The Core of Anarchy


I am working towards anarchy, both personally and collectively and have been for over thirty years. It has taken me this long to understand what being an anarchist means. Maybe I am slow, but it seems most people imagine either an idyllic future of unfettered personal freedom or a dystopic nightmare of lawlessness. Neither of these is accurate. The core of anarchy is radical personal accountability.

We live in a time that encourages us to sacrifice our autonomy on the altar of blame: our parents, society,  race, our exes, sexuality, men, women, the government, god, poverty, affluence – anything but ourselves. The moment we make someone or something else accountable for our situatiooon is the moment we enslave ourselves to the very thing we would escape.

Personal accountability does not neutralize behaviour. It doesn’t mean the capitalist is right, or the abuser is kind. It robs those that would exert power over us of every possible benefit. Our own behaviour stands alone and regardless of whether we are accountable or not it defines our character and sets our limitations.

We are in desperate need of a revolution, a revolution of one. I don’t think we can achieve collective anarchy until as individuals we have learned to own our own shit.



GUILT: the new feminist revolution


They’re (young women) going to get more activist as they grow older. And when you’re younger, you think: ‘Where are the boys? The boys are with Bernie.’

~ Steinem

And just remember, there’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

~ Albright


It’s sad in a way, that the old feminist guard doesn’t recognize how far their fight took women. Seeing them in the news last week reminded me of the end of Sunset Boulevard when Gloria Swanson is ready for her close up, and the voice over says “and she kept on waving as the parade passed her by.”

Isn’t this what the fight of both the first and second wave of feminism was for? The opportunity for women to express themselves freely? Albright, Steinem and Clinton, your political agenda is not a feminist issue. It is the same political nonsense we have seen for years, a grasping for power and a way to push the capitalist agenda – you can put lipstick on it, but it’s still a pig.

Maybe I am being unkind, perhaps they don’t understand that most young women in America today are educated and have opinions of their own. Or perhaps in Steinem’s day she voted to impress men and is now suspicious of young women. How did she arrive at this anyway? Did she ask young women how they vote and why? Demeaning women is more likely a vote against than a vote for.

I think more dangerous and equally ridiculous is Albright’s threat that women will be punished with eternal damnation for not helping each other (and by help, she means vote for Clinton). Let’s pretend for a minute that there is a hell, (which is a patriarchal notion), forget voting for who you choose, forget you have a choice, vote for who we, the old guard tell you to vote for or face the fires of hell….

In many ways a vote for Bernie Sanders is a vote for feminism as he has a more solid background with the principals that feminists (used to) ascribe to: access to education, concern for the environment, freedom of sexual expression, and the fight against poverty. I think most democrats are enlightened enough that they are not voting for Sanders simply because he has a penis.

There is most certainly a woman who will be president but she will be president because she is a leader, because she represents whatever it is that the majority want and/or need at that time and it won’t simply because she is a woman. I don’t think Obama was elected because he was black,  it was because he bought something more relevant to the table other than a racial discussion.

What Steinem, Albright and Clinton have successfully done is make a mockery of women in leadership roles and illustrate the dogma that feminism has become. If this is feminism today I want none of it. I do not want to suppress my own ideas and views in order to be accepted by misguided feminists, who refuse responsibility, insist that I ignore the facts, blame men, and be intimidated into conforming to their idea of what a woman is.






DEFAULT: the impotence of modern feminism

The SlutWalk in Boston, USA on Saturday 7 May to protest against those who blame the victims of sex crimes. Photograph: Josh Reynolds/AP

I am no longer able to conceal my contempt for feminism, I feel it has become a brittle facade and an excuse for women to avoid the real issues. As my proof I present two current events that underscore my point. The first is the Jian Ghomeshi trial currently underway in Canada and the second is feminist icon Gloria Steinem’s idiotic insult to young women (part 2). Ironically, both of these examples are brandished as reasons why we should cling to the wreckage of feminism; which it appears has devolved into polarizing complex social issues and in doing so fails to recognize any meaningful resolution. To compound the danger is the disdain for critical or independent thinking, and the expectation that as a forward thinking woman you must adopt certain opinions and must adopt feminism as your dogmatic duty. This trend robs women of the ability to form their own opinions and denies diversity, innovation and critical thinking a chance to thrive.

Jian Ghomeshi is the Canadian celebrity and former CBC host being charged with three counts of sexual assault. His defence is that he is the victim of a smear campaign and the sex was consensual; the three complainants all say that they were choked against their will and that no consent was given. In the initial police interviews all of the women pressing charges said they had not had any further contact with Ghomeshi after the assaults. However, during the court proceedings every one of them was provided with evidence they had contacted him, and all had wanted to continue their relationships with him and invited additional sex.  The trial in addition to being sensationalized in the media has created an avalanche of Facebook postings politicizing this as a feminist issue. The key points being that women are being treated unfairly by both the media and the court, and raising the rather murky idea of consent.

‘Heinen (Ghomeshi’s lawyer) produced an email in court Friday that DeCoutere sent Ghomeshi on July 5, 2003, a day after the alleged assault. It read: “You kicked my ass last night and that makes me want to f— your brain out. Tonight.”’

  • If the complainants had been transparent about their contact with Ghomeshi from the beginning, cross-examination in this direction wouldn’t have been necessary and their character would not have been called into question.
  • If Decoutere and the 3rd complainant hadn’t exchanged over 5000 emails and text messages directly discussing the trial, Ghomeshi and the assault charges then the idea of collusion wouldn’t have had any legs.

Justice is not and shouldn’t be influenced by feminist ideology, it needs to be impartial to gender, sexuality and sexual expression. If Ghomeshi had been a woman I have no doubt that these same people would be decrying her treatment in court (if in fact it ever made it to court), accusing the male victims as having a problem with women and lauding her sexual preferences as liberated.

“Having control over who touches one’s body — and how — is at the core of [human] dignity,” the prosecution says. “And, Your Honour, that’s what this case is all about.” (CBC)

I wholeheartedly agree with the crown, this trial is about consent. Short of signing a written contract upon first meeting someone outlining what is mutual and what is not then surely an indication of consent would be returning for more. So if that is what is called into question, don’t the emails, messages and pictures indicate consent?

It appears to me that the women in this trial realized that Ghomeshi’s treatment of them was at best demeaning, at worst violent. I believe that the majority of the complainants came to this realization after the story broke in the press and after Ghomeshi’s widely distributed Facebook posting. Does this mean that Ghomeshi wasn’t or isn’t abusive? Of course not, it doesn’t mean that he is though either. I have heard numerous arguments that in continuing a relationship with Ghomeshi the women weren’t giving consent, or that it does not justify Ghomeshi’s abuse.  I will counter that if Ghomeshi is an abusive jerk, it shouldn’t absolve the self-proclaimed victims of their personal accountability.

I think the real feminist issue here is why women return to abusive situations; and this will not be addressed whether Ghomeshi is found guilty or innocent. That is the dirty little secret of feminism, they don’t actually want to be responsible….

CLICK HERE FOR PART 2: GUILT and the new Feminist Revolution.



Picture used without permission: