anarchists or activists don't have children, who will be left populating the world 20, 30, 40 years from now? The offspring of assholes and brainwashed sheeple? I digress..

Aren't many of us anarchists already the offspring of assholes and brainwashed sheeple? Why do you think we became anarchists?

You know what fucking makes me sick? This entire sort of exchange where one side of someone's personal relationships is aired in public and then that personal shit becomes the golden opportunity for anonymous others to debate ethics. Fuck this. Do you know any single parents in your materially interdependent community? I sure as fuck do and it's never a transparent situation which can be judged from one angle. If someone needs help with their family and there's a way to help them, why the hell not. But what the fuck am I or anyone who doesn't know or have direct contact with these people going to do with the information provided? Debate the merits of the actions of people I know next to absolutely nothing about? This shit is weak. I've said some dumb things in public (and on here) and it's never helped my situation. I don't think anyone is going to be better off because of this, including the author.

"But what the fuck am I ... going to do"

Light a candle and feel bad like any good Catholic/liberal/"anarcho"-scenester.
Also you can push you aid(s) out into the ether by automatically deferring to the next person you meet who's in any of the same oppressed identity groups as the person you couldn't help.

[Quote]"Bawwwww!!! Someone I assume is male is being mean to a woman on the internet! Baawwww! Better attack men in general. Even if you aren't doing what I'm complaining about it's your fault for not pressuring other men more. Waaaa! Each one of you is individually responsible the actions of the the worst members of your entire gender. Waaaa!!!!"[Quote]

I don't dis the sisters and I am pitching in to help my friends who are lucky enough to bring a child into the world. Thanks for lumping me in with these dicks. If there's anything that will make the "anarchist" scene more functional it's clearly (yet another) good dose of bitter, essentializing, abused-abuser attacks. Enjoy your fucked up crusty "community", and remember - attacking men is easier that actually reexamining the kind of people you choose to associate with.

Eat shit and die,
-a libertarian communist

You are so right! Listen to you, not "dissing the sisters" LOL.

Anyway, clearly you have a sophisticated understanding of hierarchy and oppression, including sexism, rape culture, reproductive justice, and more!

So you'll understand when I tell you to stop your fucking whining about the mean feminazis, Rush Limbaugh, and get your shit together when it comes to supporting people whose oppression benefits you.

That includes respecting that they might know a thing or two about sexism, even with their hysterical cunty bitchy hystrionic ladybrains...

...maybe even... more than you do!

I'm sorry. What mistakes am I making in my like outside of this notoriously troll riddled joke of a website? Please elaborate. You were able to deduce from my criticism of this scene drama cum troll fodder that I hate feminism and feel attacked by the rights of women and minorities so I feel like you have the sort of clairvoyance that could help me work on my shit.

You are such a pitiful fucking brat. Did someone steal your rattle? I can't even respond with anymore than that doooooood!

This is the same conservative bullshit that you hear from those waspy pieces of shit!

"We men are losing our rights to women ever since they got out of the kitchen and started working and wearing pants."

"Whites are gonna be a minority in the U.S. pretty soon you know."

Goddamnit! I hate you!

>"We men are losing our rights to women ever since they got out of the kitchen and started working and wearing pants."

>"Whites are gonna be a minority in the U.S. pretty soon you know."

Oh radfems y'all are hilarious. You got all that from one rant about dipshit anarchists on the internet?

Oh right, I forgot that anyone who disagrees with you on anything automatically agrees with ALL opinions you reject. Party line or GTFO!

"radfem"? Did you read that on Tumblr?

Do you mean like 2nd wave/ Riot Grrrl radfem?

Or do you mean any feminist who believes in revolution vs reform?

Or do you just mean someone really awesome? Someone femme?

...Please elaborate

Western justice is based on the judgement of ‘good’ or ‘evil’. It is implicit in this public attack on JW. This concept comes from viewing humans as as ‘things-in-themselves’ as if ‘created’ by a God. when we have this view of ‘humanity’ in our heads then the social dynamic is ‘given’ by ‘what humans-as-things-in-themselves do’. and once we are thinking about society in this way, then the quality of the social dynamic depends directly on the quality of the behaviours of the individuals in society. that’s how we get to the notion of ‘justice’ based on ‘moral law’, and that’s what this appeal by sabrina’s mother is based on, ‘moral law’ as the basis for ‘justice’, ... the profile of what the ‘morally correct’ behaviour of JW should be.

the world view based on ‘what things-in-themselves do’ is Fiktion, therefore a society that tries to manage its dynamic based on imposing moral law on its constituency of ‘things-in-themselves’ is delusional. people are NOT ‘things-in-themselves’ as in the Western Creator-created dualist myth. our living space comes first and we are the products that gather in the living space. our community is the collective bed we lie in and if we contaminate our bed we all choke in the contamination.

the aboriginal values orient to cultivating a nurturing community-space or ‘bed’, the common space that we ‘lie in’. one of the posts noted that the aboriginal culture oriented to the welfare of the children/grandchildren. it does more than that, it orients to keeping the common living space healthy and nurturant so that the space will be nurturant to all those things ‘growing up in it’. these values implicitly accord with the physical reality as given by quantum physics, as has been noted by many physicists; i.e. mach’s principle can be expressed; “the dynamics of the bed are conditioning the dynamics of those who lie in it at the same time as the dynamics of those who lie in it are conditioning the dynamics of the bed”. these values orient to cultivating and sustaining balance and harmony in the common living space dynamic, over and above trying to ensure that every individual conforms to the same God-give moral law based behaviour.

western values, meanwhile, are moral values that orient to individual behaviour [as in the local beings popped out by the Creator in the Western monotheist myth, rather than the local forms continually emerging in the relational spatial-plenum of the aboriginal pantheistic myth]. in the western tradition, the value instead is; “he/she has made his/her own bed and now she/he must lie in it”. thus JW would be expected to be a father to sabrina regardless of whether he was able to be a good father, and sabrina’s mom would be expected to be a mother to sabrina regardless of whether she was able to be a good mother [instead of handing sabrina off to a grandmother etc.].

the whole stress, in the western cultural tradition is on ‘perfecting’ the behaviour of the individual in the sense of getting that behaviour to conform to moral law; “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.” ---Galations 6:7

of course, a man who is a shitty care-giver to his female partner can nevertheless AND AT THE SAME TIME, contribute to the nurturing quality of the common living space. he can be the source of random acts of kindness. he can be a fierce warrior defending against injustice of a physical nature wherever he sees it, he can ‘bring home the bacon’ and share it with the many.

the point is that individuals whose behaviour is shitty in certain situations can be good in others. when police answer a call by a woman who is being beaten by her partner, they have to be wary of what the woman is going to do as they escalate the force they use as they try to take her old man off to the slammer; i.e. she wants to stop/reform his nasty behaviour but because he is a good provider and a great father to their kids and her kids, she doesn’t want the cops to waste him and thus throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater.

in other words, there is inevitably ‘good and bad in everything’.

western justice looks for violations of moral code, and where it finds them, it seeks to destroy the source of them. this is ‘perfectionism’. if you are a young person who breaks a bank window or strikes back at a cop who is viciously taking you down, your life may be changed for good. your criminal record will exclude you from many types of employment and you will not be allowed to visit other countries, even if you have brothers and sisters living there, and you may come to hate the community that has 'capped' your access to the opening of possibility that sources the blossoming of your assertive potentialities.

aboriginal justice, which is re-emerging as ‘restorative justice’ in western society, is not based on applying moral code to individual behaviour. it assumes that our individual behaviour arises from the behaviours of others; i.e. it assumes that we are included in a web of relations and that others can shake the web in such a manner that it causes movement on our part. this view of space as ‘relational’ corresponds to physical reality according to modern physics. it is the view of Mach, Schroedinger et al. what one storm cell does in relationally inextricable from what the other cells are doing; i.e. the dynamics of the flow are conditioning the dynamics of the cells at the same time as the dynamics of the cells are conditioning the dynamics of the flow. that applies as well to community; “the relational dynamics of the collective are conditioning the dynamics of the individuals at the same time as the dynamics of the individuals are conditioning the dynamics of the collective.

if the 99% are hogging all the wealth and the access to natural resources and natural treasures (coastlines etc.), this conditions the behaviour of the 1%; i.e. their access to food, travel, opportunity, is suppressed and they will naturally feel suffocated and oppressed and pissed off, and are we to believe that when they smash some windows, or more, that they are ‘things-in-themselves’ whose behaviour is fully and solely their own, emerging from their own internal processes?

let’s face it. the aboriginal world view is far more realistic than the western world view. the western world view is hung up in dualist thinking that portrays that individual as a ‘thing-in-itself’ rather than a ‘strand in a web of relations’. it is this view of people as ‘things-in-themselves’, popped out as individual local machine-units that leads to a moral law based justice system.

so what does sabrina’s mom want to achieve by this public attack on JW? perhaps JW is not ‘all bad’. perhaps, in spite of his shortfalls in the fathering realm, he is helping out, in other areas he is more capable in, to make the space that sabrina grows up in a ‘better and more nurturing space’.

sabrina’s mom seems to judge JW fully in terms of their interpersonal relations; e.g;

“Have fun dismantling capitalism and patriarchy while you leave me and your daughter to navigate these treacherous Midwestern terrains, especially in such uncertain times, without even a single word.” ... “I HAVE A BABY INSIDE OF ME---I DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR ANARCHO FRIENDS!”

one can understand her disappointment and anger, but what about her act of public condemnation. does it seek to ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’? would she, in an inuit community, throw out the best hunter who had the ethic of sharing his catch with the whole village, because he had the manners of a slob in his relations with women? how would that help her babies?

anarchists, generally, have not directly come to grips with the issue of ‘values’, in the sense of the very different values of different cultures such as western and aboriginal cultures, but it is implicitly at the core of many issues that are in-the-face of anarchists.

using moral law to optimize the behaviour of the individual (e.g. trying to alienate and thus cripple him/her for a particular violation of moral code) cannot do otherwise but to suboptimize the dynamics of community. Jean Valjean was doing more for community outside of prison/alienation than inside, in spite of his robin-hood penchant for thievery of baguettes to feed starving kids.

sabrina’s mom might therefore reproach JW for his insensitivity within their relationship, but for the good of sabrina, do nothing to ‘bring him down’ or otherwise inhibit his contributions to a more balanced world, the world that sabrina is going to grow up in.

LOL you pedantic ass, cool essay bro


So, (cutting through all the rhetoric) you reject the notion of individual responsibility/accountability because, you assert, there is a 'collective' morality or constellation of relationships? And, invoking Les Miserables, you argue it's OK to rob a local liquor store if my poor old maiden aunt needs an operation?

This sounds a lot like the Charles Manson defense of his co-defendants: The Devil/They made me do it! I have no moral compass, it's society's fault. We have no logic/obligation to be moral because everything is deterministic and preordained. God's a Yankees fan, which is why the Giants lost?

In your moral universe, there's no need for the individual to maintain a moral calculus at all. In fact, you essentially deny the individual even (for all practical purposes) exists as a moral agent.

So how does this fit in with whatever your theory of government is? How does government prevent force & fraud or provide for the national defense (including protecting the environment) without free agency on the part of the individual as a moral agent?

- -

what you read in my above account is the ‘beyond good-and-evil’ values system of machean philosophy/physics, nietzsche and aboriginal tradition which associates with ‘relational space’ wherein ‘interdependent connectedness’ prevails.

there can be no ‘moral laws’ that apply to ‘individual behaviour’ in such a system since one cannot isolate a ‘behaviour of the individual’ in an interdependent matrix of relations.

in aboriginal justice and in ‘restorative justice’ one responds to conflict as has arisen in the ‘community’ [as an interdependent relational matrix]. the response seeks to restore balance and harmony within the interdependent relational matrix [to seek transformation in the relational dynamics of community], rather than to simply and solely finger an individual that has ‘violated moral law’ and prosecute and punish him, ... a tactic which leaves the relational dynamics of community ‘off the hook’ even thought it is breeding this shit.

in a relational space, everyone is co-responsible for transforming the habitat-dynamic which is at the same time conditioning the dynamics of the inhabitants [Mach’s principle], so where are you getting this notion;

“We have no logic/obligation to be moral because everything is deterministic and preordained.”

its not in my writing. in a relational web of interedependent connectedness, when anyone makes a move, it transforms the relational web, and whenever the relational web transforms, it makes everyone in it move. that is Mach’s principle describing PHYSICAL REALITY.

all of this individual moral responsibility comes from the view of the individual as an absolute local, independently existing ‘being’ or ‘thing-in-itself’, notionally with his/her own locally originating, internal intellection and purpose directed behaviour.

so, yes, apart from your use of the word ‘moral’, you are correct in saying;

“In your moral universe, there's no need for the individual to maintain a moral calculus at all. In fact, you essentially deny the individual even (for all practical purposes) exists as a moral agent.”

in your statement, you ignore the fact that it makes sense, if one is in a relational web, to be responsible for one’s actions in the sense that if you kill the son of a hatfield, a mccoy is liable to kill your son. it is ‘bad karma’ to indiscriminately shake the relational web as it will shake you back. besides, the ‘ethical universe’ i am talking about is one of ‘mitakuye oyasin’, 'we are all related', so it makes no sense to kill one’s own brother who supports the common living space which supports ourselves.
you write;

“So how does this fit in with whatever your theory of government is? How does government prevent force & fraud or provide for the national defense (including protecting the environment) without free agency on the part of the individual as a moral agent?”

your question essentially asks, how is anarchism possible? [answer; because nature is anarchist]

you seem to be hung up on the question as to whether an individual within a relational web can have ‘free agency’. the U.S. has ‘free agency’ and Nazi Germany had ‘free agency’. ‘free agency’ is a psychological state-of-mind wherein one forgets or ignores that one is in a relational web and that when one irresponsibly shakes the relational web, it make shake you back;

“In extending his living space in a manner that destroys the space of others, he destroys his own space. Not initially his inside space, his ‘self’, but his outside space, this real outside-of-self which nourishes his ‘inside-of-self’. The protection of this outside space now becomes the condition without which he is unable to pursue the growth of his own powers of being.” — Frédéric Neyrat, ‘Biopolitics of Catastrophe’

in a relational space, there is no ‘government’ as a ‘thing-in-itself’, there is only ‘governance’ as an ‘organizING process’ rather than as a standing ‘organizATION’. in a relational space, there is no need for laws and enforcement by standing bodies of regulators and police. such a system is not a utopian ideal, it is a system that was in use for thousands of years in traditional aboriginal communities and confederations of communities. the ‘nation’ in this case is a nation of freely associating individuals with the ethic of ‘mitakuye oyasin’, and not the ‘sovereign state nation’ that you imply in regard to ‘national defence’. community alliances are also a means of cultivating/restoring/sustaining balance and harmony amongst a diverse multiplicity of communities. it has been done. if you don’t believe it, that is your option, but what, then, is the point of your asking the question?

“To Engels, Morgan’s description of the Iroquois [in Lewis Henry Morgan’s Ancient Society and The League of the Haudenosaunee or Iroquois] was important because “it gives us the opportunity of studying the organization of a society which, as yet, knows no state.” Jefferson had also been interested in the Iroquois’ ability to maintain social consensus without a large state apparatus, as had Franklin. Engels described the Iroquoian state in much the same way that American revolutionaries had a century earlier: “Everything runs smoothly without soldiers, gendarmes, or police, without nobles, kings, governors, prefects or judges; without prisons, without trials. All quarrels and disputes are settled by the whole body of those concerned. . . . The household is run communistically by a number of families; the land is tribal property, only the small gardens being temporarily assigned to the households — still, not a bit of our extensive and complicated machinery of administration is required. . . . There are no poor and needy. The communistic household and the gens know their responsibility toward the aged, the sick and the disabled in war. All are free and equal — including the women.” — Bruce E. Johansen, Forgotten Founders

No surprises within hours of this post the phone rings. And Sabrina's mother does not answer.

I repeat - the author of this text is a misogyny propaganda machine...why did you delete my comment? because it's too true?

It's absolutely true.

WTF yuo fuckion hatefulk fucklin scumn io wasd a fucklin unclke wjhen oi weas 6yrd olkd anm i grewq up fukclin lookinm aftert myu fasmnilys hunerds ofg babiues,,,.AND WTF yopu fuckin hatefilk fuicklin bnasdtards yuous wazs a fiuckin basby woncer hoo tehj fuck lookerd aftre youi,.,.8ball

8ball is slightly more legible. Try again ;) Or maybe it's really you and your shitty childhood is a trigger for worse typing?

WTF itsd fuickin mer youi piecer of shiyt ands keepo my muthas outtas it!1!,..,8ball

IGG8ball a 0/10

Terrible impersonation. Does not do the original 8ball or the subjects of his parody justice.

WTF yoiu po,mpopus fucklin bastardf dont fuuckin call me a paroduy like im sum fucjki9nm conmstruct bof youre owen fuckinm identityu im a real fuckin feelingh fuickin person anbd i look after alot oif babies for my cousdins an fucklin inlawes yopu peice of fuickin shit,.,AND 1 dayu yuoll fuickimn see how ity fuckin comesd around in a darkl fuickin al;ley wjhen yous mewet realk fucklin perople.,.,8ball

Much more interesting than Leah Lynn-Plante. The number of replies doubles no, trioles that of the previous post. Munchhousan by proxy?

It even has a fake me. Haven't seen that in four days. But just to weigh in, there is a black and white answer to all of this, and I'll tell you in hopes that my internet trolling will solve your dillema. That's what makes a community unthought out advice. Oh wait, hold on, my verdict is....

Jerry Jerry Jerry

-who the fuck has the balls to comment on a potential single mothers ordeal. Help her or s.t.f.u.

I'm all for helping single mothers, but according to this she WANTED to be a single mom? Am I reading this wrong? Never heard of that before. Must be wealthy!

To Sabrina's mother:

You should send this to Little Birdy:
This is a list serve that outs manarchists in the movement who have been found to be sexually, emotionally and physically abusive to women.

And damn, JW's behavior mirrors that of Rob "los Ricos" Thaxton, that asshole who continues to use and manipulate women.

I appreciate that you have shared your story with the public. I do wish that we could have his full name.

So what mechanisms do you have in place to assure this listserve for outing isn't misused? Or you just assume only malebodied anarchists can be manipulative and shitty? Fuck your project. I understand the desire but the outcome will be a nontransparent tribunal council.

Well men who abuse men and women who abuse anyone are already off the hook. It must be nice to be queer and be able to trust everyone you date not to be a creep or an abuser. Those people are so lucky.

He'll probably regret this later on. My dad sure does.

So now I guess I'll just assume that any male anarchist with the initials of J.W. is a piece of crap until someone comes forward with a name?

ewww, don't gender your kid!

What? Kids can have their parents "gender" them and the kids can change thier gender later on. Kids do have gender preferences, you gotta give them a context for the categories society will use. Anyway all of it is gendering.

I find it unlikely that someone who proudly declares, "Fuck fathers", has related the full story here. Are you sure you are not such a massively toxic individual that in reality, he is trying to avoid you? At the expense of being part of his daughters life?

That was my thought. The context of the entire letter gives insight to what these messages sent asking for "AT LEAST emotional support" likely also entail... namely, shittiness.

I'm totalllyyyy sure they just say "please, emotional support at least?" and not variations of "FUCK FATHERS I HATE YOU PLEASE SUPPORT ME BUT GO AWAY HELP ME PLEASE YOU'RE THE FATHER BUT FUCK FATHERS AND FUCK YOU!" like the letter's subtext narrates...

How sided it is attests to this, too. You don't even have to wonder if there's another side to it, there is *no other side* presented in it that isn't intended to paint the father in a poor light and blank out any hints that the author is anything but completely in the right.

Shit's embarrassingly suspect at best. But I laughed allllllll day that this got posted and asked for attention from the "anarchist news community" by name, lol.

To the fucking Manarchists,

As a cis man who gives atleast one ounce of a shit about feminism, I fucking hate all of you. You are the most privileged, bratty, entitled pieces of shit I have ever encountered. Spare me your label as an "identity politicing liberal" who's distracting white men from the insurrection. Oh, maybe this is a generalization and all you poor men are feeling oppressed by what I'm saying. If you are a person who gets somebody pregnant and doesn't give a shit/thinks it's their responsibility, obviously you've been an entitled brat your whole life. If you give a shit about anyone but yourself, deal with the possible outcome of having sex. Grow the fuck up! True, nobody can "force" you to be a dad. But guess what? You are a fucking dad whether you like it or not. If you don't want to be responsible for that then think about how somebody shouldn't be responsible for taking care of your fucking kid or having an abortion because you're the piece of shit pressuring them into that situation. Have you had an abortion? I haven't and I can't imagine what the fuck that would feel like. Probably a lot more horrible then you taking time out of reading Derrick Jensen and masturbating your radical ego as you use your white privilege and "scamouflage" to steal northface jackets and not let the man get you down with a job even though everyone is forced to have one which doesn't mean you are privileged, man, so you can really spend your time prepping for the collapse. Seriously, FUCK YOU! Cut your hair you fucking conservative hippie!

Oooooh, now I get it! It IS the anti-abortion machine! And I suppose the non-profit, pissing blood story is also part of this machine. Great.

Probably be heading over to Libcom in a little while. I've grown a bit attached to this site, and it'll take some readjusting, but no. I think I see this, and simply, no.

All the snark I'm allowed doesn't prevent me from wanting unholy death upon this horrible nightmare.

And the Playground Anarchism? You too? It seemed so personal, so real! I honestly have not the fucking slightest clue what the fuck is going on, no sarcasm or irony or anything or even the wise man knows he knows nothing, but in some cases, it's just a dumbass with a realist perspective and a laptop. Hi. Please lead me...

You don't like "manarchists"? That's refreshing, usually when someone defines a group of people exclusively with a pejorative it's because they have nice things to say. As a female anarchist I find your criticism of a reified social dynamic to be both heartening and sexually arousing. Please tell me more about what great privilege-recognizing guy you are while I assume you would never do anything shitty. Perhaps we can begin a relationship, the ashes of which will find their way into future callouts.


Clearly, the only reason any cisdude would care about feminism is to get in feminists' pants...

Shows how you view women (and men)?

Clearly, the only reason any cisdude would [make a big fucking show about caring] about feminism is to get in [naive anarchists]' pants...


Check the drama archives breh...

...and a white knight appears

Thats fuckimn treue whaty you sayuing exavctly its lilke fuickin poeole think cois theuy against fuckjin ruilesd that they tharfore dont have to fuckin havbe any responsibilty buty fuckin laws amnd rules arew a diffrebnt fucklin coincept to fuckjin responsibilkty cos fuickin responsiblity comesd from thje fuckin herart and noit thje fuckin headf,,.,AND as far as i,m concernedf and im not as fuckin manarcjhist but i think theer wholke femninista movement arose outta teh fuckin presasure of paterristic fuckin oppresion anmd has alot of bfuckin negative fuckin ressintement moldedf into its fuckin structure to sucjh a fuckjin extenty that thjey woulds rathert have caopitilist docytorsd abort thjeir children soi thjnat thay can maintain their individualkity or fuckin selfioshness its a fuckin vicous circler likle they iun thjeir fuckjin bitterness have become destrioyers like statist fucklin israel,.,AND itsd like thje fuickin lefgtists they juyst thje fuckin same their whole fuckin platdform arises out of fuckion intyellectule fuckin opposition anmd not from a fuickin styeadfast fucklin styauynch fuckin fuckj you capo bastardsd youllk never let me chjange myu fuckin ideas or my fuckin body nbaturasl process what fuckin happens happens I'll take ity as uit fuckion comes withjout ressentiment,.,. AND i,m pashonet aboiurt tjhis cos I love babioes and theyu are the purist ands closesty thinghs to anarchuy on thjis fuckefd up planety.,.,8ball

Still too poorly written and now too well argued as well.

Were you hoping that anybody would try to read this? Is this some anarchist typing style with some hidden purpose I'm not aware of? Just looks like a lot of "fuck" words enshrouded in a headache.

What, pray tell, is a 'manarchist'? Is it a male (A)narchist?

" treacherous Midwestern terrains"

O MY G...

also, is this just someones email or some bullshit. why did i bother to read some shitty gossip, i've got enough of that in mke!!! wa wa wa

Treacherous? Not enough hipsters or starbucks?
Or do you mean instead of tons of fake ass leftists, there's actua; right wingers here, and angry people who aren't left wing?

i was just getting at, you can't complain about a little snow and some glacial landscapes, there's always some pompous coast to live on where you can ignore reality...the winters and summers are here to make us a bit stoic and mild tempered. but also, tons of fake ass leftist, and anarchists, and shittons of rightwingers and nazi's, and plenty of people who ignore the left...i guess the only thing i worry about is being eaten by some bored, white fuck...or getting shot in some shootingspree by some angry misogynist. manarchy is low on my fears...and don't fuck fathers...that only makes them more fathery

Damn, I'm not going to tell the global internet,{ as if this blog is not fiction or the reality drama of a fuckwit}; that I got stoned and had a one-night stand with a syphilitic doper and my child was born genetically deformed but went on to be a deranged obsessive composer of classical music, only because he didn't know he was fucked in the head! Babies as political pawns, how the fuck does the author feel about exposing her child and loading a guilt complex and associated ressentiment upon it at a time when it's innocence is most precious? Imagine the fucking stigmas and associating bullying the child will receive because of the fucked up mother's bitter spitefullness from her own dysfunction. It's like telling a whole lotta sports fans about to watch a delayed broadcast who won the game after they've bought the tickets to a big screen venue. This is one fucked-up unit spawned from feminist righteousness. Love your child or die batch!

i think one of the things this post has shown us is that feminism is more relevant than ever, in the same way AntiFa is.

Feminism is also like anti-fascism in it's non-homogeneity and potential to be idiotic and destructive. Especially when it's purely oppositional without grounding in some plan to actually improve things and not just beat up enemies. Lots of stalinists are anti-fascist, so are some macho manarchists who abuse their partners. Trotsky was anti-fascist and his early life is a stellar example of how evil a person can become when all they care about is defeating some reified enemy at all costs.

"Good thing we're being worked and starved to death by the Soviet union and not the Nazis"
Said no Ukrainian peasant ever.

Everything has the potential to be idiotic and destructive. You're anti-feminist, we get it.

I'm not and your don't.

Do you take my criticism of Stalin to mean that I'm pro-fascist or at least anti-anti-fascist or are you selectively stupid?

No, I actually just pity you. You're like a Mexican skinhead.

Not a Mexican skinhead. More like a Mexican who can admit that some Mexicans are racists and thinks they shouldn't get a free pass.

"Free pass" is one of those racist red flag phrases.

"racist red flag phrases" is one of those racist red flag phrases.

I take it you assume I meant racist against white people?

Be gone, troll. I already addressed this phenomenom with the phrase "Mexican skinhead".

Then what's the issue?

It seems like you're ducking the admission that you think anyone who ever criticizes a feminist is anti-feminist. If you want this conversation to end you could at least state that explicitly. I wont even ask if you think 3rd wave feminist are anti-feminist for criticizing 2nd wave feminists or vice versa. Promise.

For the record, I definitely don't think anyone who ever criticizes a feminist is anti-feminist. There is such a profound difference between criticism and consistently, and mechanically reifying the oppression and exploitation of women.

I'm not sure what you even mean by "reifying the oppression and exploitation of women" but there a a few interpretations to which I would say "No U". I'm just comparing reservations people have about "anti-fascism" as a concretized abstraction to the reservations we ought to have about doing the same with feminism. No matter how shitty the manarchists in this thread have been I don't think it justifies say, collaborating with radical feminists who think that trans folk are either traitors or infiltrators, or treating sexual assault and intimate partner violence and things which are strictly done to women by men (which has happened in this thread). The whole "pro-feminist" camp in this thread has been painfully simplistic, binary, cis-centric, and heteronormative. It's like the last 30 years of feminism didn't happen. If you think that's justified by the how shitty manarchists are then you ought to be consistent and go argue with people who criticize Obama. I mean shit, there were some fucked up republicans so why get distracted with drone strikes and corporate control etc etc. Those drones can be flown by gay people (who can own stock in or work for those corporations) now and that's a step forward!

So do you think sexual assalt and intimate partner abuse have anything to do with reinforcing a gender binary which historically and currently privileges people assigned "male" and oppresses people assigned "female"? And that this extends to heterosexism and cissexism?

Do you seriously have a problem with people linking cismasculinity to violence?

"Do you seriously have a problem with people linking cismasculinity to violence?"

Depends how it's done but mostly yes. There are clearly a lot of links between the two starting temporally and causally with the normalization, justification, and general ignoring of violence towards male identified people. Also I have a problem with sexual assault and ipv because they are horrible things that shouldn't happen to anyone, not because they have something to do with the glass-ceiling or asymmetrical beauty standards.

You do realize that, coincidentally,

people who don't conform to cismasculinity are the most at risk for gender violence? This includes gay cismen and basically everyone else besides adult hetero cismen.

Also coincidentally, ciswomen and transwomen, as well as trans men and genderqueer folks are the MOST at risk for intimate partner violence, and that murder at the hands of a cismale partner is the leading cause of non-natural death for ciswomen?

This information is easily verified via your local morgue or emergency room. dumbass.

I would argue that it's awful and that we should examine it's systematic component in order to effectively stop it. Many but not all feminists argue that we should examine things in whichever light makes it a discussion of how awful cismen are. I don't think that's helpful. I think cismen are socialized to accept violence as normal and that effects their behavior. I understand the dangers of non-normativity, however I also understand how it acts as an enforcement mechanism for normativity.

I(cisdude) used to be a pussy and I got sexually assaulted and emotionally abused by a woman. The general consensus was that it was my fault for being a pussy. I am no longer a pussy. I know an infantryman who's bio father was physically abused by his mother and run off and replaced by an abusive stepfather. He will never be a pussy either. I'm sure his mothers problems can be traced back to her or someone elses treatment by a man but I don't see how that's a helpful analysis.

The kind of focusing you're doing isn't analytical or epidemiological it's just hateful. It's like the FDA only approving gardasil for women. "We can ignore those guys, they're just vectors for the disease, not victims"

Also while statistics differ from survey to survey it's pretty consistently found that women who are sexually assaulted by men form a plurality of victims, not a majority and therefore focusing solely of them actually excludes more victims than it includes. One could make a legitimate epidemiological case that that's the easiest group to protect but that's something to discuss when allocating resources not when deciding where the analysis starts and stops.


You went from "having some reservations" to comparing "radical feminists" (which I'm guessing from your language means all feminists who are not explicitly 3rd wave and/or anti-feminist) to Stalinists, transphobes, people who wouldn't recognize that women can be as violent as men (towards men and women - whether "intimate" or not), and pro-Obama drone strikes. It doesn't seem as if a conversation would be very fruitful, as your rhetoric is the one which is painfully simplistic.

Protip: "Radical Feminist" is a proper noun and I'm not comparing them to transphobes, it's part and parcel of the essentialist dogma that define Radical Feminism as Radical Feminism. My rhetoric seems to be confusing you because you don't actually know shit about anarchism or feminism. The critique of anarchist collaboration with problematic groups under the anti-fascist banner is an old and easily available thing. Read up on it and you'll understand the parallels. If you need some links or explanations for 101 level shit you should be a little nicer.

You're rhetoric isn't confusing at all. I've heard it a million times, and it's trite and ignorant. You seem very proud of yourself, which is just sad.

Damn, meant to reply to the brilliant analyst "schooling" ^ on feminism. Lovin your responses, keep them coming!

Lol, but clearly you do. You should do more than read up on feminism. Maybe try putting some of that theory into practice before talking to actual feminists on teh interwebz

Also want to add. If you actually READ my comment, I very clearly said 'from your language you seem to label all feminism as "radical feminism" ie the kind you hate: angry, hateful bitches, who are stalinist transphobes (and also possibly men!). So.. thank you for explaining to me that there is such a thing as radical feminism, thanks.

If we look at your are belittling me, and telling me I should 'be a little nicer' so you can teach me all about how I'm oppressed...Pretty absurd.


I was belittling you but I didn't offer to teach you how you're oppressed. I offered to teach you some basics of anarchism and feminism. Either one, when reduced to an accounting of forms or instances of oppression is absolute useless shit. It's something that happens yes, but it's not something that helps or hasn't been criticized ad infinitum, which is, and I'm sorry if this sounds dickish, something you would know if you'd been around longer or read more. Both anarchism and feminism encompass an analysis of oppression, strategies for ending it, and a history of both.

It's true I shouldn't be so harsh about it but the recent history of anarchism has been successive waves of people coming in without studying what has happened before, reinventing the wheel, causing a bunch of the same kind of drama, and ultimately failing miserably and moving on to something else. Sometimes leaving behind some zines and writeups for the next wave not to read and usually some old creepers both male and female who use their knowledge of the rhetoric to manipulate people (and cause the aforementioned drama) in ways that wouldn't be possible if people did a little more thinking instead of just assuming their individual anger and revolutionary fervor was the thing needed to tip the scales and create a revolution.

"so you can teach me all about how I'm oppressed...Pretty absurd."

Back to that line. You seem to be doing what a lot of (not all) feminists do, and making these issues your personal property and using a rather twisted analysis to bring everything back to that point. Sure the personal is political but not everything in feminism is about you. It might effect you in some way but when someone is assaulted or abused it's about them. Not the internet feminist who wants to talk about men being mean to women.

Unless you're a simultaneously; gay, straight, binary, non-binary, tran, cis, man, woman, etc. There is a whole lot of shit going on that isn't automatically about you. I know you're probably still getting used to having a way to frame and express your own bitterness about the way you've been treated, which is healthy, but people in your position often monkey-wrench the living shit out of really important conversations that need to happen.

Granted, this is anarchestnews and monkey-wrenching conversations is 90+% of what happens here but still.

"from your language you seem to label all feminism"

Yeah, and this was your own meaning projected into the conversation. I objected to being called anti-feminist(repeatedly) precisely because I don't label all feminism that way and I don't appreciate that dichotomization. I tried to put that down but apparently you weren't picking it up. There are elements in feminism, even good ones, that need to be critiqued. It's not a religion and if it was it would be useless.

Also, I'm loving the "You drew too many parallels between too many concepts, you're rhetoric is simplistic." iteration of the old "No U!".

Also lol @ "comparing people to stalinists".

You do realize it's the historical case of anarchists collaborating with shitty people because other people where shittier that I'm making a link with. I didn't mean to imply that being defensive about feminism was the same as deliberately starving millions of peasants, if that's what you thought I meant.

Don't feed the troll! (^^^^^^^)

Aw shit. Did I get baited by an MRA posing as a hateful feminist again. That shit is totally unfair.


Surely wish you well, Mama. Good on YOU for taking best care of that little one. You're both better off without that fake, cowardly loser. Better he ditches her now, before she's aware of it, than that he break her heart when she's two, or five, or ten years old.

But do try to move forward, forget about his worthless ass, and build the best life you have with the friends and resources you CAN rely on. Don't know if you have parents or siblings in the world, or what those relationships may be like, but a Grandmoms or Pop-Pop or Auntie or Uncle might surprise you with their ability to heartmelt and help out when there's a new baby on the scene.

Whatever you do, though, try to get past the anger and not badmouth Sabrina's "father" to Herself. Would be just like a no-account "Dad" to show up when she's 16 or 20, wanting to "see his baby" all of a sudden just to stroke his ego (or ask for a loan). It's too easy for tapeworms like him to waltz in and out of their children's lives like some romantic King of the Pirates or some shit, fucking with their heads and laying down some bogus mythology about how "Your Mom always was a bitch - I left HER, not you, blah blah poison poison" while you're in the next room doing her laundry.

None of this drama belongs to Sabrina, so don't give him any ammunition he can use later to manipulate your girl, and cause you a fresh round of grief, years down the road.

OK granma, *sigh*, back in the rocking-chair with you, and stop waving that walking stick around!! Damn!!

So your point is, there's no room in your insular little world for babies or the elderly?

Seems to me a walking stick could make quite a statement on some scrawny little shins or some empty little temples. And it's not a walking stick that goes around shooting baby juice without giving a damn who gets hurt in the process.

Get over yourself, you ageist little fuck, lest you wind up doing something so stupid that you never make it to the rocking chair. Sounds like the baby in the article will be a welcome, if challenging, addition to the mother's world. One less flabby, empty ego, however, would be no loss to anyone or anything.

You know how to fix all this shit and whining up? Just hate every motherfucker and become a hermit and live the Stirnerist way. Fuck you all you gender obsessed sheep and capitalist-culture apologists!!

Why "fuck fathers"?

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.
Enter the code without spaces.