Men’s place in the revolution is conditional

My expectations of solidarity are low for men. I’m a bit indifferent. But it’s only fair: Men of every appearance and walk of life are very concerned with their own selves. But as long as they don’t fuck with my shit (and leave wimmin alone) then I’m fine. I would feel worse if I could not trust men to look out for their own interests in defiance of the higher ranks of patriarchy. The truth is that our revolution does not only free ourselves as wimmin. Surprisingly enough, the feminist revolution doesn’t entail mass androcide. Because our aim is true liberation and a life that is truly full and free, it means that man will rediscover his humanity as wimmin work to liberate themselves. Because we are only free when all are free. Man siding with radical feminism means, therefore, that he acts in his own best interest, which is against every predatory impulse embedded within him that degrades his very existence even if predation is in his nature. Men cannot act for wimmin’s liberation but they can act for themselves and clear the way. Let us not congratulate him for doing himself a favor.

I would like to point out that this is a clear contrast with what liberals say about feminism. Men are spoiled: this is a bad thing. Liberals like to imply that taking away the rights of men (to rape, to pillage, to dominate, etc) is some sort of tragedy that men suffer — and then they pretend not to care. As if being a monster or Schrodinger’s rapist is some kind of enviable existence, rather than acknowledging the fact that man’s predatory inclinations toward wimmin also take a personal toll on his own life. The evidence is clear that man not only destroys wimmin, he destroys himself, in every murder-suicide and every attack upon his fellow man.

Furthermore: Do we want reparations? No, there is nothing that can make up for what the female sex has had stolen in all these countless generations. Sister-comrades also believe that taking a moral stance of expecting men to take care of us is reactionary: counter to our liberation. It would be better if we just became independent and separate from them. Trying to coexist in the same place, when our boundary needs are too great, would only trap wimmin further into cycles of dependence and abuse perpetrated by the man. Don’t get me wrong, temporary stop gaps of receiving support is a helpful reform, but not the end goal. The end goal is to build a fully autonomous female society. We should get to a place where men can be fairly apathetic about us and we won’t be affected by the lack of relationship to men. We would also defy the heterosexual assumption.

We shall want nothing from men. We shall not be indepted neither in any sort of fake mutuality. After all, no womon should feel obligated to support men of any kind, not even oppressed men, not even after receiving aid. Where is the mutuality in mutual aid when the female sex has so little for herself as it is? Where is the mutuality in being exploited while working with men for liberation from a shared oppression? This is inevitable and the only solution is to have a separate movement. Obligations will only entrap wimmin.

Mutual aid with men sometimes makes sense strategically, if our goals align. We do it for ourselves, in synchronicity, to amplify our success. It can make things easier for wimmin when men fighting for their own interests end up helping wimmin as a side-effect, and may help them see us as neutral rather than enemy combatants — but these are only bonuses, not essential. Fighting capitalism, racism, and homophobia may involve coalitions with men lower in the patriarchy, and if such alliances are pursued they should be approached as guarded, conditional alliances with no obligation and only for the betterment of working class wimmin, wimmin of color, and lesbians. Anything more and the old exploitative patterns will reemerge.


One thought on “Men’s place in the revolution is conditional

  1. The wide-spread availability of birth control in all of its forms (the pill, IUDs, diaphragms and abortion) to women as a result of the second wave movement has had an unacknowledged benefit for men. They no longer had to resort to condoms which they hate (both gay and straight men lament using them). But more importantly, contraceptives available to women decreased the chances of men having to take on an unwanted wife and child like their fathers were forced to do. I think men are aware of this double bind. They don’t know what to do. Give women control of their own reproductive capabilities thus allowing them to live more independently or keep them pregnant and become a ball and chain to men–which to choose? It does seem ironic that Trump supporters wish to return to the ball and chain female dependency days. I don’t understand why they would want that. As of right now, men are free to do what ever they please and society does not expect anything from them.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s