I would describe serious Zen Buddhists this way as well, for example, and while there’s a sense in which one could describe Zen Buddhists as anarchists it’s a very different sense from the one we usually mean.
EDIT: Many feminists compare male privilege with white privilege, upper-class privilege etc. (collectively referred to as ‘kyriarchy’). And some anarchists describe themselves as wanting to destroy all such privileges. See also Section A.3.5 of An Anarchist FAQ.
If you think an anarchist can not be a strict radical feminist you are deluding yourself, and I say that as someone who’s been an anarchist (an actual anarchist, interacting with other actual anarchist in the anarchist community in reality, not on the Internet) for most of my life.
Finally, the most common rational for using kyriarchy (almost exclusively used by men) is that it is less offensive as propaganda than patriarchy, since patriarchy is offensive to men.
That’s not even vaguely true. Kyriarchy is generally used, and was coined in, an intersectional context.
This is an uncharitable conclusion. Could also be mistaken, or missing information, or using different definitions than you are, or any number of other possibilities.
Also, you’ve misread the exchange. army1987 was arguing that radical feminists are a similar class to anarchists, and so the language is justified.
The exchange I misread was further down (I thought army1987 was referring to anarchists when they were referring to Zen Buddhists), but I don’t think it’s uncharitable. Generally, anyone exposed to anarchist thought in any way, especially post-90s anarchist propaganda, has a lot of exposure to the interrelatedness of feminism and anarchist such that I can safely presume that anyone identifying as an anarchist but not a feminist is being dishonest with themselves.
It should go without saying that if one assumes the premise that all of those who want to get women out of cages are feminists, then army1987′s comment logically implies that all anarchists are feminists.
The reactionary anti-feminist currents within the anarchist mileu often disavow feminism both personally and as an implication of anarchism, since anarchism is for “freedom for everyone” and feminism is for “freedom for women.” Typically, this goes along with making the (false) claim that “patriarchy oppresses everyone,” or that “Identity politics is a waste of time.”
You’re looking at this in a very set-theoretic way as an outsider to that particular community, so it’s not surprising that you don’t get this, but you should be able to find any of the above arguments in any discussion of anarchism and feminism on the Internet.
I can safely presume that anyone identifying as an anarchist but not a feminist is being dishonest with themselves.
currents within the anarchist mileu often disavow feminism both personally and as an implication of anarchism, since anarchism is for “freedom for everyone” and feminism is for “freedom for women.”
Wait, what? I’m confused, how do these not contradict?
or that “Identity politics is a waste of time.”
Is that intended to fall under the “(false) claim” modifier?
Indeed, people who want to get both men and women out of the cage are called anarchists.
Well, some of them are. Many of them aren’t.
I would describe serious Zen Buddhists this way as well, for example, and while there’s a sense in which one could describe Zen Buddhists as anarchists it’s a very different sense from the one we usually mean.
I don’t think they’re trying to break out of the same kind of ‘cages’ feminists are.
Are anarchists?
Maybe not exactly, but they’re much more similar.
EDIT: Many feminists compare male privilege with white privilege, upper-class privilege etc. (collectively referred to as ‘kyriarchy’). And some anarchists describe themselves as wanting to destroy all such privileges. See also Section A.3.5 of An Anarchist FAQ.
If you think an anarchist can not be a strict radical feminist you are deluding yourself, and I say that as someone who’s been an anarchist (an actual anarchist, interacting with other actual anarchist in the anarchist community in reality, not on the Internet) for most of my life.
What? If anything, what I said implies the opposite of that.
I misinterpreted one of your later comments, and apologize for doing so.
If you mean my reply to TheOtherDave, I’ve since rewritten half of it for clarity.
No, it was related to Zen Buddhism.
But related to that comment, you might want to stop using the word kyriarchy.
That’s not even vaguely true. Kyriarchy is generally used, and was coined in, an intersectional context.
I have likewise been an actual anarchist in actual IRL anarchist communities, and I don’t see where you are coming from with that.
This is an uncharitable conclusion. Could also be mistaken, or missing information, or using different definitions than you are, or any number of other possibilities.
Also, you’ve misread the exchange. army1987 was arguing that radical feminists are a similar class to anarchists, and so the language is justified.
The exchange I misread was further down (I thought
army1987was referring to anarchists when they were referring to Zen Buddhists), but I don’t think it’s uncharitable. Generally, anyone exposed to anarchist thought in any way, especially post-90s anarchist propaganda, has a lot of exposure to the interrelatedness of feminism and anarchist such that I can safely presume that anyone identifying as an anarchist but not a feminist is being dishonest with themselves.It should go without saying that if one assumes the premise that all of those who want to get women out of cages are feminists, then army1987′s comment logically implies that all anarchists are feminists.
The reactionary anti-feminist currents within the anarchist mileu often disavow feminism both personally and as an implication of anarchism, since anarchism is for “freedom for everyone” and feminism is for “freedom for women.” Typically, this goes along with making the (false) claim that “patriarchy oppresses everyone,” or that “Identity politics is a waste of time.”
You’re looking at this in a very set-theoretic way as an outsider to that particular community, so it’s not surprising that you don’t get this, but you should be able to find any of the above arguments in any discussion of anarchism and feminism on the Internet.
Wait, what? I’m confused, how do these not contradict?
Is that intended to fall under the “(false) claim” modifier?