what do ppl who write on here think about 'manarchism' then?

Question

wanted to throw this one out there.... for any/all/ or no reasons, its something to bring up..

Comments

the "scene" in eugene, oregon in the early 00s was overrun with a particular kind of (abhorrent to me) feminism, and the term "manarchist" was used frequently. i could not do anything but laugh, any time i heard it. still do.

Answer 1

I upvoted both flip and dot's answers, because they make points I would've made as well. I also think that manarchist has been used since Occupy in a way quite different than what was intended by the Rock Bloc Collective (who originally coined brought the phrase to prominence the phrase in their essay Stick it to the Manarchy)*. In recent years, I have seen it used as a general condemnation of all violent and confrontational action, and primarily by not-anarchists who always look for tools to smear anarchists. Windows got smashed? Blame the manarchists! Your bus was 40 minutes late because of a protest march that wouldn't heed the cops? Manarchists! Someone fought back against the cops who attacked the march? Totes manarchy.

I didn't like the original permutation of the term, and had almost forgotten that it existed, and then it reared it's head again. It was still based on hollow identity politics, but instead of a good-faith (if misguided) internal critique of group dynamics, it became a weapon to be wielded against us by enemies who are savvy enough to know that there is more to be gained in drawing lines between the "good" anarchists and the "bad" manarchists. They are like cops and the media, they should be treated the same.

On a positive note, I found it instructive to see who of my comrades started using the term, so I could begin to distance myself from them accordingly.

*https://onwardnewspaper.wordpress.com/volume-1-issue-4-spring-2001/stick-it-to-the-manarchy/

edited because in rereading that essay I realized perhaps it was used by some folks before the RBC wrote, but that was where it started getting used more widely.

Comments

What do people think of this article?

https://itisiwhowillit.wordpress.com/2013/08/20/manarchism-or-how-to-hurt-a-mans-feelings/

---

i think it's self-righteous and not well thought out (also the definition of mansplain is not what i think of as mansplaining). it's also boring to me. although i will concede that it reflects a phase that can be useful for women (in this case) to go through.

why, what do you think of it?

---

I think you criticisms are valid but I find it quite interesting and even necessary, and wouldn't say that manarchism is mere 'hollow identity politics' or 'a weapon to be wielded against us by enemies', but a useful feminist critique (when properly used) to some of the tensions and problems that can arise within anarchism and inside of anarchist groups, and that reflects structural problems of the wider society of which anarchists are not excluded for being anarchists.

---

i was answering your question about the article. it doesn't sound like that's what you're responding to.

i think a word that singles out male anarchists for stuff that is not specific to them is a distraction, and places the problem where it is not (ie in their being male and an anarchist). that is very different from wanting to talk about sexism or the patriarchy or even kyriarchy (?), afaic.

---

I find the article satirical and with some pieces of truth. There are anarchists who "dominate spaces, manipulate women, dismisses identity politics as ‘divisive’", but what I found more interesting was how it went through different reasons why people oppose to the idea of manarchism, some of which I felt replicated in the top answer. That said, I also feel that some of the things mentioned in the article, and most of all in the video, are not necessarily specific to men and create a wrong perception of 'male anarchists' by categorising them in such a simplistic way. But then again, it is supposed to be satirical.

---

how would one know it was supposed to be satirical?

---

I read the article about a week ago, and it didn't come across as satirical at all to me.  Sure there was lots of ham-fisted sarcasm and plenty of unintentional caricaturing going on, but overall the article and the author's intent came across as a very straightforward and earnest rant.

Answer 2

Men are more or less socialized to act in ways that are obnoxious and violent. Sometimes men bring those behaviors and attitudes with them in anarchist spaces or through their work as anarchists.

Also, identity politics is big right now. Identitarian people who don't like anarchism can smear them as manarchists to evoke the arguments against patriarchy. The fact that anarchists have always had a bad reputation (which is fine by me) and are often anonymous doesn't help.

Answer 3

if manarchism is supposed to be some special kind of sexist thing that male anarchists do, i don't think manarchism exists. that is, i don't think that male anarchists are especially different from other kinds of men who think about politics and want to change things.

i have found that people who use the word manarchist are, as flip refers to, making a dig at anarchists for other reasons, and are more interested in talking shit than in having an interesting conversation (not that talking shit and having an interesting conversation are always mutually exclusive, i guess).

 

edit: not then! than! yeesh...

Comments

Male anarchists should be especially different from other kinds of men who think about politics and want to change things precisely because anarchism is meant to fight any kind of oppresion, and patriarchy is one of them which other 'political men' may not be involved in fighting. The point of anarchism in my point of view is to challenge current structures of power and fight against them.

I think that male's voices are still more valued (unfortunately) in most of today's society and their voice is more heard than others. It is not my intention to be conflictive, but I just felt there was a lack of support to the idea of manarchism in the answers, when it can be a powerful criticism.

---

you don't seem to be getting the point of people's distaste/disagreement/lack of support for the term, which is partly that it is NOT a powerful criticism, although it can certainly be one with a lot of emotional overtones.

all political men, really all political people (except perhaps those on the right), would absolutely say that they're against sexism. the interpretation of what that means is where things get sticky. whether anarchist men should be different is not the point, as i understand it. the point is that their lack-of-difference doesn't warrant its own name.

also, it might be overly nuanced for you, but i think i disagree that anarchism is about fighting all oppressions, as that describes a  negative project that allows the terrain to be determined by my (our) enemies. my preference is to have a positive project in terrain that is determined (to the extent possible) by me and my cohorts.

and for what it's worth, this is a pretty conflictual site, so there's that.

---

"all political men, really all political people (except perhaps those on the right), would absolutely say that they're against sexism"

that does not mean anything in practice.

"it might be overly nuanced for you" where's that coming from?

"my preference is to have a positive project in terrain that is determined (to the extent possible) by me and my cohorts."

could you develop a bit more on that? can't really see the point of denying oppression just to pretend there's no oppressor who determines the terrain in many cases.

---

first, you seem to miss my point about interpretation, which doesn't jar with your point about action.

second, your final comment is an example of what you asked me to explain. at no point have i "denied oppression", nor promoted "pretense".

perhaps later i'll feel more motivated to attempt a more fleshed out explanation. or maybe someone else is feeling more patient than i am at the moment and will start their own.