femin\ism ness

__________

same on issuu

__________

adding page just after.. interpretive labor ness.. while deep into re re re re reading/absorbing/conversing-w.. David Graeber‘s revolution in reverse..

Feminism is a range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, personal, and social rights for *women.

*so i guess my biggest question.. is .. what’s up with this gender ness.. why are we accepting this binary of a human..

This includes seeking to establish *equal opportunities for women in education and employment. Feminists typically advocate or support the rights and equality of women.

as evidenced by this very thing..*equal opps.. then qualified as ed and employment..

which to me.. shows how much we are missing the whole premise of being human.. of interpretive labor.. of equity…

perhaps because the first step was to demand equal – ed/employment.. which are both not really/naturally human.. and just perpetuated more of a broken feedback loop… based on os (money via rushkoff).. that is so not human/natural

used to be that we had hugely intoxicated men.. ie: toward ed/employment.. and away from relationship/listening.. now woman wanting equal rights.. are intoxicated away from relationship/listening..

great ie: – going to work.. breastfeeding less… not trusting that relationship to know what’s best, when to stop, et al..

the list goes on.. how silly are we that a human would demand equal rights.. and that those rights we’re demanding are.. ie: face on money (fake representation of measuring of transactions that is making us sick); voting (false sense of voice being heard.. when really just getting to pick between spinach or rock.. and.. false sense that voice being heard by others matters most.. rather than voice of self.. and being able to hear via relationship ness – interp labor ness); education (manufacturing consent ness from early childhood is best.. of course); employment (spend day doing something you don’t love in order to get money to fill fulfilled.. when if we were listening.. we realize 2 needs over our addictions/obsessions); war (demanding we enlist in craziness of fighting/killing in order to stop all the fighting/killing); et al

ah.. reading ahead (below.. next para lists all these..

Feminist movements have campaigned and continue to campaign for women’s rights, including the right to vote, to hold public office, to work, to earn fair wages or equal pay, to own property, to receive education, to enter contracts, to have equal rights within marriage, and to have maternity leave.

oh my.. reality oriented thinking trumping our guts..

just reading that sentence should be enough .. to woke people..

then too.. thinking of what we really should/could be listening to.. us.. ie: jean liedloff ness.. and thinx – the week – video

3 min – the week – the period – science straight forward – why isn’t it common knowledge.. taught to feel shame about it..

4 min – we are shamed.. but men not by erection.. taboo from tapua.. which means menstruation.. passages in bible/koran.. ie: ceremonially unclean for 7 days.. if touch during that time.. dlev 15:19

5 min – in torah – both men and women unclean.. taboo’s for men fell by wayside.. but not for women..

6 min – women affected so negatively by something that happens to biology they can’t control… none of us would be here if it weren’t for how female body works.. that is a shaming as opposed to a celebration is .. mind boggling..

8 min – the girl effect – 90 of woman’s 100 where only 20-35 of man’s go back into community.. having a productive woman is so important.. billions of lost income potential if girls leaving school because of period

sad.. we put a number on this.. a number of a manufacturing medium to measure transactions.. so not human..

10 min – we get a new phone every year.. but 50 yrs have gone by between invention of tampon and invention of menstrual cup

12 min – the good news is you get your period

like the good news is you can breastfeed.. et al – again jean liedloff ness

Feminists have also worked to promote bodily autonomy and integrity, and to protect women and girls from rape, sexual harassment, and domestic violence.

violence .. because we’ve squelched natural interpretive-labor/imagination in all humans kind of equally now..

Feminist campaigns are generally considered to be one of the main forces behind major historical societal changes for women’s rights, particularly in the West, where they are near-universally credited with having achieved women’s suffrage, gender neutrality in English, reproductive rights for women (including access to contraceptives and abortion), and the right to enter into contracts and own property. Although feminist advocacy is and has been mainly focused on women’s rights, some feminists, including bell hooks, argue for the inclusion of men’s liberation within its aims because men are also harmed by traditional gender roles.Feminist theory, which emerged from feminist movements, aims to understand the nature of gender inequality by examining women’s social roles and lived experience; it has developed theories in a variety of disciplines in order to respond to issues such as the social construction of gender.

Some forms of feminism have been criticized for taking into account only white, middle class, and educated perspectives. This criticism led to the creation of ethnically specific or multicultural forms of feminism, including black feminism and intersectional feminism.

this isn’t a red flag..?

_______

ok.. so diving back where i started/middled.. in the re re re re reading of r in r.. [taken from interpretive labor page and some just added from other re re reads]

going backwards still (in r in r)

Women’s (and/or suppressed/oppressed/hidden men’s) logic was always being treated as alien and incomprehensible. One never had the impression, on the other hand, that women had much trouble understanding the men. That’s because the women had no choice but to understand men: this was the heyday of the American patriarchal family, and women with no access to their own income or resources had little choice but to spend a fair amount of time and energy understanding what the relevant men thought was going on. Actually, this sort of rhetoric about the mysteries of womankind is a perennial feature of patriarchal families: structures that can, indeed, be considered forms of structural violence insofar as the power of men over women within them is, as generations of feminists have pointed out, ultimately backed up, if often in indirect and hidden ways, by all sorts of coercive force. But generations of female novelists — Virginia Woolf comes immediately to mind — have also documented the other side of this: the constant work women perform in managing, maintaining, and adjusting the egos of apparently oblivious men — involving an endless work of imaginative identification and what I’ve called

interpretive labor.

meta meta (from days following above)

It seems to me no coincidence, then, that so much of the real practical work of developing a new revolutionary paradigm in recent years has also been the work of feminism; or anyway, that feminist concerns have been the main driving force in their transformation. In America, the current anarchist obsession with consensus and other forms of directly democratic process traces back directly to organizational issues within the feminist movement. 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.

huge questioning of this below.. freeman/male-female/interpretation/timing-of-imagination ness.. perhaps that was our interpretation (ie: obsession w consensus).. but we were missing that it was..

..more a consensus of 7 billion people with their gut.. not 7 bill people with each other..

the daily gut check being the true north.. rather than some political mech for decision making.. to get us all to waggle/consent on an idea..

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..

one ness

..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

like bucky’s inspectors of inspectors… being too much

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

freeman ness
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

more formal versions on same principles … always compromise all of us ness
has to reain… antifragile/stigmergic/rhizomatic/et-al

[..]

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.. and if we believe we are each hard wired toward revinventing everyday life.. (yr to be 5)

listen – a simple message ness

Even if not, actions begin with the creation of new forms of collective decision-making: councils, assemblies, the endless attention to ‘process’ — and uses those forms to plan the street actions and popular festivities. The result is, usually, a dramatic confrontation with armed representatives of the state. While most organizers would be delighted to see things escalate to a popular insurrection, and something like that does occasionally happen, most would not expect these to mark any kind of permanent breaks in reality. They serve more as something almost along the lines of momentary advertisements — or better, foretastes, experiences of visionary inspiration — for a much slower, painstaking struggle of creating alternative institutions.

don’t give into assuming the state…ness… be/cause then we start w us/it… not being truly human being ness.. and spend our days incremental/partial/ing back out of broken feedback loop.. to us

for (blank)’s sake

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 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 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

ie: hosting life bits where the data we focus on is self-talk .. but within a completely diff/nother way to live..

________

on my take of David’s take on *Jo Freeman from structurelessness page

added (structurelessness) page because of David Graeber‘s insight/share of Jo Freeman’s the tyranny of structurelessness in his (utopia of rules) bureaucracy (and while re reading David W and NN Taleb)

[in progress]

As activists sometimes put it: in most circumstances, if you bring together a crowd of people, that crowd will, as a group, behave less intelligently, and less creatively, than any single member of the crowd is likely to do if on their own. Activist decision-making process is, instead, designed to make that crowd smarter and more imaginative than any individual participant. It is indeed possible to do this, but it takes a lot of work. And the larger the group, the more formal mechanisms have to be put in place. The single most important essay in this whole activist tradition is called “The Tyranny of Structurelessness,”170 written in the 1970s by Jo Freeman, about organizational crises that occurred in early feminist consciousness-raising circles when those groups began to attain a certain size. Freeman observed that such groups always started out with a kind of rough-and-ready anarchism, an assumption that there was no need for any formal, parliamentary rules-of-order type mechanisms at all. People would just sit down in a sisterly manner and work things out. And this was, indeed, what happened at first. However, as soon as the groups grew to over, say, twenty people, informal cliques invariably began to emerge, and small groups of friends or allies began controlling information, setting agendas, and wielding power in all sorts of subtle ways. Freeman proposed a number of different formal mechanisms that might be employed to counteract this effect, but for present purposes, the specifics don’t really matter. Suffice it to say that what is now referred to as “formal consensus process” largely emerges from the crisis Freeman described, and the debate her intervention set off. What I do want to bring attention to is that almost everyone who is not emerging from an explicitly anti-authoritarian position—and no insignificant number even of those who are—..

completely misread Freeman’s essay, and interpret it not as a plea for formal mechanisms to ensure equality, but as a plea for more transparent hierarchy.

..Leninists are notorious for this sort of thing, but Liberals are just as bad. I can’t tell you how many arguments I’ve had about this. They always go exactly the same way. First, Freeman’s argument about the formation of cliques and invisible power structures is taken as an argument that any group of over twenty people will always have to have cliques, power structures, and people in authority. The next step is to insist that if you want to minimize the power of such cliques, or any deleterious effects those power structures might have, the only way to do so is to institutionalize them: to take the de facto cabal and turn them into a central committee (or, since that term now has a bad history, usually they say a coordinating committee, or a steering committee, or something of that sort.) One needs to get power out of the shadows—to formalize the process, make up rules, hold elections, specify exactly what the cabal is allowed to do and what it’s not. In this way, at least, power will be made transparent and “accountable.”

so perhaps formal ish mech.. (that Jo and/or others haven’t yet seen).. would be one that’s simple enough for all of us.. one that focuses on self talk as data… so that the small can remain ginorm small no matter how many people.. even beyond 7 bill..

re re re

The resulting outpouring of new forms of consensus process constitutes the most important contribution to revolutionary practice in decades. 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.

this.. this
on seeing male theorists not getting it… while not getting it (David and feminism not getting possibility of gut consensus… rather than 70s and occupy 2011 consensus ness)

actions begin with the creation of new forms of collective decision-making: councils, assemblies, the endless attention to ‘process’ — and uses those forms to plan the street actions and popular festivities. The result is, usually, a dramatic confrontation with armed representatives of the state. While most organizers would be delighted to see things escalate to a popular insurrection, and something like that does occasionally happen, most would not expect these to mark any kind of permanent breaks in reality. They serve more as something almost along the lines of momentary advertisements — or better, foretastes, experiences of visionary inspiration — for a much slower, painstaking struggle of creating alternative institutions.

ie: new forms listed are councils, assemblies, processes, …
when could be.. self talk as data input for hosted life bits that io dance

bottom.. and huge line…

we have to let go..
public consensus always oppresses somebody..
and none of s are free if one of us is chained (obliging to public consensus)

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. 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.

once again… huge…
on what is … lots of behind scene work… not what we’re thinking… ie:woman’s work as we know it…is not the labor we need.. perhaps attitude is..
so diff work… rather.. art… by 7 bill people.. just w mindset of invisibility is trusted

after this.. is where the whole breastfeeding thing hit me.. that’s the behind the scenes work – the invisible listening to self/other.. to know when enough is enough.. when more is needed..

thinking silence ness.. and never nothing going on ness.. and how our perceived notions of civilization.. freedom.. et al.. is so whack.

first we intoxicated men (thinking of laurie couture’s work).. then we intoxicated women .. who were already not feeling not themselves (or they wouldn’t have asked to put face on money and spend day doing not what wanted for money, and leave child too soon for money).. from all the labor David references.. that is invisible.. but not natural.. ie: prepping/cleaning/interpreting.. an intoxicated male/male-world.. no?

then .. we listen to these intoxicated women.. saying they are of a feminist movement.. to get us to equity.. not realizing (perhaps) that we were seeing equity as a balancing act over intoxication.. ie: it’s my right to be as intoxicated as you..

oy.. if we listen.. deep/simple/open.. enough..

and back to this huge ness..

i think that’s why this is so huge/diff.

key is – nationality: human

ie: men vs women…

so the femin\sim ness and all the other ism nesses.. really come down to:

binary\ness

which really comes down to .. spinach or rock ness.. ie: not really a choice.. after all

and the answer isn’t more equality.. more isms.. (actually it is more isms.. to the point of 7 billion plus guts)… but more listening.. to self/others.. all the stories..

_______