It is largely the work of feminists engaged in practical organizing — a majority, probably, tied to the anarchist tradition. This makes it all the more ironic that male theorists who have not themselves engaged in on-the-ground organizing or taken part in anarchist decision-making processes, but who find themselves drawn to anarchism as a principle, so often feel obliged to include in otherwise sympathetic statements, that of course they don’t agree with this obviously impractical, pie-in-the-sky, unrealistic notion of consensus.
perhaps even more – unrealistic notion of consensus w/in each gut
asking david… if perhaps interpretation of intent on consensus (in large groups-by said men) and/or perception of possibility/capability of consensus/decision-making (in large groups- by said women) was missed/ misunderstood (like how I’m perceiving his *Jo freeman take)
and that.. we still haven’t gone deep enough… ie: to no consensus on an idea… rather regrouping people (freeman small enough ness).. to the like idea… so their work/interpretive-let’s-just-call-it-art….isn’t compromised.. by having to buy in sell out to a diff mindset on their art…messing with the..
..of the dance we’re missing
which begs we quit saying man/woman/feminism ness.. rather just call us human.., but today… in a nother way to live…humans that listen deeper.. that act/see it/us(all of us or it won’t work… wwwness) as one..
this has potential/capability of freeing all the time we spend on labeling… and section ing off into groupings…(that are never authentically separate.. thinking e langer’s.. prej decreases asdiscrimination increases.. and thinking all our current separations (blm, lgbt. refugee, et al)).. that we are spending our days justifying our justifying of them
taking away our time/energy/luxury/quiet/still/imagination
so that we spinach or rock our way thru life (ie: leave or remain; man or woman; black or white… ie: separate rooms at idea/idec retreat.. where many didn’t know which to choose.. main fear.. making some in each room mad if picked the other)
binary ness is keeping us from us.., and killing/suffocating us
let’s take what I hear you saying about freeman… and rather than say… see large doesn’t work… creat mech that keeps it/us small… ginormously small
What had begun, in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s, as small, intimate, often anarchist-inspired collectives were thrown into crisis when they started growing rapidly in size.Rather than abandon the search for consensus in decision-making, many began trying to develop more formal versions on the same principles
perhaps mech simple enough wasn’t yet imagined… to fit in mind/rationale/practicality of interpretive labor…. but now it is… now we can… which means we don’t have to continue compromising/misunderstanding/misconceiving.. smaller-size/intent issues because of larger-size/agenda issues
The organization of mass actions themselves — festivals of resistance, as they are often called — can be considered pragmatic experiments in whether it is indeed possible to institutionalize the experience of liberation, the giddy realignment of imaginative powers, everything that is most powerful in the experience of a successful spontaneous insurrection. Or if not to institutionalize it, perhaps, to produce it on call. The effect for those involved is as if everything were happening in reverse. A revolutionary uprising begins with battles in the streets, and if successful, proceeds to outpourings of popular effervescence and festivity. There follows the sober business of creating new institutions, councils, decision-making processes, and ultimately the reinvention of everyday life. Such at least is the ideal, and certainly there have been moments in human history where something like that has begun to happen — much though, again, such spontaneous creations always seems to end being subsumed within some new form of violent bureaucracy. However, as I’ve noted, this is more or less inevitable since bureaucracy, however much it serves as the immediate organizer of situations of power and structural blindness, does not create them. Mainly, it simply evolves to manage them.
This is one reason direct action proceeds in the opposite direction. Probably a majority of the participants are drawn from *subcultures that are all about reinventing everyday life.
well.. esp true if we see *subculture as individual..
ie: ginorm small.. not limited to the binary ness
and if we believe we are each hard wired toward revinventing everyday life.. (yr to be 5)
One of the most important contributions of feminism, it seems to me, has been to constantly remind everyone that “situations” do not create themselves. There is usually a great deal of work involved. For much of human history, what has been taken as politics has consisted essentially of a series of dramatic performances carried out upon theatrical stages. One of the great gifts of feminism to political thought has been to continually remind us of the people is in fact making and preparing and cleaning those stages, and even more, maintaining the invisible structures that make them possible — people who have, overwhelmingly, been women.
perhaps problem here however.. is that this work has been a clean up mode work.. rather than an art/commons work.. so we have people/women/whoever.. interpreting/cleaning/prepping for toxic people/men/situations.. rather than people doing/being their art.. rather than what we are now capable of ..ie: eudaimoniative surplus.. for everyone.. has to be everyone
no binary ness.. all-of-us ness
or won’t work.. wwwness
The normal process of politics of course is to make such people disappear. Indeed one of the chief functions of women’s work is to make itself disappear. One might say that the political ideal within direct action circles has become to efface the difference; or, to put it another way, that action is seen as genuinely revolutionary when the process of production of situations is experienced as just as liberating as the situations themselves. It is an experiment one might say in the realignment of imagination, of creating truly non-alienated forms of experience.
indeed.. a nother way.. where the whole idea of seen/unseen .. work …
of any binary ness.. is irrelevant/disengage\able..
more meta (repetition ing)
david – could it be the *jo freeman interpretation of misconception (by you and/or her because of the imagination/capabilities of the time) is off/short/compromises the potential of a mech to facilitate us.…. ie: focus on consensus.. when idea in small ness is more about hearing everyone than everyone consenting.. rather than spending time waggling/defending/pitching/selling each other toward one idea… we use mech to facil us according to daily (or 24/7 ish) thinking/curiosity/interpretation/idea/desire.. and then this is huge/different… trusting that if we are living a nother way.. where people have 23 plus hours of luxury/solitude/silence/freedom.. to decide for self and have bravery to change mind et al.. that what we are trusting in.. isn’t some man made mech/system of decision making (ie: polling/voting/waggling/et al) but rather.. we are trusting in 7 billion hearts/guts/whimsies..
the huge ness acknowledges the reliability oriented thinking.. ie: here we go again.. w tragedy of the commons ness; w tragedy of the structureless ness; et al… but have we honestly ever give it a fair shot.. have we ever honestly trusted people.. enough.. along with.. a mech to facilitate alive trusted people..?
i think not.
i think that’s why this is so huge/diff.
key is – nationality: human
we play any binary card.. and we’ve lost/compromised from the get go.. we have to help ourselves out of this mess by constantly reminding ourselves.. of the stories going on in each head .. the every actor has a reason ness.. the danger of a single story ness..
ie: men vs women…
on assumed group we call men – and their condition today.. toxic… because we all placed on them the responsibility of: finances – owning/measuring/valuing money; wars- killing other humans to keep us from killing humans; work – bring home money from jobs they don’t love
and to show how intoxicated that has made us all.. in regard to the assumed feminist movement ness.. remnants include women wanting responsibility for assumed honorable/desirable men’s responsibilities: finances – wanting pic on bills; wars – wanting to help kill in order to keep us from killing; work – wanting to spend hours of our day doing things we don’t necessarily/always love for money
let’s let our combined/unified true north (for decision making/consensus/et-al).. be found/heard/seen w/in each gut/heart/soul everyday.. that’s a foundation we haven’t yet tried
seems fitting to put this here:
I continue to contend that this is the best podcast I’ve ever heard. @chris_friend https://t.co/Asos0nmeyJ#digped
Original Tweet: https://twitter.com/Jessifer/status/761655053602217988
it’s hard to trust people in the act of meeting them
13 min – when you get to know people.. perspectives change.. but we are all still part of communitiesawkwardness/discomfort is part of the discussion about being openthere’s no coming out and that’s the end of the matter.. there’s a constant coming outidea of safe space gets lots of attention.. but mostly in regard to students31 min – how the silence continues.. school most unsafe place – and silence contributes to that harm35 min – we are ultimately supporting identity
38 min – this is so not personalized learning…. rather .. if learning becomes personal .. identity has to be part of it..39 min – imagine .. normalizing the process of developing identity..
LSE Impact Blog (@LSEImpactBlog) tweeted at 5:45 AM – 26 Sep 2016 :
In a world in which ‘everyday sexism’ remains rife, progress on gender discrimination will require quotashttps://t.co/3tuuZWV8Yu (http://twitter.com/LSEImpactBlog/status/780372762988797952?s=17)
perhaps begs we disengage from binary ness which begs we try a nother way to live
no male/female brain
“We separate girls and boys, men and women all the time….It’s wrong, not just politically, but scientifically – everyone is different.”
via Nancy on fb: native americans 5 genders
no set of rules that men and women had to abide by in order to be considered a “normal” member of their tribe.
In fact, people who had both female and male characteristics were viewed as gifted by nature, and therefore, able to see both sides of everything. According to Indian Country Today, all native communities acknowledged the following gender roles: “Female, male, Two Spirit female, Two Spirit male and Transgendered.”
In Native American cultures, people were valued for their contributions to the tribe, rather than for masculinity or femininity. Parents did not assign gender roles to children either, and even children’s clothing tended to be gender neutral. There were no ideas or ideals about how a person should love; it was simply a natural act that occurred without judgement or hesitation.
Without a negative stigma attached to being a Two Spirit, there were no inner-tribal incidents of retaliation or violence toward the chosen people simply due to the fact that individuals identified as the opposite or both genders.
Indians believed that a person who was able to see the world through the eyes of both genders at the same time was a gift from The Creator.”
from marion milner’s life of one’s own:
the following is a brief summary of the theory
it seemed to me that my difficulties could most conveniently be considered in terms of a failure to understand that every human personality is two sided.. both male and female
it was no wonder that i had been able to find so little that was of use to me in scientific writings, for it now seemed, in the light of this theory of bisexuality, that the development of the feminine attitude beyond the purely physiological had never been intellectually understood.. since the developed feminine attitude naturally finds expression in terms of mysticism it had, i thought, been looked at askance by the analysing intellect and feared as an enemy of clear headed detachment.. obviously, the hardest task for objective reasoning is to understand its opposite
whales in sea world et al
most of the people i knew (both mean and women) had made a cult of the ‘male’ intellect, that is , of objective reasoning as against subjective intuition.. i had apparently been submissive towards this fashion and accepted its assumption that logical symbols were ‘real’ and anything else only ‘wish fulfillment’.. so i had for years struggled to talk na intellectual language which for me was barren, struggle to force the feelings of my relation to the universe into terms that would not fit.. for i had not understood at all that a feminine attitude to the universe was really just as legit, intellectually and biologically, as a masculine one; only, because it had never yet been properly understood, and had certainly not understood itself, it had always tended to give to its mythological and religious symbols a special reverence and validity. so i found that although the fem or subjective attitude needs the male intellect if it si to understand itself, most of those i knew who possessed competent male intellects were not sufficiently both sided themselves to have any notion of the meaning of subjectivity.. whether man or woman..
or some, who seemed to have partially understood their own femininity, like wienner and dh lawrence, hated and despised it because they were afraid of it. and i also had been afraid of it, had tried to fill my life w what were, for me, artificial male purposes.. had not dared give in to receptiveness, for it feared the loss of its own identity, and until it did i was unable to escape form that narrow focus of attention which always accompanied my purposiveness..
from all this i gathered that there are two entirely opposite attitudes possible in facing the problems of one’s life. one, to try and change the external world, the other, to try and change oneself..
to the man who is concerned w external matters, w trying to control people and things to suit his purposes, the problems of the opposite attitude seem morbid and unreal.. while to him who has no desire to force his personality upon the world, who takes into himself what the external world has to offer and there remakes himself into a new being, the other attitude is apt to seem superficial – yet also something to be feared..
so in my search i had found myself looking for ways of learning how to think less about myself.. this does not mean however, that it is everybody’s good to think less of self.. some.. are biased towards perpetually giving themselves to external purposes, may find their necessary balance in an opposite direction..
as for the method which led me to these discoveries, let no one think it is an easy way because it is concerned w moments of happiness rather than w stern duty or high moral endeavor. for what is really easy , as i found, is to blind one’s eyes to what one really likes, to drift into accepting one’s wants ready made form other people and to evade the continual day to day sifting of values..