Cross-readings along the axes of IS:
TO DEMAND WAGES FOR FACEBOOK IS TO MAKE IT VISIBLE THAT OUR OPINIONS AND EMOTIONS HAVE ALL BEEN DISTORTED FOR A SPECIFIC FUNCTION ONLINE, AND THEN HAVE BEEN THROWN BACK AT US AS A MODEL TO WHICH WE SHOULD ALL CONFORM IF WE WANT TO BE ACCEPTED IN THIS SOCIETY.
CAPITAL HAD TO CONVINCE US THAT IT IS A NATURAL, UNAVOIDABLE AND EVEN FULFILLING ACTIVITY TO MAKE US ACCEPT UNWAGED WORK.
IN ITS TURN, THE UNWAGED CONDITION OF FACEBOOK HAS BEEN A POWERFUL WEAPON IN REINFORCING THE COMMON ASSUMPTION THAT FACEBOOK IS NOT WORK, THUS PREVENTING US FROM STRUGGLING AGAINST IT.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO STANDPOINTS IS ENORMOUS.
TO VIEW WAGES FOR FACEBOOK AS A THING RATHER THAN A PERSPECTIVE IS TO DETACH THE END RESULT OF OUR STRUGGLE FROM THE STRUGGLE ITSELF AND TO MISS ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN DEMYSTIFYING AND SUBVERTING THE ROLE TO WHICH WE HAVE BEEN CONFINED IN CAPITALIST SOCIETY.
IF WE TAKE WAGES FOR FACEBOOK AS A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE, WE CAN SEE THAT STRUGGLING FOR IT IS GOING TO PRODUCE A REVOLUTION IN OUR LIVES AND IN OUR SOCIAL POWER.
NOT ONLY IS WAGES FOR FACEBOOK A REVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE, BUT IT IS A REVOLUTIONARY PERSPECTIVE FROM A CONTEMPORARY VIEWPOINT THAT POINTS TOWARDS CLASS SOLIDARITY.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT WHEN WE SPEAK OF FACEBOOK WE ARE NOT SPEAKING OF A JOB AS OTHER JOBS, BUT WE ARE SPEAKING OF THE MOST PERVASIVE MANIPULATION, THE MOST SUBTLE AND MYSTIFIED VIOLENCE THAT CAPITALISM HAS RECENTLY PERPETRATED AGAINST US.
TRUE, UNDER CAPITALISM EVERY WORKER IS MANIPULATED AND EXPLOITED AND HIS/HER RELATION TO CAPITAL IS TOTALLY MYSTIFIED.
TO HAVE A WAGE MEANS TO BE PART OF A SOCIAL CONTRACT, AND THERE IS NO DOUBT CONCERNING ITS MEANING: YOU WORK, NOT BECAUSE YOU LIKE IT, OR BECAUSE IT COMES NATURALLY TO YOU, BUT BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY CONDITION UNDER WHICH YOU ARE ALLOWED TO LIVE.
IN THIS SENSE, IT IS MORE APT TO COMPARE THE STRUGGLE OF WOMEN FOR WAGES THAN THE STRUGGLE OF MALE WORKERS IN THE FACTORY FOR MORE WAGES.
WAGES FOR FACEBOOK, THEN, IS A REVOLUTIONARY DEMAND NOT BECAUSE BY ITSELF IT DESTROYS CAPITAL, BUT BECAUSE IT ATTACKS CAPITAL AND FORCES IT TO RESTRUCTURE SOCIAL RELATIONS IN TERMS MORE FAVORABLE TO US AND CONSEQUENTLY MORE FAVORABLE TO WORKING CLASS SOLIDARITY.
TO SAY THAT WE WANT MONEY FOR FACEBOOK IS THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS REFUSING TO DO IT, BECAUSE THE DEMAND FOR A WAGE MAKES OUR WORK VISIBLE, WHICH IS THE MOST INDISPENSABLE CONDITION TO BEGIN TO STRUGGLE AGAINST IT.
AGAINST ANY ACCUSATION OF ‘ECONOMISM’ WE SHOULD REMEMBER THAT MONEY IS CAPITAL, I.E.
IT IS THE POWER TO COMMAND LABOUR.
THEREFORE TO REAPPROPRIATE THAT MONEY WHICH IS THE FRUIT OF OUR LABOUR—AND OF ALL OUR FRIENDS’ LABOUR— MEANS AT THE SAME TIME TO UNDERMINE CAPITAL’S POWER TO COMMAND FORCED LABOUR FROM US.
WAGES FOR FACEBOOK IS ONLY THE BEGINNING, BUT ITS MESSAGE IS CLEAR: FROM NOW ON THEY HAVE TO PAY US BECAUSE AS USERS WE DO NOT GUARANTEE ANYTHING ANY LONGER.
WE WANT TO CALL WORK WHAT IS WORK SO THAT EVENTUALLY WE MIGHT REDISCOVER WHAT FRIENDSHIP IS
--- A feminist server ... *Is a situated technology.
*Is run for and by a community that cares enough for her in order to make her exist.
*Is able to scale up or down, and change processing speed whenever resources require.
*Knows that networking is actually a parasitic, promiscuous and often awkward practice.
*Is autonomous in the sense that she tries to decide for her own dependencies.
Vulnerability is not an alibi.
*Is a paranodal (we did not mean: paranoid) technology.
A feminist server is both inside and outside the network.
*Tries hard not to apologise when she is sometimes not available.
Judy Wajcman, Feminism confronts technology, 1991: « It is impossible to divorce the gender relations which are expressed in, and shape technologies, from the wider social structure that create and maintain them.
This space surrounding the nodes is not blank, and we can even give it a name: the paranodal.
Because of nodocentrism we tend to see only the nodes in a network, but the space between nodes is not empty, it is inhabited by multitudes of paranodes that simply do not conform to the organising logic of the network, and cannot be seen through the algorithms of the network.
The paranodal is not a utopia—it is not nowhere, but somewhere (beyond the nodes).
It is not a heterotopia, since it is not outside the network but within it as well.
The paranodal is an atopia, because it constitutes a difference that is everywhere.
Cyberfeminism is not .... 100 anti-theses.
--- 1. cyberfeminism is not a fragrance.
2. cyberfeminism is not a fashion statement.
4. cyberfeminism is not ideology.
6. cyberfeminism is not boring.
12. cyberfeminism is not an institution.
13. cyberfeminism is notusing words without any knowledge of numbers.
14. cyberfeminism is not complete.
15. cyberfeminism is not error 101.
18. cyberfeminism is not an ism.
19. cyberfeminism is not anti-male.
21. cyberfeminism is not a structure.
25. cyberfeminisme is niet concreet.
26. cyberfeminism is not separatism.
27. cyberfeminism is not a tradition.
28. cyberfeminism is not maternalistic.
30. cyberfeminism is not without connectivity.
33. cyberfeminism is not on sale.
34. cyberfeminism is nor for sale.
39. cyberfeminism is not natural.
40. cyberfeminism is not essentialist.
41. cyberfeminism is not abject.
42. cyberfeminism is not an avatar.
43. cyberfeminism is not an alter ego.
48. cyberfeminism is not exclusive.
49. cyberfeminism is not solid.
50. cyberfeminism is not genetic.
52. cyberfeminism is not prosthetic.
56. cyberfeminism is not a motherboard.
57. cyberfeminism is not a fake.
62. cyberfeminism is not a lack.
63. cyberfeminism is not a wound.
64. cyberfeminism is not a trauma.
66. cyberfeminism is not a sure shot.
67. cyberfeminism is not an easy mark.
68. cyberfeminism is not a single woman.
69. cyberfeminism is not romantic.
70. cyberfeminism is not post-modern.
71. cyberfeminism is not a media-hoax.
72. cyberfeminism is not neutral.
73. cyberfeminism is not lacanian.
74. cyberfeminism is not nettime.
75. cyberfeminism is not a picnic.
76. cyberfeminism is not a coldfish.
77. cyberfeminism is not a cyberepilation.
78. cyberfeminism is not a horror movie.
79. cyberfeminism is not science fiction.
80. cyberfeminism is not artificial intelligence.
81. cyberfeminism is not an empty space.
82. cyberfeminism is not immobile.
83. cyberfeminism is not about boring toys for boring boys.
85. cyberfeminism is not a one-way street.
86. cyberfeminism is not supporting quantum mechanics.
87. cyberfeminism is not caffeine-free.
88. cyberfeminism is not a non-smoking area.
89. cyberfeminism is not daltonistic.
90. cyberfeminism is not nice.
92. cyberfeminism is not lady.like.
95. cyberfeminism is not mythical.
96. cyberfeminism is not from outer space.
98. cyberfeminism is not dogmatic.
99. cyberfeminism is not stable.
Perhaps it is just natural selection?
BUT IN SPIRALSPACE THERE IS NO THEY.
there is only *us*.
Trying to flee the binary I enter the chromozone which is not one.
resistance is futile.
Where truth evaporates Where nothing is certain There are no maps.
The limit is NO CARRIER, the sudden shock of no contact, reaching out to touch but the skin is cold....
The limit is permission denied, vision doubled, and flesh necrotic.
Where truth evaporates Where nothing is certain There are no maps.
The limit is NO CARRIER, the sudden shock of no contact, reaching out to touch but the skin is cold....
The limit is permission denied, vision doubled, and flesh necrotic.. Command line error.
My system is nervous, neuronsscreaming - spiralling towards the singularity.
Hackers of Resistance Manifesto [EN] (2018)
to hack is to create.
Hackers of Resistance Manifesto [EN] (2018)
what we do is self defense, self determin- [end of transmission].
--- “We will glorify war—the world’s only hygiene—militarism, patriotism, the destructive gesture of freedom-bringers, beautiful ideas worth dying for, and scorn for woman.” Marinetti, “The Founding and Manifesto of Futurism” Humanity is mediocre.
In the summers of humanity, when the terrain is burned by the sun, geniuses and heroes abound.
We are at the beginning of a springtime; we are lacking in solar profusion, that is, a great deal of spilled blood.
It is absurd to divide humanity into men and women.
It is composed only of femininity and masculinity.
Every superman, every hero, no matter how epic, how much of a genius, or how powerful, is the prodigious expression of a race and an epoch only because he is composed at once of feminine and masculine elements, of femininity and masculinity: that is a complete being.
Any exclusively virile individual is just a brute animal; any exclusively feminine individual is only a female.
It is the same way with any collectivity and any moment in humanity, just as it is with individuals.
What is most lacking in women as in men is virility.
That is why Futurism, even with all its exaggerations, is right.
Every woman ought to possess not only feminine virtues but virile ones, without which she is just a female.
Any man who has only male strength without intuition is only a brute animal.
But in the period of femininity in which we are living, only the contrary exaggeration is healthy: we have to take the brute animal for a model.
… Enough women who create children just for themselves, keeping them from any danger or adventure, that is, any joy; keeping their daughter from love and their son from war!
Women are Furies, Amazons, Semiramis, Joans of Arc, Jeanne Hachettes, Judith and Charlotte Cordays, Cleopatras, and Messalinas: combative women who fight more ferociously than males, lovers who arouse, destroyers who break down the weakest and help select through pride or despair, “despair through which the heart yields its fullest return:’Let the next wars bring forth heroines like that magnificent Catherine Sforza, who, during the sack of her city, watching from the ramparts as her enemy threatened the life of her son to force her surrender, heroically pointing to her sexual organ, cried loudly: “Kill him, I still have the mold to make some more!” Yes, “the world is rotting with wisdom,” but by instinct, woman is not wise, is not a pacifist, is not good.
Because she is totally lacking in measure, she is bound to become too wise, too pacifist, too good during a sleepy period of humanity.
She is the individuality of the crowd: she parades the heroes, or if there are none, the imbeciles.
According to the apostle, the spiritual inspirer, woman, the carnal inspirer, immolates or takes care, causes blood to run or staunches it, is a warrior or a nurse.
So that is why no revolution should be without her.
That is why, instead of scorning her, we should address her.
Feminism is a political error.
Feminism is a cerebral error of woman, an error that her instinct will recognize.
To give duties to woman is to have her lose all her fecundating power.
Lust is a strength, because it destroys the weak, excites the strong to exert their energies, thus to renew themselves.
Every heroic people is sensual.
Woman is, for them, the most exalted trophy.
LET’S CONCLUDE: Woman who retains man through her tears and her sentimentality is inferior to the prostitute who incites her man, through braggery, to retain his domination over the lower depths of the cities with his revolver at the ready: at least she cultivates an energy that could serve better causes.
Don’t raise them for yourself, that is, for their diminishment, but rather, in a wide freedom, for a complete expansion.Instead of reducing man to the slavery of those execrable sentimental needs, incite your sons and your men to surpass themselves.You are the ones who make them.
It is now technically possible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females.
The male is a biological accident: the y (male) gene is an incomplete x (female) gene, that is has an incomplete set of chromosomes.
In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion, aborted at the gene stage.
To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.
The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, of love, friendship, affection or tenderness.
He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone.
His responses are entirely visceral, not cerebral; his intelligence is a mere tool in the service of his drives and needs; he is incapable of mental passion, mental interaction; he can't relate to anything other than his own physical sensations.
He is a half dead, unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness; consequently, he is at best an utter bore, an inoffensive blob, since only those capable of absorption in others can be charming.
He is trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and is far worse off than the apes because, unlike the apes, he is capable of a large array of negative feelings--hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, doubt--and moreover he is *aware* or what he is or isn't.
Although completely physical, the male is unfit even for stud service.
Even assuming mechanical proficiency, which few men have, he is, first of all, incapable of zestfully, lustfully, tearing off a piece, but is, instead eaten up with guilt, shame, fear and insecurity, feelings rooted in male nature, which the most enlightened training can only minimize; second, the physical feeling he attains is, next to nothing; and, third, he is, not empathizing with his partner, but is, obsessed with how he's doing, turning in an A performance, doing a good plumbing job.
To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo.
Eaten up with guilt, shame, fears and insecurities and obtaining, if he's lucky, a barely perceptible physical feeling, the male is, nonetheless, obsessed with screwing; he'll swim a river of snot, wade nostril-deep through a mile of vomit, if he thinks there'll be a friendly pussy awaiting him.
Completely egocentric, unable to relate, empathize or identify, and filled with a vast, pervasive, diffuse sexuality, the male is psychically passive.
He hates his passivity, so he projects it onto women, defines the male as active, then sets out to prove that he is ("prove he's a Man").
His main means of attempting to prove it is screwing (Big Man with a Big Dick tearing off a Big Piece).
Screwing, then, is a desperate, compulsive attempt to prove he's not passive, not a woman; but he is passive and *does* want to be a woman.
Screwing is, for a man, a defense against his desire to be female.
Sex is itself a sublimation.
He is responsible for: *War:* The male's normal method of compensation for not being female, namely, getting his Big Gun off, is grossly inadequate, as he can get it off only a very limited number of times; so he gets it off on a really massive scale, and proves to the entire world that he's a "Man".
Since he has no compassion or ability to empathize or identify, proving his manhood is worth an endless number of lives, including his own--his own life being worthless, he would rather go out in a blaze of glory than plod grimly on for fifty more years.
Overwhelmed by a sense of animalism and deeply ashamed of it; wanting, not to express himself, but to hide from others his total physicality, total egocentricity, the hate and contempt he feels for other men, and to hide from himself the hate and contempt he suspects other men feel for him; having a crudely constructed nervous system that is easily upset by the least display of emotion or feeling, the male tries to enforce a "social" code that ensures a perfect blandness, unsullied by the slightest trace of feeling or upsetting opinion.
He uses terms like "copulate", "sexual congress", "have relations with" (to men, "*sexual* relations" is a redundancy), overlaid with stilted manners; the suit on the chimp.
*Money, Marriage and Prostitution, Work and Prevention of an Automated Society:* There is no human reason for money or for anyone to work more than two or three hours a week at the very most.
The company of the lowest female is preferable to his own or that of other men, who serve only to remind him of his repulsiveness.
What will liberate women, therefore, >from male control is the total elimination of the money-work system, not the attainment of economic equality with men within it.
He is the Breadwinner.
*Fatherhood and Mental Illness (fear, cowardice, timidity, humility, insecurity, passivity):* Mother wants what's best for her kids; Daddy only wants what's best for Daddy, that is peace and quiet, pandering to his delusion of dignity ("respect"), a good reflection on himself (status) and the opportunity to control and manipulate, or, if he's an "enlightened" father, to "give guidance".
His daughter, in addition, he wants sexually--he gives her *hand* in marriage; the other part is for him.
Emotionally diseased Daddy doesn't love his kids; he approves of them--if they're "good", that is, if they're nice, "respectful", obedient, subservient to his will, quiet and not given to unseemly displays of temper that would be most upsetting to Daddy's easily disturbed male nervous system--in other words, if they're passive vegetables.
If they're not "good", he doesn't get angry--not if he's a modern, "civilized" father (the old-fashioned ranting, raving brute is preferable, as he is so ridiculous he can be easily despised)--but rather expresses disapproval, a state that, unlike anger, endures and precludes a basic acceptance, leaving the kid with a feeling of worthlessness and a lifelong obsession with being approved of; the result is fear of independent thought, as this leads to unconventional, disapproved of opinions and way of life.
For the kid to want Daddy's approval it must respect Daddy, and, being garbage, Daddy can make sure that he is respected only by remaining aloof, by distantness, by acting on the precept "familiarity breeds contempt", which is of course, true, if one is contemptible.
By being distant and aloof, he is able to remain unknown, mysterious, and, thereby, to inspire fear ("respect").
The effect of fatherhood on males, specifically, is to make them "Men", that is highly defensive of all impulses to passivity, faggotry, and of desires to be female.
Every boy wants to imitate his mother, be her, fuse with her, but Daddy forbids this; *he* is the mother; *he* gets to fuse with her.
The effect of fatherhood on females is to make them male--dependent, passive, domestic, animalistic, nice, insecure, approval and security seekers, cowardly, humble, "respectful" of authorities and men, closed, not fully responsive, half dead, trivial, dull, conventional, flattened out and thoroughly contemptible.
Daddy's Girl, always tense and fearful, uncool, unanalytical, lacking objectivity, appraises Daddy, and thereafter, other men, against a background of fear ("respect") and is not only unable to see the empty shell behind the aloof facade, but accepts the male definition of himself as superior, as a female, and of herself, as inferior, as a male, which, thanks to Daddy, she really is
It is the increase of fatherhood, resulting from the increased and widespread affluence that fatherhood needs in order to thrive, that has caused the general increase of mindlessness and the decline of women in the United States since the 1920s.
*Suppression of Individuality, Animalism (domesticity and motherhood) and Functionalism:* The male is just a bundle of conditioned reflexes, incapable of a mentally free response; he is tied to his early conditioning, determined completely by his past experiences.
His earliest experiences are with his mother, and he is throughout his life tied to her.
It never becomes completely clear to the male that he is not part of his mother, that he is he and she is she.
His greatest need is to be guided, sheltered, protected and admired by Mama (men expect women to adore what men shrink from in horror--themselves) and, being completely physical, he yearns to spend his time (that's not spent "out in the world" grimly defending against his passivity) wallowing in basic animal activities--eating, sleeping, shitting, relaxing and being soothed by Mama.
Passive, rattle-headed Daddy's Girl, ever eager for approval, for a pat on the head, for the "respect" of any passing piece of garbage, is easily reduced to Mama, mindless ministrator to physical needs, soother of the weary, apey brow, booster of the puny ego, appreciator of the contemptible, a hot water bottle with tits.
Reducing the female to an animal, to Mama, to a male, is necessary for psychological as well as practical reasons: the male is a mere member of the species, interchangeable with every other male.
The female's individuality, which he is acutely aware of, but which he doesn't comprehend and isn't capable of relating to or grasping emotionally, frightens and upsets him and fills him with envy.
So he denies it in her and proceeds to define everyone in terms of his or her function or use, assigning to himself, of course, the most important functions--doctor, president, scientist--thereby providing himself with an identity, if not individuality, and tries to convince himself and women (he's succeeded best at convincing women) that the female function is to bear and raise children and to relax, comfort and boost the ego of the male; that her function is such as to make her interchangeable with every other female.
In actual fact, the female function is to relate, groove, love and be herself, irreplaceable by anyone else; the male function is to produce sperm.
*Prevention of Privacy:* Although the male, being ashamed of what he is and of almost everything he does, insists on privacy and secrecy in all aspects of his life, he has no real *regard* for privacy.
Wanting to become a woman, he strives to be constantly around females, which is the closest he can get to becoming one, so he created a "society" based on the family--a male-female couple and their kids (the excuse for the family's existence), who live virtually on top of one another, unscrupulously violating the females' rights, privacy and sanity.
*Isolation, Suburbs and Prevention of Community:* Our society is not a community, but merely a collection of isolated family units.
Desperately insecure, fearing his woman will leave him if she is exposed to other men or to anything remotely resembling life, the male seeks to isolate her from other men and from what little civilization there is so he moves her out to the suburbs, a collection of self-absorbed couples and their kids.
There is yet another reason for the male to isolate himself: every man is an island.
The "hippie", whose desire to be a "Man", a "rugged individualist", isn't quite as strong as the average man's, and who, in addition, is excited by the thought of having lots of women accessible to him, rebels against the harshness of a Breadwinner's life and the monotony of one woman.
In the name of sharing and co-operation, he forms the commune or tribe, which, for all its togetherness and partly because of it (the commune, being an extended family, is an extended violation of the females' rights, privacy and sanity) is no more a community than normal "society".
Traditionalists say the basic unit of "society" is the family; "hippies" say the tribe; no one says the individual.
He desires to get back to Nature, back to the wilderness, back to the home of the furry animals that he's one of, away from the city, where there is at least a trace, a bare beginning of civilization, to live at the species level, his time taken up with simple, non-intellectual activities--farming, fucking, bead stringing.
The most important activity of the commune, the one on which it is based, is gangbanging.
The "hippie" is enticed to the commune mainly by the prospect of all the free pussy--the main commodity to be shared, to be had just for the asking but, blinded by greed, he fails to anticipate all the other men he has to share with, or the jealousies and possessiveness of the pussies themselves.
Men cannot co-operate to achieve a common end, because each man's end is all the pussy for himself.
The commune, therefore, is doomed to failure: each "hippie" will, in panic, grab the first simpleton who digs him and whisk her off to the suburbs as fast as he can.
*Conformity:* Although he wants to be an individual, the male is scared of anything in himself that is the slightest bit different from other men; it causes him to suspect that he's not really a "Man", that he's passive and totally sexual, a highly upsetting suspicion.
The farthest out male is the drag queen, but he, although different from most men, is exactly like all other drag queens; like the functionalist, he has an identity--he is a female.
To be sure he's a "Man", the male must see to it that the female be clearly a "Woman", the opposite of a "Man", that is, the female must act like a faggot.
Wanting the female (Mama) to guide him, but unable to accept this fact (he is, after all, a *MAN*), wanting to play Woman, to usurp her function as Guider and Protector, he sees to it that all authorities are male.
*Philosophy, Religion and Morality Based on Sex:* The male's inability to relate to anybody or anything makes his life pointless and meaningless (the ultimate male insight is that life is absurd), so he invented philosophy and religion.
For a man, having no ability to empathize with others and being totally sexual, "wrong" is sexual "license" and engaging in "deviant" ("unmanly") sexual practices, that is not defending against his passivity and total sexuality which, if indulged, would destroy "civilization", since "civilization" is based entirely on the male need to defend himself against these characteristics.
For a woman (according to men), "wrong" is any behavior that would entice men into sexual "license"--that is not placing male needs above her own and not being a faggot.
A woman not only takes her identity and individuality for granted, but knows instinctively that the only wrong is to hurt others, and that the meaning of life is love.
The purpose of "higher" education is not to educate but to exclude as many as possible from the various professions.
The male, totally physical, incapable of mental rapport, although able to understand and use knowledge and ideas, is unable to relate to them, to grasp them emotionally; he does not value knowledge and ideas for their own sake (they're just means to ends) and, consequently, feels no need for mental companions, no need to cultivate the intellectual potentialities of others.
No genuine social revolution can be accomplished by the male, as the male on top wants the status quo, and all the male on the bottom wants is to be the male on top.
The male "rebel" is a farce; this is the male's "society", made by *him* to satisfy *his* needs.
Ultimately, what the male "rebel" is rebelling against is being male.
*Prevention of Conversation:* Being completely self-centered and unable to relate to anything outside himself, the male's "conversation", when not about himself, is an impersonal droning on, removed from anything of human value.
Male "intellectual conversation" is a strained, compulsive attempt to impress the female.
This is not too difficult for her, as the tension and anxiety, the lack of cool, the insecurity and self-doubt, the unsureness of her own feelings and sensations that Daddy instilled in her make her perceptions superficial and render her unable to see that the male's babble is a babble; like the aesthete "appreciating" the blob that's labeled "Great Art", she believes she's grooving on what bores the shit out of her.
Trained from early childhood in niceness, politeness and "dignity", in pandering to the male need to disguise his animalism, she obligingly reduces her "conversation" to small talk, a bland insipid avoidance of any topic beyond the utterly trivial--or, if "educated", to "intellectual" discussion, that is, impersonal discoursing on irrelevant abstractions--the Gross National Product, the Common Market, the influence of Rimbaud on symbolist painting.
So adept is she at pandering that it eventually becomes second nature and she continues to pander to men even when in the company of other females only.
Apart from pandering, her "conversation" is further limited by her insecurity about expressing deviant, original opinions and the self-absorption based on insecurity and that prevents her conversation >from being charming.
Such conversation is hardly rampant, as only completely self-confident, arrogant, outgoing, proud, tough-minded females are capable of intense, bitchy, witty conversation.
In short, contempt is the order of the day.
Love is not dependency or sex, but friendship, and, therefore, love can't exist between two males, between a male and a female or between two females, one or both of whom is a mindless, insecure, pandering male; like conversation, love can exist only between two secure, free-wheeling, independent, groovy female females, since friendship is based on respect, not contempt.
Having stripped the world of conversation, friendship and love, the male offers us these paltry substitutes: *"Great Art" and "Culture":* The male "artist" attempts to solve his dilemma of not being able to live, of not being female, by constructing a highly artificial world in which the male is heroized, that is displays female traits, and the female is reduced to highly limited, insipid subordinate roles, that is to being male.
The vast majority of people, particularly the "educated" ones, lacking faith in their own judgment, humble, respectful of authority ("Daddy knows best" is translated into adult language as "Critic knows best", "Writer knows best", "Ph.D knows best"), are easily conned into believing that obscurity, evasiveness, incomprehensibility, indirectness, ambiguity and boredom are marks of depth and brilliance.
We know that "Great Art" is great because male authorities have told us so, and we can't claim otherwise, as only those with exquisite sensitivities far superior to ours can perceive and appreciate the greatness, the proof of their superior sensitivity being that they appreciate the slop that they appreciate.
Appreciating is the sole diversion of the "cultivated"; passive and incompetent, lacking imagination and wit, they must try to make do with that; unable to create their own diversions, to create a little world of their own, to affect in the smallest way their environments, they must accept what's given; unable to create or relate, they spectate.
Absorbing "culture" is a desperate, frantic attempt to groove in an ungroovy world, to escape the horror of a sterile, mindless existence.
"Culture" provides a sop to the egos of the incompetent, a means of rationalizing passive spectating; they can pride themselves on their ability to appreciate the "finer" things, to see a jewel where there is only a turd (they want to be admired for admiring).
The male, having a very limited range of feelings and, consequently, very limited perceptions, insights and judgments, needs the "artist" to guide him, to tell him what life is all about.
But the male "artist", being totally sexual, unable to relate to anything beyond his own physical sensations, having nothing to express beyond the insight that for the male life is meaningless and absurd, cannot be an artist.
How can he who is not capable of life tell us what life is all about?
A "male artist" is a contradiction in terms.
The true artist is every self-confident, healthy female, and in a female society the only Art, the only Culture, will be conceited, kookie, funky females grooving on each other and on everything else in the universe.
*Sexuality:* Sex is not part of a relationship; on the contrary, it is a solitary experience, non-creative, a gross waste of time.
Sex is the refuge of the mindless.
And the more mindless the woman, the more deeply embedded in the male "culture", in short, the nicer she is, the more sexual she is,
On the other hand, those females least embedded in the male "Culture", the least nice, those crass and simple souls who reduce fucking to fucking, who are too childish for the grown-up world of suburbs, mortgages, mops and baby shit, too selfish to raise kids and husbands, too uncivilized to give a shit for anyone's opinion of them, too arrogant to respect Daddy, the "Greats" or the deep wisdom of the Ancients, who trust only their own animal, gutter instincts, who equate Culture with chicks, whose sole diversion is prowling for emotional thrills and excitement, who are given to disgusting, nasty, upsetting "scenes", hateful, violent bitches given to slamming those who unduly irritate them in the teeth, who'd sink a shiv into a man's chest or ram an icepick up his asshole as soon as look at him, if they knew they could get away with it, in short, those who, by the standards of our "culture" are SCUM...these females are cool and relatively cerebral and skirting asexuality.
*Secrecy, Censorship, Suppression of Knowledge and Ideas, and Exposes:* Every male's deep-seated, secret, most hideous fear is the fear of being discovered to be not a female, but a male, a subhuman animal.
Much biological and psychological data is suppressed, because it is proof of the male's gross inferiority to the female.
The male's chief delight in life--insofar as the dense, grim male can ever be said to delight in anything- -is in exposing others.
Exposing others as enemy agents (Communists and Socialists) is one of his favorite pastimes, as it removes the source of the threat to him not only from himself, but from the country and the Western world.
*Distrust:* Unable to empathize or feel affection or loyalty, being exclusively out for himself, the male has no sense of fair play; cowardly, needing constantly to pander to the female to win her approval, that he is helpless without, always on edge lest his animalism, his maleness be discovered, always needing to cover up, he must lie constantly; being empty, he has no honor or integrity--he doesn't know what those words mean.
The male, in short, is treacherous, and the only appropriate attitude in a male "society" is cynicism and distrust.
*Hate and Violence:* The male is eaten up with tension, with frustration at not being female, at not being capable of ever achieving satisfaction or pleasure of any kind; eaten up with hate--not rational hate that is directed against those who abuse or insult you--but irrational, indiscriminate hate...hatred, at bottom, of his own worthless self.
*Disease and Death:* All diseases are curable, and the aging process and death are due to disease; it is possible, therefore, never to age and to live forever.
But the data is so massive it requires high speed computers to correlate it all.
Incapable of a positive state of happiness, which is the only thing that can justify one's existence, the male is at best, relaxed, comfortable, neutral, and this condition is extremely short-lived, as boredom, a negative state, soon sets in; he is therefore, doomed to an existence of suffering relieved only by occasional, fleeting stretches of restfulness, which state he can achieve only at the expense of some female.
The male is, by his very nature, a leech, an emotional parasite and, therefore, not ethically entitled to live, as no one has the right to live at someone else's expense.
The elimination of any male is, therefore, a righteous and good act, an act highly beneficial to women as well as an act of mercy.
However, this moral issue will eventually be rendered academic by the fact that the male is gradually eliminating himself.
Accelerating this trend is the fact that more and more males are acquiring enlightened self-interest; they're realizing more and more that the female interest is *their* interest, that they can live only through the female and that the more the female is encouraged to live, to fulfill herself, to be a female and not a male, the more nearly *he* lives; he's coming to see that it's easier and more satisfactory to live *through* her than to try to *become* her and usurp her qualities, claim them as his own, push the female down and claim she's a male.
The fag, who accepts his maleness, that is, his passivity and total sexuality, his femininity, is, also best served by women being truly female, as it would then be easier for him to be male, feminine.
Whether to continue to use females for reproduction or to reproduce in the laboratory will also become academic: what will happen when every female, twelve and over, is routinely taking the Pill and there are no longer any accidents?
The answer is laboratory reproduction of babies.
When genetic control is possible--and it soon will be--it goes without saying that we should produce only whole, complete beings, not physical defects or deficiencies, including emotional deficiencies, such as maleness.
What is their purpose?
Why should we care that there is no younger generation to succeed us?
But SCUM is impatient; SCUM is not consoled by the thought that future generations will thrive; SCUM wants to grab some thrilling living for itself.
The male is docile and easily led, easily subjected to the domination of any female who cares to dominate him.
But this is not a sane society, and most women are not even dimly aware of where they're at in relation to men.
The conflict, therefore, is not between females and males, but between SCUM--dominant, secure, self-confident, nasty, violent, selfish, independent, proud, thrill-seeking, free-wheeling, arrogant females, who consider themselves fit to rule the universe, who have free-wheeled to the limits of this "society" and are ready to wheel on to something far beyond what it has to offer--and nice, passive, accepting, "cultivated", polite, dignified, subdued, dependent, scared, mindless, insecure, approval-seeking Daddy's Girls, who can't cope with the unknown, who want to continue to wallow in the sewer that is at least, familiar, who want to hang back with the apes, who feel secure only with Big Daddy standing by, with a big, strong man to lean on and with a fat, hairy face in the White House, who are too cowardly to face up to the hideous reality of what a man is what Daddy is who have cast their lot with the swine, who have adapted themselves to animalism, feel superficially comfortable with it and know no other way of "life", who have reduced their minds, thoughts and sights to the male level, who, lacking sense, imagination and wit can have value only in a male "society", who can have a place in the sun, or, rather, in the slime, only as soothers, ego boosters, relaxers and breeders, who are dismissed as inconsequents by other females, who project their deficiencies, their maleness, onto all females and see the female as a worm.
But SCUM is too impatient to hope and wait for the de-brainwashing of millions of assholes.
A few examples of the men in the Men's Auxiliary are: men who kill men; biological scientists who are working on constructive programs, as opposed to biological warfare; journalists, writers, editors, publishers and producers who disseminate and promote ideas that will lead to the achievement of SCUM's goals; faggots who, by their shimmering, flaming example, encourage other men to de-man themselves and thereby make themselves relatively inoffensive; men who consistently give things away--money, things, services; men who tell it like it is (so far not one ever has), who put women straight, who reveal the truth about themselves, who give the mindless male females correct sentences to parrot, who tell them a woman's primary goal in life should be to squash the male sex (to aid men in this endeavor SCUM will conduct Turd Sessions, at which every male present will give a speech beginning with the sentence: "I am a turd, a lowly, abject turd," then proceed to list all the ways in which he is
Being in the Men's Auxiliary is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for making SCUM's escape list; it's not enough to do good; to save their worthless asses men must also avoid evil.
In the case of a man whose behavior falls into both the good and bad categories, an overall subjective evaluation of him will be made to determine if his behavior is, in the balance, good or bad.
It is most tempting to pick off the female "Great Artists", double dealers, etc.
Women are improvable; men are not, although their behavior is.
Dropping out is not the answer; fucking-up is
Dropping out gives control to those few who don't drop out; dropping out is exactly what the establishment leaders want; it plays into the hands of the enemy; it strengthens the system instead of undermining it, since it is based entirely on the non-participation, passivity, apathy and non-involvement of the mass of women.
Dropping out, however, is an excellent policy for men and SCUM will enthusiastically encourage it.
Looking inside yourself for salvation, contemplating your navel, is not, as the Drop Out people would have you believe, the answer.
Happiness lies outside yourself, is achieved through interacting with others.
Such tactics are for nice, genteel ladies who scrupulously take only such action as is guaranteed to be ineffective.
SCUM consists of individuals; SCUM is not a mob, a blob.
SCUM will always operate on a criminal as opposed to a civil disobedience basis, that is, as opposed to openly violating the law and going to jail in order to draw attention to an injustice.
SCUM is against the entire system, the very idea of law and government.
SCUM is out to destroy the system, not attain certain rights within it.
SCUM is against half-crazed, indiscriminate riots, with no clear objective in mind, and in which many of your own kind are picked off.
SCUM will keep on destroying, looting, fucking-up and killing until the money-work system no longer exists and automation is completely instituted or until enough women co-operate with SCUM to make violence unnecessary to achieve these goals, that is until enough women either unwork or quit work, start looting, leave men and refuse to obey all laws inappropriate to a truly civilized society.
A completely automated society can be accomplished very simply and quickly once there is a public demand for it.
Since the government is occupied almost entirely with regulating economic affairs and legislating against purely private matters, the elimination of money and with it the elimination of males who wish to legislate "morality" will mean that there will be practically no issues to vote on.
The rest of the women will be busy solving the few remaining unsolved problems before planning their agenda for eternity and Utopia--completely revamping educational programs so that millions of women can be trained within a few months for high level intellectual work that now requires years of training (this can be done very easily once our educational goal is to educate and not to perpetuate an academic and intellectual elite); solving the problems of disease and old age and death and completely redesigning our cities and living quarters.
Prior to the institution of automation, to the replacement of males by machines, the male should be of use to the female, wait on her, cater to her slightest whim, obey her every command, be totally subservient to her, exist in perfect obedience to her will, as opposed to the completely warped, degenerate situation we have now of men, not only not existing at all, cluttering up the world with their ignominious presence, but being pandered to and groveled before by the mass of females, millions of women piously worshipping before the Golden Calf, the dog leading the master on the leash, when in fact the male, short of being a drag queen, is least miserable when abjectly prostrate before the female, a complete slave.
The females will kindly, obligingly consent to this, as it won't hurt them in the slightest and it is a marvelously kind and humane way to treat their unfortunate, handicapped fellow beings.
The connection between Middle Passage and space travel is tenuous at best.
An all-black crew is unlikely.
Post-black is a misnomer.
Post-colonialism is too.
The most likely future is one in which we only have ourselves and this planet.
Gazing upon their bonfire of the Stupidities, which includes, but is not exclusively limited to: Jive-talking aliens; Jive-talking mutants; Magical negroes; Enormous self-control in light of great suffering; Great suffering as our natural state of existence; Inexplicable skill in the martial arts; Reference to Wu Tang;.
The imaginative challenge that awaits any Mundane Afrofuturist author who accepts that this is it: Earth is all we have.
The understanding that our “twoness” is inherently contemporary, even futuristic.
The electric feeling that Mundane Afrofuturism is the ultimate laboratory for worldbuilding outside of imperialist, capitalist, white patriarchy.
The Mundane Afrofuturists promise: To produce a collection of Mundane Afrofuturist literature that follows these rules: No interstellar travel—travel is limited to within the solar system and is difficult, time consuming, and expensive.
No aliens unless the connection is distant, difficult, tenuous, and expensive—and they have no interstellar travel either.
The elitist discourse of the upgrade is a dogma widely pursued by the naive victims of a persistent upgrade culture.
The user has to realize that improving is nothing more than a proprietary protocol, a deluded consumer myth about progression towards a holy grail of perfection.
The quest for complete transparency has changed the computer system into a highly complex assemblage that is often hard to penetrate and sometimes even completely closed off.
They do not work in (binary) opposition to what is inside the flows (the normal uses of the computer) but practice their art on the border of these flows.
As a result, the spectator is forced to acknowledge that the use of the computer is based on a genealogy of conventions, while in reality the computer is a machine that can be bend or used in many different ways.
I use these instances to exploit noise artifacts, that I sub-divide as glitch, encoding / decoding (of which compression is the most ordinary form) and feedback artifacts.
But when noise is explored within a social context, the term is often used as a figure of speech and as such has many more meanings.
Sometimes, noise stands for unaccepted sounds: not music, not valid information or what is not a message.
Whichever way noise is defined, the negative definition also has a positive consequence: it helps by (re)defining its opposite (the world of meaning, the norm, regulation, goodness, beauty and so on).
Noise thus exists as a paradox; while it is often negatively defined, it is also a positive, generative quality (that is present in any communication medium).
The glitch is a wonderful experience of an interruption that shifts an object away from its ordinary form and discourse.
For a moment I am shocked, lost and in awe, asking myself what this other utterance is, how was it created.
Is it perhaps ...a glitch?
But once I named it, the momentum -the glitch- is no more...
But somewhere within the destructed ruins of meaning hope exists; a triumphal sensation that there is something more than just devastation.
As a holistic celebration rather than a particular perfection the glitch can reveal a new opportunity, a spark of creative energy that indicates that something new is about to be created.
The glitch has no solid form or state through time; it is often perceived as an unexpected and abnormal mode of operandi, a break from (one of) the many flows (of expectations) within a technological system.
But as the understanding of a glitch changes when it is being named, so does the equilibrium of the (former) glitch itself: the original experience of a rupture moved passed its momentum and vanished into a realm of new conditions.
The glitch is a new and ephemeral, personal experience.
This is what I call glitch art.
Glitch art is often about relaying the membrane of the normal, to create a new protocol after shattering an earlier one.
Once the glitch is understood as an alternative way of representation or a new language, its tipping point has passed and the essence of its glitch-being is vanished.
The glitch is no longer an art of rejection, but a shape or appearance that is recognized as a novel form (of art).
Artists that work with glitch processes are therefore often hunting for the fragile equilibrium; they search for the point when a new form is born from the blazed ashes of its precursor.
Even so, glitch art is not always (or by everyone) experienced as an art of the momentum; many works have already passed their tipping point.
This is because glitch art exists within different systems; for instance the system of production and the system of reception.
Not only the artist who creates the work of glitch art is responsible for the glitch.
collisions) and the audience (who is in charge of the reception, the decoding) can also be responsible.
This is why an intended error can still be called glitch art and why glitch art is not always just a personal experience of shock, but has also become a genre; a schematic metaphor for a way of expression, that depends on multiple actors.
The procedural essence of glitch art is opposed to conservation; the shocking experience, perception and understanding of what a glitch is at one point in time, cannot be preserved to a future time.
The beautiful creation of a glitch is uncanny and sublime; the artist tries to catch something that is the result of an uncertain balance, a shifting, un-catchable, unrealized utopia connected to randomness and idyllic disintegrations.
The essence of glitch art is therefore best understood as a history of movement and as an attitude of destructive generativity; it is the procedural art of non con-formative, ambiguous reformations.
There is an obvious critique: to design a glitch means to domesticate it.
It is no longer a break from a flow within a technology, or a method to open up the political discourse, but instead a cultivation.
For many actors it is no longer a glitch, but a filter that consists of a preset and/or a default: what was once understood as a glitch has now become a new commodity.
Even so, the utopian fantasy of 'technological democracy' or 'freedom' that glitch art is often connected to, has often little to do with the colonialism of these glitch art designs and glitch filters.
If there is such a thing as technological freedom, this can only be found within the procedural momentum of glitch art; when a glitch is just about to relay a protocol.
Not when “one disruptive click is just about to create a new design”.
Within software art, the glitch is often used to deconstruct the myth of linear progress and to end the search for the holy grail called the perfect technology.
In these works, the glitch emphasizes what is normally rejected as a flaw and subsequently shows that accidents and errors can also be welcomed as new forms of usability.
The glitch does not only invoke the death of the author, but also the death of the apparatus, medium or tool (at least from the perspective of the technological determinist spectator) and is often used as an anti ‘software-deterministic’ form.
I think that an answer to the problems of both historians and theoreticians could be found when glitch art is described as a procedural activity demonstrating against and within multiple technologies.
The role of glitch artifacts as critical trans-media aesthetics is twofold.
What actually happens when a glitch occurs is unknown, I stare at the glitch as a void of knowledge; a strange dimension where the laws of technology are suddenly very different from what I expected and know.
Here is the purgatory; an intermediate state between the death of the old technology and a judgement for a possible continuation into a new form, a new understanding, a landscape, a videoscape..
The glitches I trigger show the technology as the obfuscated box that it actually is (and not absent or transparent).
This chapter is an effort to build an ironic political myth faithful to feminism, socialism, and materialism.
Perhaps more faithful as blasphemy is faithful, than as reverent worship and identification.
Blasphemy is not apostasy.
Irony is about contradictions that do not resolve into larger wholes, even dialectically, about the tension of holding incompatible things together because both or all are necessary and true.
Irony is about humour and serious play.
It is also a rhetorical strategy and a political method, one I would like to see more honoured within socialistfeminism.
At the centre of my ironic faith, my blasphemy, is the image of the cyborg.
A cyborg is a cybernetic organism, a hybrid of machine and organism, a creature of social reality as well as a creature of fiction.
Social reality is lived social relations, our most important political construction, a world-changing fiction.
This experience is a fiction and fact of the most crucial, political kind.
The cyborg is a matter of fiction and lived experience that changes what counts as women's experience in the late twentieth century.
This is a struggle over life and death, but the boundary between science fiction and social reality is an optical illusion.
Contemporary science fiction is full of cyborgs - creatures simultaneously animal and machine, who populate worlds ambiguously natural and crafted.
Modern medicine is also full of cyborgs, of couplings between organism and machine, each conceived as coded devices, in an intimacy and with a power that was not generated in the history of sexuality.
Cyborg replication is uncoupled from organic reproduction.
And modern war is a cyborg orgy, coded by C3I, command-control-communication intelligence, an $84 billion item in 1984'sUS defence budget.
Michael Foucault's biopolitics is a flaccid premonition of cyborg politics, a very open field.
Ths cyborg is our ontology; it gives us our politics.
The cyborg is a condensed image of both imagination and material reality, the two joined centres structuring any possibility of historical transformation.
This chapter is an argument for pleasure in the confusion of boundaries and for responsibility in their construction.
It is also an effort to contribute to socialist-feminist culture and theory in a postmodernist, non-naturalist mode and in the utopian tradition of imagining a world without gender, which is perhaps a world without genesis, but maybe also a world without end.
The cyborg incarnation is outside salvation history.
The cyborg is a creature in a post-gender world; it has no truck with bisexuality, pre-oedipal symbiosis, unalienated labour, or other seductions to organic wholeness through a final appropriation of all the powers of the parts into a higher unity.
In a sense, the cyborg has no origin story in the Western sense - a 'final' irony since the cyborg is also the awful apocalyptic telos of the 'West's' escalating dominations of abstract individuation, an ultimate self untied at last from all dependency, a man in space.
This is its illegitimate promise that might lead to subversion of its teleology as star wars.
The cyborg is resolutely committed to partiality, irony, intimacy, and perversity.
It is oppositional, utopian, and completely without innocence.
Unlike the hopes of Frankenstein's monster, the cyborg does not expect its father to save it through a restoration of the garden; that is, through the fabrication of a heterosexual mate, through its completion in a finished whole, a city and cosmos.
The cyborg would not recognize the Garden of Eden; it is not made of mud and cannot dream of returning to dust.
Perhaps that is why I want to see if cyborgs can subvert the apocalypse of returning to nuclear dust in the manic compulsion to name the Enemy.
The main trouble with cyborgs, of course, is that they are the illegitimate offspring of militarism and patriarchal capitalism, not to mention state socialism.
By the late twentieth century in United States scientific culture, the boundary between human and animal is thoroughly breached.
Biological-determinist ideology is only one position opened up in scientific culture for arguing the meanings of human animality.
There is much room for radical political people to contest the meanings of the breached boundary.
The cyborg appears in myth precisely where the boundary between human and animal is transgressed.
The second leaky distinction is between animal-human (organism) and machine.
Technological determination is only one ideological space opened up by the reconceptions of machine and organism as coded texts through which we engage in the play of writing and reading the world.
It is certainly true that postmodernist strategies, like my cyborg myth, subvert myriad organic wholes (for example, the poem, the primitive culture, the biological organism).
In short, the certainty of what counts as nature -- a source of insight and promise of innocence -- is undermined, probably fatally.
The transcendent authorization of interpretation is lost, and with it the ontology grounding 'Western' epistemology.
But the alternative is not cynicism or faithlessness, that is some version of abstract existence, like the accounts of technological determinism destroying 'man' by the 'machine' or 'meaningful political action' by the 'text'.
Who cyborgs will be is a radical question; the answers are a matter of survival.
The third distinction is a subset of the second: the boundary between physical and nonphysical is very imprecise for us.
Modern machinery is an irreverent upstart god, mocking the Father's ubiquity and spirituality.
The silicon chip is a surface for writing; it is etched in molecular scales disturbed only by atomic noise, the ultimate interference for nuclear scores.
Miniaturization has turned out to be about power; small is not so much beautiful as pre-eminently dangerous, as in cruise missiles.
The ubiquity and invisibility of cyborgs is precisely why these sunshine-belt machines are so deadly.
Ultimately the 'hardest' science is about the realm of greatest boundary confusion, the realm of pure number, pure spirit, C3I, cryptography, and the preservation of potent secrets.
So my cyborg myth is about transgressed boundaries, potent fusions, and dangerous possibilities which progressive people might explore as one part of needed political work.
One of my premises is that most American socialists and feminists see deepened dualisms of mind and body, animal and machine, idealism and materialism in the social practices, symbolic formulations, and physical artefacts associated with 'high technology' and scientific culture.
Another of my premises is that the need for unity of people trying to resist world-wide intensification of domination has never been more acute.
From one perspective, a cyborg world is about the final imposition of a grid of control on the planet, about the final abstraction embodied in a Star Wars apocalypse waged in the name of defence, about the final appropriation of women's bodies in a masculinist orgy of war (Sofia, 1984).
The political struggle is to see from both perspectives at once because each reveals both dominations and possibilities unimaginable from the other vantage point.
Fission Impossible is the name of the affinity group in my town.
Consciousness of exclusion through naming is acute.
There is nothing about teeing 'female' that naturally binds women.
There is not even such a state as 'being' female, itself a highly complex category constructed in contested sexual scientific discourses and other social practices.
Gender, race, or class consciousness is an achievement forced on us by the terrible historica experience of the contradictory social realities of patriarchy, colonialism, and capitalism.
This postmodernist identity is fully political, whatever might be said abut other possible postmodernisms.
Sandoval's oppositional consciousness is about contradic156 tory locations and heterochronic calendars, not about relativisms and pluralisms.
Sandoval emphasizes the lack of any essential criterion for identifying who is a woman of colour.
Unlike the 'woman' of some streams of the white women's movement in the United States, there is no naturalization of the matrix, or at least this is what Sandoval argues is uniquely available through the power of oppositional consciousness.
Sandoval's argument has to be seen as one potent formulation for feminists out of the world-wide development of anti-colonialist discourse; that is to say, discourse dissolving the 'West' and its highest product - the one who is not animal, barbarian, or woman; man, that is the author of a cosmos called history.
As orientalism is deconstructed politically and semiotically, the identities of the occident destabilize, including those of feminists.
And of course, 'women's culture', like women of colour, is consciously created by mechanisms inducing affinity.
The common achievement of King and Sandoval is learning how to craft a poetic/political unity without relying on a logic of appropriation, incorporation, and taxonomic identification.
I think that radical and socialist/Marxist-feminisms have also undermined their/our own epistemological strategies and that this is a crucially valuable step in imagining possible unities.
It is important to note that the effort to construct revolutionary stand-points, epistemologies as achievements of people committed to changing the world, has been part of the process showing the limits of identification.
But with the loss of innocence in our origin, there is no expulsion from the Garden either.
White women, including socialist feminists, discovered (that is, were forced kicking and screaming to notice) the non-innocence of the category 'woman'.
Cyborg feminists have to argue that 'we' do not want any more natural matrix of unity and that no construction is whole.
Marxian socialism is rooted in an analysis of wage labour which reveals class structure.
The consequence of the wage relationship is systematic alienation, as the worker is dissociated from his (sic) product.
Labour is the pre-eminently privileged category enabling the Marxist to overcome illusion and find that point of view which is necessary for changing the world.
Labour is the humanizing activity that makes man; labour is an ontological category permitting the knowledge of a subject, and so the knowledge of subjugation and alienation.
In particular, women's labour in the household and women's activity as mothers generally (that is, reproduction in the socialist-feminist sense), entered theory on the authority of analogy to the Marxian concept of labour.
Marxist/socialist-feminism does not 'natur-alize' unity; it is a possible achievement based on a possible standpoint rooted in social relations.
The essentializing move is in the ontological structure of labour or of its analogue, women's activity.
The inheritance of Marxian humanism, with its pre-eminently Western self, is the difficulty for me.
Catherine MacKinnon's (198Z, 1987) version of radical feminism is itself a caricature of the appropriating, incorporating, totalizing tendencies of Western theories of identity grounding action.
It is factually and politically wrong to assimilate all of the diverse 'moments' or 'conversations' in recent women's politics named radical feminism to MacKinnon's version.
Only one of the effects of MacKinnon's theory is the rewriting of the history of the polymorphous field called radical feminism.
The major effect is the production of a theory of experience, of women's identity, that is a kind of apocalypse for all revolutionary standpoints.
That is, the totalization built into this tale of radical feminism achieves its end the unity of women - by enforcing the experience of and testimony to radical non-being.
As for the Marxist/ socialist feminist, consciousness is an achievement, not a natural fact.
Another's desire, not the self's labour, is the origin of 'woman'.
Feminist practice is the construction of this form of consciousness; that is the self-knowledge of a self-who is not.
Perversely, sexual appropriation in this feminism still has the epistemolo-gical status of labour; that is to say, the point from which an analysis able to contribute to changing the world must flow.
But sexual object)fication, not alienation, is the consequence of the structure of sex/gender.
In the realm of knowledge, the result of sexual objectification is illusion and abstraction.
However, a woman is not simply alienated from her product, but in a deep sense does not exist as a subject, or even potential subject, since she owes her existence as a woman to sexual appropriation.
To be constituted by another's desire is not the same thing as to be alienated in the violent separation of the labourer from his product.
MacKinnon's radical theory of experience is totalizing in the extreme; it does not so much marginalize as obliterate the authority of any other women's political speech and action.
It is a totalization producing what Western patriarchy itself never succeeded in doing - feminists'consciousness of the non-existence of women, except as products of men's desire.
If my complaint about socialist/Marxian standpoints is their unintended erasure of polyvocal, unassimilable, radical difference made visible in anti-colonial discourse and practice, MacKinnon's intentional erasure of all difference through the device of the 'essential' nonexistence of women is not reassuring.
In my taxonomy, which like any other taxonomy is a re-inscription of history, radical feminism can accommodate all the activities of women named by socialist feminists as forms of labour only if the activity can somehow be sexualized.
It is no accident that the symbolic system of the family of man - and so the essence of woman - breaks up at the same moment that networks of connection among people on the planet are unprecedentedly multiple, pregnant, and complex.
'Advanced capitalism' is inadequate to convey the structure of this historical moment.
In the 'Western' sense, the end of man is at stake.
It is no accident that woman disintegrates into women in our time.
'Epistemology' is about knowing the difference.
The frame for my sketch is set by the extent and importance of rearrangements in world-wide social relations tied to science and technology.
It's not just that igod 'is dead; so 'is the 'goddess'.
Sexual reproduction is one kind of reproductive strategy among many, with costs and benefits as a function of the system environment.
It is 'irrational' to invoke concepts like primitive and civilized.
The privileged pathology affecting all kinds of components in this universe is stress communications breakdown (Hogness, 1983).
The cyborg is not subject to Foucault's biopolitics; the cyborg simulates politics, a much more potent field of operations.
The actual situation of women is their integration/ exploitation into a world system of production/reproduction and com-munication called the informatics of domination.
One important route for reconstructing socialist-feminist politics is through theory and practice addressed to the social relations of science and technology, including crucially the systems of myth and meanings structuring our imaginations.
The cyborg is a kind of disassembled and reassembled, postmodern collective and personal self.
This is the self feminists must code.
The boundary is permeable between tool and myth, instrument and concept, historical systems of social relations and historical anatomies of possible bodies, including objects of knowledge.
In each case, solution to the key questions rests on a theory of language and control; the key operation is determining the rates, directions, and probabilities of flow of a quantity called information.
The world is subdivided by boundaries differentially permeable to information.
Information is just that kind of quantifiable element (unit, basis of unity) which allows universal translation, and so unhindered instrumental power (called effective communication).
The biggest threat to such power is interruption of communication.
Any system breakdown is a function of stress.
Biology here is a kind of cryptography.
Research is necessarily a kind of intelligence activity.
But these excursions into communications sciences and biology have been at a rarefied level; there is a mundane, largely economic reality to support my claim that these sciences and technologies indicate fundamental transforma-tions in the structure of the world for us.
Micro-electronics is the technical basis of simulacra; that is of copies without originals.
Communicadons sciences and biology are construcdons of natural-technical objects of knowledge in which the difference between machine and organism is thoroughly blurred; mind, body, and tool are on very intimate terms.
THE 'HOMEWORK ECONOMY' OUTSIDE 'THE HOME'The 'New Industrial Revolution' is producing a new world-wide working class, as well as new sexualities and ethnicities.
It is not simply that women in Third World countries are the preferred labour force for the science-based multinationals in the export-processing sectors, particularly in electronics.
The picture is more systematic and involves reproduction, sexuality, culture, consumphon, and producdon.
Work is being redefined as both literally female and feminized, whether performed by men or women.
Deskilling is an old strategy newly applicable to formerly privileged workers.
The homework economy as a world capitalist organizational structure is made possible by (not caused by) the new technologies.
The success of the attack on relatively privileged, mostly white, men's unionized jobs is deaf to the power of the new communications technologies to integrate and control labour despite extensive dispersion and decentralization.
The causes of various women-headed households are a function of race, class, or sexuality; but their increasing generality is a ground for coalitions of women on many issues.
That women regularly sustain daily life partly as a funcdon of their enforced status as mothers is hardly new; the kind of integration with the overall capitalist and progressively war-based economy is new.
Teenage women in industrializing areas of the Third World increasingly find themselves the sole or major source of a cash wage for their families, while access to land is ever more problemadc.
This is the context in which the projections for world-wide structural unemployment stemming from the new technologies are part of the picture of the homework economy.
It is no longer a secret that sexuality, reproduction, family, and community life are interwoven with this economic structure in myriad ways which have also differentiated the situations of white and black women.
The culture of video games is heavily orientated to individual compedtion and extraterrestrial warfare.
More than our imaginations is militarized; and the other realities of electronic and nuclear warfare are inescapable.
Among the many transformations of reproductive situations is the medical one, where women's bodies have boundaries newly permeable to both 'visualization' and 'intervention'.
Of course, who controls the interpretation of bodily boundaries in medical hermeneubcs is a major feminist issue.
The speculum served as an icon of women's claiming their bodies in the 1970S; that handcraft tool is inadequate to express our needed body politics in the negotiation of reality in the practices of cyborg reproduction.
Self-help is not enough.
Another critical aspect of the social relations of the new technologies is the reformulation of expectations, culture, work, and reproduction for the large scientific and technical workforce.
A major social and political danger is the formation of a strongly bimodal social structure, with the masses of women and men of all ethnic groups, but especially people of colour, confined to a homework economy, illiteracy of several varieties, and general redundancy and impotence, controlled by high-tech repressive apparatuses ranging from entertainment to surveillance and disappearance.
This issue is only one aspect of enquiry into the possibility of a feminist science, but it is important.
If it was ever possible ideologically to characterize women's lives by the disdnction of public and private domains-- suggested by images of the division of working-class life into factory and home, of bourgeois life into market and home, and of gender existence into personal and political realms --it is now a totally misleading ideology, even to show how both terms of these dichotomies construct each other in practice and in theory.
'Networking' is both a feminist practice and a multinational corporate strategy -- weaving is for oppositional cyborgs.
Each of these idealized spaces is logically and practically implied in every other locus, perhaps analogous to a holographic photograph.
However, there is no 'place' for women in these networks, only geometries of difference and contradiction crucial to women's cyborg identities.
There is no way to read the following list from a standpoint of'idendfication', of a unitary self.
The issue is dispersion.
The task is to survive in the diaspora.
The only way to characterize the informatics of domination is as a massive intensification of insecurity and cultural impoverishment, with common failure of subsistence networks for the most vulnerable.
Since much of this picture interweaves with the social relations of science and technology, the urgency of a socialist-feminist politics addressed to science and technology is plain.
There is much now being tione, and the grounds for political work are rich.
But it is not necessary to be uldmately depressed by the implications of late twentieth-century women's relation to all aspects of work, culture, production of knowledge, sexuality, and reproduction.
It is crucial to remember that what is lost, perhaps especially from women's points of view, is often virulent forms of oppression, nostalgically naturalized in the face of current violation.
But what people are experiencing is not transparently clear, and we lack aufficiently subtle connections for collectively building effective theories of experience.
The feminist dream of a common language, like all dreams for a perfectly true language, of perfectly faithful naming of experience, is a totalizing and imperialist one.
In that sense, dialectics too is a dream language, longing to resolve contradiction.
Exploring concephons of bodily boundaries and social order, the anthropologist Mary Douglas (1966, 1970) should be credited with helping us to consciousness about how fundamental body imagery is to world view, and so to political language.
It is the simultaneity of breakdowns that cracks the matrices of domination and opens geometric possibilities.
In my political myth, Sister Outsider is the offshore woman, whom US workers, female and feminized, are supposed to regard as the enemy prevendug their solidarity, threatening their security.
Onshore, inside the boundary of the United States, Sister Outsider is a potential amidst the races and ethnic identities of women manipulated for division, competition, and exploitation in the same industries.
Contrary to orientalist stereotypes of the 'oral primidve', literacy is a special mark of women of colour, acquired by US black women as well as men through a history of risking death to learn and to teach reading and wridng.
Releasing the play of writing is deadly serious.
Cyborg writing is about the power to survive, not on the basis of original innocence, but on the basis of seizing the tools to mark the world that marked them as other.
Moraga's writing, her superb literacy, is presented in her poetry as the same kind of violation as Malinche's mastery of the conqueror's language -- a violation, an illegitimate production, that allows survival.
Moraga's language is not 'whole'; it is self-consciously spliced, a chimera of English and Spanish, both conqueror's languages.
But it is this chimeric monster, without claim to an original language before violation, that crafts the erode, competent, potent identities of women of colour.
Writing is pre-eminently the technology of cyborgs, etched surfaces of the late twentieth century.
Cyborg politics is the struggle for language and the struggle against perfect communication, against the one code that translates all meaning perfectly, the central dogma of phallogocentrism.
That is why cyborg politics insist on noise and advocate pollution, rejoicing in the illegitimate fusions of animal and machine.
This is not just literary deconstruction, but liminal transformation.
Every, story that begins with original innocence and privileges the return to wholeness imagines the drama of life to be individuation, separation, the birth of the self, the tragedy of autonomy, the fall into writing, alienation; that is, war, tempered by imaginary respite in the bosom of the Other.
But there is another route to having less at stake in masculine autonomy, a route that does not pass through Woman, Primitive, Zero, the Mirror Stage and its imaginaw.
Sumival is the stakes in this play of readings.
To recapitulate, certain dualisms have been persistent in Western traditions; they have all been systemic to the logics and practices of domination of women, people of colour, nature, workers, animals - in short, domination of all constituted as others, whose task is to mirror the self.
The self is the One who is not dominated, who knows that by the semice of the other, the other is the one who holds the future, who knows that by the experience of domination, which gives the lie to the autonomy of the self.
To be One is to be autonomous, to be powerful, to be God; but to be One is to be an illusion, and so to be involved in a dialectic of apocalypse with the other.
Yet to be other is to be multiple, without clear boundary, frayed, insubstantial.
One is too few, but two are too many.
It is not clear who makes and who is made in the relation between human and machine.
It is not clear what is mind and what body in machines that resolve into coding practices.
There is no fundamental, ontological separation in our formal knowledge of machine and organism, of technical and organic.
One consequence is that our sense of connection to our tools is heightened.
Katie King clarifies how pleasure in reading these fictions is not largely based on idendfication.
The Female Man is the story of four versions of one genotype, all of whom meet, but even taken together do not make a whole, resolve the dilemmas of violent moral action, or remove the growing scandal of gender.
A black woman and a mother whose child is dead, Lilith mediates the transformation of humanity through genetic exchange with extraterrestrial lovers/rescuers/destroyers/genetic engineers, who reform earth's habitats after the nuclear holocaust and coerce surviving humans into intimate fusion with them.
It is a novel that interrogates reproductive, linguishc, and nuclear politics in a mythic field structured by late twentieth-century race and gender.
Because it is particularly rich in boundary transgressions, Vonda McIn-tyre's Superluminal can close this truncated catalogue of promising and dangerous monsters who help redefine the pleasures and politics of embodiment and feminist writing.
In a fiction where no character is 'simply' human, human status is highly problematic.
This is a conjunction with a long history that many 'First World' feminists have tried to repress, including myself in my readings of Superluminal before being called to account by Zoe Sofoulis, whose different location in the world system's informatics of domin-ation made her acutely alert to the imperialist moment of all science fiction cultures, including women's science fiction.
A cyborg body is not innocent; it was not born in a garden; it does not seek unitary identity and so generate antagonistic dualisms without end (or until the world ends); it takes irony for granted.
One is too few, and two is only one possibility.
The machine is not an it to be animated, worshipped, and dominated.
The machine is us, our processes, an aspect of our embodiment.
There is a compelling aspect to this claim, one that makes visible unvalued female activity and names it as the ground of life.
Cyborg gender is a local possibility taking a global vengeance.
There is no drive in cyborgs to produce total theory, but there is an intimate experience of boundaries, their construction and deconstruction.
There is a myth system waiting to become a political language to ground one way of looking at science and technology and challenging the informatics of domination-- in order to act potently.
Cyborg imagery can help express two crucial arguments in this essay: first, the production of universal, totalizing theory is a major mistake that misses most of reality, probably always, but certainly now; and second, taking responsibility for the social relations of science and technology means refusing an anti-science metaphysics, a demonology of technology, and so means embracing the skilful task of reconstructing the boundaries of daily life, in partial connection with others, in communication with all of our parts.
It is not just that science and technology are possible means of great human satisfaction, as well as a matrix of complex dominations.
This is a dream not of a common language, but of a powerful infidel heteroglossia.
It is an imagination of a feminist speaking in tongues to strike fear into the circuits of the supersavers of the new right.
--- Sick of the filthy dust, montonous and boring, of stagnant, unbreathable, competitive and excluding environments, of semi-free information which is actually totally controlled, power and decision of hunched up egocentric and infantile machos.
Tired of the useless and recursive manipulation of information, we study, construct and fail with all that is around us, with multiple, monstruous and hateful ends.
From the expansion of information to the mutation of dispositives, we want to hack and recodify everything that is static and programmed by social and technological imposition.
PECHBLENDA is injected into our veins as an antidote to the heteropatriarchal arrogance that surrounds us.
Nature and technology are not different, nature was to the witches what technoscience is to us, the cyborg witches.
We infiltrate the machine with our hands, sweat and disperse attention, we prepare ourselves for inexact verification where the apparent error is desired, where we fail, fuck, we are.
We parody what is socially understood to be feminine, what is supposed to be masculine.
Perhaps the point is not Deen himself and how he has been lauded via the wheel of favorable ratings by female audiences online.
What needs to be written about is what happens when a woman sits down and engages with sex—specifically, her own, as tied to an exploration of her individual sexuality and liberation therein—via the medium of a computer screen.
The first is a screen, stuck, overwhelmed as a consequence of having too many windows open, too many things playing at once; I am trying to get an education, make a determination for myself, so I want to see everything, hear everything, right now, all at once.
remind us that what we see on a screen is subject to a special kind of entropy which does not exist in the physical world .
The glitch is the digital orgasm, where the machine takes a sigh, a shudder, and with a jerk, spasms.
The glitch is the catalyst, not the error.
The glitch is the happy accident.
Digital dualism’s IRL is juxtaposed with AFK, a falsehood, for sure—the rapidly waning notion that there are somehow two selves, operating in isolation from one another, rather than one continuous self, two sides of a vivacious equation looped together in a continual narrative of daily living and human existence.
The glitch splits the difference; it is a plank that passes between the two.
When watching media online, it is the rainbowed spinning wheel, the pixilated hiccup, the frozen screen, or the buffering signal that acts as a fissure, that jars us into recognition of the separation of our physical selves from the body that immerses itself in fantasy when participating in sexual activity online.
Yet, simultaneously, it is also the glitch that prompts us to “choose-our-own-adventure”, to finish the story, and, in doing so, to acknowledge that when the mediation of digital space fails us, albeit briefly, we continue right where we left off, taking the revolution offline, but not out of body, thereby demonstrating the fallacy of the digital dualist dialectic.
It is the glitch that incites anticipation—that ecstasy of interference.
It must be noted that the word glitch is oft delegated to the realm of slang, which explains why it is so easy to pin it with negative connotations.
This glitch is a correction to the “machine”, and, in turn, a positive departure.
“Glitch” is conjectured as finding its etymological roots in the Yiddish glitch (“slippery area”) or perhaps German glitschen (“to slip, slide”); it is this slip and slide that the glitch makes plausible, a swim in the liminal, a trans-formation, across selfdoms.
The digital divide, as with the gender divide, is a construct that allows for phallogocentrism, normative systems oriented toward the necessary splitting of selves, to stick, having lulled us into consenting to their naturalizing neutrality, despite the stark reality that such structures are not in actuality “neutral”, nor natural, in any capacity.
Glitch Feminism is not gender-specific—it is for all bodies that exist somewhere before arrival upon a final concretized identity that can be easily digested, produced, packaged, and categorized by a voyeuristic mainstream public.
Glitch Feminism therefore is feminism for a digital age, a heralding of virtual agency, a blooming of particularity and selfhood.
The first step to subverting a system is accepting that that system will remain in place; that said, the glitch says fuck your systems!
It is a long road ahead, we are in beta, yet the necessary “malfunction” is well under way.
Legacy Russell is a writer, artist, and curator.
& don't mention abortion, now is just like talk about sorcery!!
gynepunk is a extreme and accurate gesture to detach our boudy of the compulsive dependency of the fossil structures of the hegemonic health system machine.
gynepunk's objective is to make emerge DIY-DIT accessible diagnosis labs and technics in extreme experimentation, down the rocks or elevators if is necesary.
gynepunk is based in scientific methodology and discipline and in the knowledge that comes thought the experience of each body, ancestral body wisdom, that's why documentation, memory in any form is essential!
Something that is Vital to share and spread in infinite pandemoniums.
It is called all the ceremonies that the Machi.
It is the intermediary between the Mapuche people and the Wenu Mapu.
--- At this point in time we believe a radical change in politics and the world socioeconomic system is needed in order to achieve a new balanced ecology and this radical change should start with a shifting of agency: we ask for the main agency to be shifted to the feminine principle – which we do not understand as excluding masculinity but as referring to a history of incorporating it and mobilizing it in a different way than the traditional patriarchal mobilization for violence: an emphasis on complementarity rather than antagonism, on resolutions of peace rather than militarism, on efforts directed towards construction, care and emancipatory exploration rather than destruction.
We declare the imperative necessity for a new geological era to be commenced, before the Anthropocene is even officially admitted on that scale (it might be that by the time it gets fully acknowledged, it will be too late).
The feminine is the first stage towards a transgressive humanism and the Gynecene is the first global and simultaneous transfer of the feminine imprint onto the physical and political strata (deeply connected as they are today) of the Earth.
The brutal reality of the female condition in general is its intrinsic physical vulnerability.
We support an empowering of women that is founded on a desired change of paradigm, where weakness is understood and respected as a valuable condition in itself, and at the same time on the possibility, accepted and detabooed, of technological transformations of the human body towards hybrid forms such as the cyborg.
Domestic violence is not depending on the degree of wealth or education.
Therefore the new, truly radical left has to rebuild itself on a different type of revolution, which takes us beyond the traditional class antagonisms and can face the neo-tribal reality of today in which violence breeds violence, justice is used as a tool for revenge and critique of power is increasingly powerless.
4.. We consider the analysis of capitalism and its catastrophic consequences is complete and time has come to move on.
Any time spent on “revealing” the more subtle or more flagrant inconsistencies of this system’s adepts is a time lost in achieving a better present and future.
.” (Shulamith Firestone) Also, capitalism in itself cannot be extracted and separated from discussions around all conservative politics and conservative views, as we have understood that neoliberalism is not truly liberal but a rather paradoxical mix of advocacy for economic “freedom” and racist, sexist and conservative extrapolations of nuclear family/dynasty values.
It is not an external, malignant, alien entity but a set of historic conditions and current practices, which instead of introjecting we have to learn how to live without.
The Earth is no longer a big and ungraspable planet, but a shared living room (a shrinking one, moreover) in which we have to coexist by negotiating and conciliating our different views and practices, while recognizing we can only do that through a reciprocal process and towards the un-negotiable goal of equality of gender, race, class and sexual orientation, with no second class citizens.
Also, the instrumentalisation and use by double standards of the concept of “freedom” is by no means a reason to abandon it altogether, but a reminder that we must constantly fight for it.
7.. Pluralism is possible only on the ground of a universal, secular frame which allows for a certain relativisation of belief.
We can only respect and support religion that is compatible, in its majoritarian practices and interpretations, with the right to a secular education (which can guarantee the least freedom of choice in matters of religion), that embraces equal rights for women, queers and non-believers and a politics of freedom rather than a politics of submission and interdiction, apart from protecting basic human rights.
We can only respect and support religion that is based on a freedom of experimenting and observing, not on a prescriptive set of rules, interdictions and punishments proclaimed by a patriarchal, self-asserted authority perfectly mimicking the structure of a monarchy or a dictatorship.
Technology is a cultural asset and together with the rest of culture, it must be made public, open and free, put to the benefit of emancipating humanity while not destroying everything else around it.
It is time to face the current changes.
It is time to leave the dualist labyrinths.
We know that speech is the active material of magic.
Our power is domestic and vernacular.
Our will, our actions, our directed energy, our choices made not once but several times: this is our magic.
We live in this 21st century that use to be dreamed for a long time and is now feared.
We understand that everything is interconnected, that consciousness gives shape to reality and reality gives shape to consciousness.
0x00 Ours is a world in vertigo.
It is a world that swarms with technological mediation, interlacing our daily lives with abstraction, virtuality, and complexity.
XF is not a bid for revolution, but a wager on the long game of history, demanding imagination, dexterity and persistence.
It is through, and not despite, our alienated condition that we can free ourselves from the muck of immediacy.
Freedom is not a given -- and it's certainly not given by anything 'natural'.
The construction of freedom involves not less but more alienation; alienation is the labour of freedom's construction.
XF is vehemently anti-naturalist.
Essentialist naturalism reeks of theology -- the sooner it is exorcised, the better.
0x02 Why is there so little explicit, organized effort to repurpose technologies for progressive gender political ends?
Fed by the market, its rapid growth is offset by bloat, and elegant innovation is surrendered to the buyer, whose stagnant world it decorates.
0x04 Xenofeminism is a rationalism.
To claim that reason or rationality is 'by nature' a patriarchal enterprise is to concede defeat.
It is true that the canonical 'history of thought' is dominated by men, and it is male hands we see throttling existing institutions of science and technology.
But this is precisely why feminism must be a rationalism -- because of this miserable imbalance, and not despite it.
There is no 'feminine' rationality, nor is there a 'masculine' one.
Science is not an expression but a suspension of gender.
If today it is dominated by masculine egos, then it is at odds with itself -- and this contradiction can be leveraged.
0x05 The excess of modesty in feminist agendas of recent decades is not proportionate to the monstrous complexity of our reality, a reality crosshatched with fibre-optic cables, radio and microwaves, oil and gas pipelines, aerial and shipping routes, and the unrelenting, simultaneous execution of millions of communication protocols with every passing millisecond.
Whilst capitalism is understood as a complex and ever-expanding totality, many would-be emancipat- tory anti-capitalist projects remain profoundly fearful of transitioning to the universal, resisting big-picture speculative politics by condemning them as necessarily oppressive vectors.
Today, it is imperative that we develop an ideological infrastructure that both supports and facilitates feminist interventions within connective, networked elements of the contemporary world.
Xenofeminism is about more than digital self-defence and freedom from patriarchal networks.
This is not an elision of the fact that a large amount of the world's poor is adversely affected by the expanding technological industry (from factory workers labouring under abominable conditions to the Ghanaian villages that have become a repository for the e-waste of the global powers) but an explicit acknowledgement of these conditions as a target for elimination.
This is a politics that, in wanting so much, ends up building so little.
Without the labour of large-scale, collective social organisation, declaring one's desire for global change is nothing more than wishful thinking.
On the other hand, melancholy -- so endemic to the left -- teaches us that emancipation is an extinct species to be wept over and that blips of negation are the best we can hope for.
It is against such maladies that XF innoculates.
Likewise, suggestions to pull the lever on the emergency brake of embedded velocities, the call to slow down and scale back, is a possibility available only to the few -- a violent particularity of exclusivity -- ultimately entailing catas- trophe for the many.
Refusing to think beyond the microcommunity, to foster connections between fractured insurgencies, to consider how emancipatory tactics can be scaled up for universal implementation, is to remain satisfied with temporary and defensive gestures.
XF is an affirmative creature on the offensive, fiercely insisting on the possibility of large-scale social change for all of our alien kin.
To tilt the fulcrum in the direction of nature is a defensive concession at best, and a retreat from what makes trans and queer politics more than just a lobby: that it is an arduous assertion of freedom against an order that seemed immutable.
Like every myth of the given, a stable foundation is fabulated for a real world of chaos, violence, and doubt.
The 'given' is sequestered into the private realm as a certainty, whilst retreating on fronts of public consequences.
The disciplinary grid of gender is in no small part an attempt to mend that shattered foundation, and tame the lives that escaped it.
0x0D What this shows is that the task of engineering platforms for social emancipation and organization cannot ignore the cultural and semiotic mutations these platforms afford.
0x0E Xenofeminism is gender-abolitionist.
'Gender abolitionism' is not code for the eradication of what are currently considered 'gendered' traits from the human population.
Under patriarchy, such a project could only spell disaster -- the notion of what is 'gendered' sticks disproportionately to the feminine.
'Gender abolitionism' is shorthand for the ambition to construct a society where traits currently assembled under the rubric of gender, no longer furnish a grid for the asymmetric operation of power.
Ultimately, every emancipatory abolitionism must incline towards the horizon of class abolitionism, since it is in capitalism where we encounter oppression in its transparent, denaturalized form: you're not exploited or oppressed because you are a wage labourer or poor; you are a labourer or poor because you are exploited.
The universal must be grasped as generic, which is to say, intersectional.
Intersectionality is not the morcellation of collectives into a static fuzz of cross-referenced identities, but a political orientation that slices through every particular, refusing the crass pigeonholing of bodies.
This is not a universal that can be imposed from above, but built from the bottom up -- or, better, laterally, opening new lines of transit across an uneven landscape.
This non-absolute, generic universality must guard against the facile tendency of conflation with bloated, unmarked particulars -- namely Eurocentric universalism -- whereby the male is mistaken for the sexless, the white for raceless, the cis for the real, and so on.
(The absurd and reckless spectacle of so many self-proclaimed 'gender abolitionists'' campaign against trans women is proof enough of this. )
The universal is no blueprint, and rather than dictate its uses in advance, we propose XF as a platform.
The very process of construction is therefore understood to be a negentropic, iterative, and continual refashioning.
With this in mind, XF seeks ways to seed an order that is equitable and just, injecting it into the geometry of freedoms these platforms afford.
0x11 Our lot is cast with technoscience, where nothing is so sacred that it cannot be reengineered and transformed so as to widen our aperture of freedom, extending to gender and the human.
To say that nothing is sacred, that nothing is transcendent or protected from the will to know, to tinker and to hack, is to say that nothing is supernatural.
'Nature' -- understood here, as the unbounded arena of science -- is all there is
There is nothing, we claim, that cannot be studied scientifically and manipulated technologically.
0x12 This does not mean that the distinction between the ontological and the normative, between fact and value, is simply cut and dried.
The project of untangling what ought to be from what is, of dissociating freedom from fact, will from knowledge, is, indeed, an infinite task.
There are many lacunae where desire confronts us with the brutality of fact, where beauty is indissociable from truth.
0x14 Intervention in more obviously material hegemonies is just as crucial as intervention in digital and cultural ones.
The home is ripe for spatial transformation as an integral component in any process of feminist futurity.
The task before us is twofold, and our vision necessarily stereoscopic: we must engineer an economy that liberates reproductive labour and family life, while building models of familiality free from the deadening grind of wage labour.
Thought structurally, the distribution of hormones -- who or what this distribution prioritizes or pathologizes -- is of paramount import.
To trade in the rule of bureaucrats for the market is, however, not a victory in itself.
We ask whether the idiom of 'gender hacking' is extensible into a long-range strategy, a strategy for wetware akin to what hacker culture has already done for software -- constructing an entire universe of free and open source platforms that is the closest thing to a practicable communism many of us have ever seen.
Like engineers who must conceive of a total structure as well as the molecular parts from which it is constructed, XF emphasises the importance of the mesopolitical sphere against the limited effectiveness of local gestures, creation of autonomous zones, and sheer horizontalism, just as it stands against transcendent, or top-down impositions of values and norms.
0x18 XF asserts that adapting our behaviour for an era of Promethean complexity is a labour requiring patience, but a ferocious patience at odds with 'waiting'.
0x19 Is xenofeminism a programme?
Not if this means anything so crude as a recipe, or a single-purpose tool by which a determinate problem is solved.
We prefer to think like the schemer or lisper, who seeks to construct a new language in which the problem at hand is immersed, so that solutions for it, and for any number of related problems, might unfurl with ease.
Xenofeminism is a platform, an incipient ambition to construct a new language for sexual politics -- a language that seizes its own methods as materials to be reworked, and incrementally bootstraps itself into existence.
Ours is a transformation of seeping, directed subsumption rather than rapid overthrow; it is a transformation of deliberate construction, seeking to submerge the white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy in a sea of procedures that soften its shell and dismantle its defenses, so as to build a new world from the scraps.
It is the insertion of a topological-keyframe for the formation of a new logic.
If nature is unjust, change nature!
#purplenoise is an erratic techno-feminist intervention operating on a global scale to noisify social media channels.
Engagement is the product, not WHAT you say.
What counts alone is what can be counted.
Now, transformed and equipped with a new sensorium, we tune into the new dimensions of warfare, knowing that all confusion is based on gender confusion.
--- Derived from petrochemicals boiled into being from the black oil of a trillion ancient bacterioles, the plastic used in 3D Additive manufacturing is a metaphor before it has even been layered into shape.
Its potential belies the complications of its history: that matter is the sum and prolongation of our ancestry; that creativity is brutal, sensual, rude, coarse, and cruel.
A planet crystallised with great plastic tendrils like serpents with pixelated breath 3 … for a revolution that runs on disposable armaments is more desirable than the contents of Edward Snowden’s briefcase; more breathtaking than The United Nations Legislative Series.
There is nothing which our infatuated race would desire to see more than the fertile union between a man and an Analytical Engine.
4 The whole of humankind can be understood as a biological medium, of which synthetic technology is but one modality.
Any attempt to understand these occurrences is blocked by our own anthropomorphism.
12 This is where cruelty and creativity are reconciled: in the appropriation of all planetary matter to innovate on biological prototypes.
There is no innovation that has not an aggressive character.
The Manifesto is publish under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 licence.
Cyberfeminist manifesto for the 21st century [EN] (1991)
the clitoris is a direct line to the matrix.
BECAUSE viewing our work as being connected to our girlfriends-politics-real lives is essential if we are gonna figure out how we are doing impacts, reflects, perpetuates, or DISRUPTS the status quo.
BECAUSE we want and need to encourage and be encouraged in the face of all our own insecurities, in the face of beergutboyrock that tells us we can't play our instruments, in the face of "authorities" who say our bands/zines/etc are the worst in the US and BECAUSE we don't wanna assimilate to someone else's (boy) standards of what is or isn't.
BECAUSE we know that life is much more than physical survival and are patently aware that the punk rock "you can do anything" idea is crucial to the coming angry grrrl rock revolution which seeks to save the psychic and cultural lives of girls and women everywhere, according to their own terms, not ours.
The internet is a space where social norms are negotiated, performed and imposed, often in an extension of other spaces shaped by patriarchy and heteronormativity.
Our struggle for a feminist internet is one that forms part of a continuum of our resistance in other spaces, public, private and in-between.
The internet is a transformative political space.
Promoting, disseminating, and sharing knowledge about the use of FLOSS is central to our praxis.
There is a need to resist the state, the religious right and other extremist forces who monopolise discourses of morality, while silencing feminist voices and persecuting women’s human rights defenders.
Surveillance is the historical tool of patriarchy, used to control and restrict women’s bodies, speech and activism.
It is our collective responsibility to address and end this.
--- REFUGIA: A place of relatively unaltered climate that is inhabited by plants and animals during a period of continental climate change (as a glaciation) and remains as a center of relict forms from which a new dispersion and speciation may take place after climatic readjustment.
This is thought to slow the rate of resistance mutation caused in susceptible insect and weed species by gene transfer from GM (Genetically Modi fied) monoculture crops.
REFUGIA: A habitat for new AMOs (Autonomously Modified Organism) and agit-crops; for example, “ProActiva,” an herb that is a grafting of witch-root, man drake, and all-heal.
The Call for Feminist Data [EN] (2018)
--- What is data made from a Feminist perspective?