Cross-readings along the axes of it:
--- THEY SAY IT’ S FRIENDSHIP.
WE SAY IT’ S UNWAGED WORK.
THEY CALL IT SHARING.
WE CALL IT STEALING.
WE’VE BEEN BOUND BY THEIR TERMS OF SERVICE FAR TOO LONG —IT’ S TIME FOR OUR TERMS.
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.
BY DENYING OUR FACEBOOK TIME A WAGE WHILE PROFITING DIRECTLY FROM THE DATA IT GENERATES AND TRANSFORMING IT INTO AN ACT OF FRIENDSHIP, CAPITAL HAS KILLED MANY BIRDS WITH ONE STONE.
FIRST OF ALL, IT HAS GOT A HELL OF A LOT OF WORK ALMOST FOR FREE, AND IT HAS MADE SURE THAT WE, FAR FROM STRUGGLING AGAINST IT WOULD SEEK THAT WORK AS THE BEST THING ONLINE.
THE DIFFICULTIES AND AMBIGUITIES IN DISCUSSING WAGES FOR FACEBOOK STEM FROM THE REDUCTION OF WAGES FOR FACEBOOK TO A THING, A LUMP OF MONEY, INSTEAD OF VIEWING IT AS A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE.
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.
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.
WE STRUGGLE TO BREAK CAPITAL’S PLAN TO MONETIZE OUR FRIENDSHIP, FEELINGS AND FREE TIME, THROUGH WHICH IT HAS BEEN ABLE TO MAINTAIN ITS POWER.
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.
IN FACT, TO DEMAND WAGES FOR FACEBOOK DOES NOT MEAN TO SAY THAT IF WE ARE PAID WE WILL CONTINUE TO DO IT.
IT MEANS PRECISELY THE OPPOSITE.
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,
IT IS THE POWER TO COMMAND LABOUR.
FROM NOW ON WE WANT MONEY FOR EACH MOMENT OF IT, SO THAT WE CAN REFUSE SOME OF IT, AND EVENTUALLY ALL OF IT,
It defines a space and opens potential.
It queers the archive, the spreadsheet, and the data set.
It moves beyond a white, and male space.
It forces technology to reflect the community, not the other way around.
It ’s time to stop dodging.
It ’s time to stop fudging ourselves.
It is time to face the current changes.
It is time to leave the dualist labyrinths.
Our do -it- yourself practices escape religions.
We don’t believe in divinity, we connect with It.
We have found the place for our rituals, we had dreamed it, written it, in science fiction.
Now we live it with high voltage potentiality, with the intensity of the shadows, taking off together with desires in common, with our differences.
The walls tremble and the water penetrates the tiny holes, it expands like an unbreakable code exciting our neurons ; we change the apparent path of events transiting antimelodies, noise as arithmetic opening, outside of the calculated and homogenous, noise feeding unlimited experimentation.
We question the identity of assigned genders, we exagerate it, ridiculise it,
Extremely sexual, ironic, sarcastic, we love to party, to not sleep, to take drugs if we feel like it, to go with our friends or to finish a circuit or improvise an eternal noise jam.
In gynecology particular case, it' s reach an inquisitive, paternalistic and fascistic attitudes.
To make a fucking simple yeast or gardenella exam, for name any, it seem not enough to swallow tortuous waiting rooms of the CAP (public assistance health centers), or being compel to answer (as accumulated vomits) bureaucratic, statistical forms that performs a role of popular judges of your practices, capacities or choices.
Self blood donations & extract our own blood, and trough it like a furious volcanic river of our anger in the door of the fucking parlament!!
It is called all the ceremonies that the Machi.
It has the power to expel and heal image (diseases).
It is the intermediary between the Mapuche people and the Wenu Mapu.
Donate yourself share your emotions share your confusion turn it into noise.
Go and respond to what we offer, so it can be measured, optimized and generate the profit.
Feelers know – and they can feel it, too.
The imaginative challenge that awaits any Mundane Afrofuturist author who accepts that this is it: Earth is all we have.
What will we do with it?
DuBois asks how it feels to be a problem.
Ol’ Dirty Bastard says “If I got a problem, a problem’s got a problem ’til it’ s gone.”.
Not to let Mundane Afrofuturism cramp their style, as if it could.
To burn this manifesto as soon as it gets boring.
*Has an awareness of the materiality of software, hardware and the bodies gathered around it.
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.
It is now technically possible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females.
It 's often said that men use women.
It 's not ego satisfaction; that doesn't explain screwing corpses and babies.
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).
Since he's attempting to prove an error, he must "prove" it again and again.
It should be said, though, that the male has one glaring area of superiority over the female--public relations.
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".
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.
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.
It makes him feel motherly.
Incapable of enjoying the moment, the male needs something to look forward to, and money provides him with an eternal, never-ending goal: Just think what you could do with 80 trillion dollars--Invest it!
Mother loves her kids, although she sometimes gets angry, but anger blows over quickly and even while it exists, doesn't preclude love and basic acceptance.
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.
Disapproval of emotional "scenes" leads to fear of strong emotion, fear of one's own anger and hatred, and to a fear of facing reality, as facing it leads at first to anger and hatred.
Fear of anger and hatred combined with a lack of self-confidence in one's ability to cope with and change the world, or even to affect in the slightest way one's own destiny, leads to a mindless belief that the world and most people in it are nice and that the most banal, trivial amusements are great fun and deeply pleasurable.
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.
It never becomes completely clear to the male that he is not part of his mother, that he is he and she is she.
It 's not for the kids' sake, though, that the "experts" tell women that Mama should stay home and grovel in animalism, but for Daddy's; the tit's for Daddy to hang onto; the labor pains for Daddy to vicariously groove on (half dead, he needs awfully strong stimuli to make him respond).
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 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".
The "hippie" babbles on about individuality, but has no more conception of it than any other man.
The most important activity of the commune, the one on which it is based, is gangbanging.
*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.
Differentness in other men, as well as in himself, threatens him; it means they're fags whom he must at all costs avoid, so he tries to make sure that all other men conform.
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.
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.
Love can't flourish in a society based on money and meaningless work; it requires complete economic as well as personal freedom, leisure time and the opportunity to engage in intensely absorbing, emotionally satisfying activities which, when shared with those you respect, lead to deep friendship.
*Sexuality:* Sex is not part of a relationship; on the contrary, it is a solitary experience, non-creative, a gross waste of time.
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.
Unhampered by propriety, niceness, discretion, public opinion, "morals", the "respect" of assholes, always funky, dirty, low-down SCUM gets around...and around and around...they've seen the whole show--every bit of it- the fucking scene, the sucking scene, the dyke scene--they've covered the whole waterfront, been under every dock and pier--the peter pier, the pussy pier...you've got to go through a lot of sex to get to anti-sex, and SCUM's been through it- all, and they're now ready for a new show; they want to crawl out from under the dock, move, take off, sink out.
But SCUM doesn't yet prevail; SCUM's still in the gutter of our "society", which, if it' s not deflected from its present course and if the Bomb doesn't drop on it' will hump itself to death.
Much biological and psychological data is suppressed, because it is proof of the male's gross inferiority to the female.
Also, the problem of mental illness will never be solved while the male maintains control, because first, men have a vested interest in it- -only females who have very few of their marbles will allow males the slightest bit of control over anything, and second, the male cannot admit to the role that fatherhood plays in causing mental illness.
It doesn't much matter what they're exposed as, so long as they're exposed; It distracts attention from himself.
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.
*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.
The male likes death- -it excites him sexually and, already dead inside, he wants to die.
The female, whether she likes it or not, will eventually take complete charge, if for no other reason than that she will have to--the male, for practical purposes, won't exist.
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.
As for the issue of whether or not to continue to reproduce males, it doesn't follow that because the male, like disease, has always existed among us that he should continue to exist.
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.
The police force, National Guard, Army, Navy and Marines combined couldn't squelch a rebellion of over half the population, particularly when it' s made up of people they are utterly helpless without.
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.
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.
; censors on both the public and private levels; all members of the armed forces, including draftees (LBJ and McNamara give orders, but servicemen carry them out) and particularly pilots (if the bomb drops, LBJ won't drop it; a pilot will).
It is most tempting to pick off the female "Great Artists", double dealers, etc.
along with the men, but that would be impractical, as there would be no one left; all women have a fink streak in them, to a great or lesser degree, but it stems from a lifetime of living among men.
When SCUM gets hot on their asses it' ll shape up fast.
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.
If SCUM ever marches, it will be over the President's stupid, sickening face; if SCUM ever strikes, it will be in the dark with a six-inch blade.
Such tactics acknowledge the rightness of the overall system and are used only to modify it slightly, change specific laws.
SCUM is out to destroy the system, not attain certain rights within it.
A completely automated society can be accomplished very simply and quickly once there is a public demand for it.
The blueprints for it are already in existence, and its construction will only take a few weeks with millions of people working at it
Even though off the money system, everyone will be most happy to pitch in and get the automated society built; it will mark the beginning of a fantastic new era, and there will be a celebration atmosphere accompanying the construction.
With complete automation it will be possible for every woman to vote directly on every issue by means of an electronic voting machine in her house.
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.
*It will be electronically possible for him to tune in to any specific female he wants to and follow in detail her every movement.
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.
You are on the brink of the millenium - which one - what does it matter?
It 's the cross dissolve that's captivating.
Perhaps it is just natural selection?
It 's not chemistry, It s electric.
It is absurd to divide humanity into men and women.
It is composed only of femininity and masculinity.
It is the same way with any collectivity and any moment in humanity, just as It is with individuals.
… Enough of those women, the octopuses of the hearth, whose tentacles exhaust men’s blood and make children anemic, women in carnal love who wear out every desire so it cannot be renewed!
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.
It ’s the same woman who, in the same period, according to the ambient ideas grouped around the day’s event, lies down on the tracks to keep the soldiers from leaving for the war or then rushes to embrace the victorious champion.
Feminist reasonings and deductions will not destroy her primordial fatality: they can only falsify it, forcing it, to make itself manifest through detours leading to the worst errors.
Let man, freed from his family, lead his life of audacity and conquest, as soon as he has the physical strength for it, and in spite of his being a son and a father.
In my Poems of Pride and in Thirst and Mirages, I have renounced Sentimentalism as a weakness to be scorned because it knots up the strength and makes it static.
Lust is a strength, because it destroys the weak, excites the strong to exert their energies, thus to renew themselves.
It facilitates new forms of citizenship that enable individuals to claim, construct and express selves, genders and sexualities.
This includes being able to access all our personal data and information online, and to be able to exercise control over this data, including knowing who has access to it and under what conditions, and the ability to delete it forever.
Anonymity enables our freedom of expression online, particularly when it comes to breaking taboos of sexuality and heteronormativity, experimenting with gender identity, and enabling safety for women and queer persons affected by discrimination.
It is our collective responsibility to address and end this.
Only the problem was, that the more I watched of his work, the less I had a desire to write about it.
We want what we cannot have; whatever the material we are aiming to access, the glitch makes us wait and whimper for it.
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.
Ultimately, we will polish things off, just as we see fit, and to put a bow on the end goal of jouissance—ribboned and righted, and, because we want it, we will seize our release.
It is the glitch that incites anticipation—that ecstasy of interference.
Though pejoratively dismissed all too frequently as an aspect of technical error, for me the glitch denotes an extension of the realm of foreplay, whether it be “play” with oneself, or with a virtualized other, imagined, or waiting just on the other side of the proverbial screen.
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.
Urban Dictionary defines it as “an error in a structured system”; Dictionary.com defines it as “a defect or malfunction in a machine or plan”.
We acknowledge that the rigidity of digital dualism needs to be retired, as it plays into binaries of real/virtual that parallel the rampantly socialized figuration of male/female.
“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.
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” refuses being categorized as subtext, it rejects being labeled as subversive, it does not speak for the marginal or the subaltern, as “sub-” as a prefix needs to be marked as a mode of acquiescence to our own exclusion from the canon, the academy, the Platonic ideal.
It is a long road ahead, we are in beta, yet the necessary “malfunction” is well under way.
Well, fortunately, it’ s still buffering.
It is a world that swarms with technological mediation, interlacing our daily lives with abstraction, virtuality, and complexity.
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'.
Essentialist naturalism reeks of theology -- the sooner it is exorcised, the better.
Fed by the market, its rapid growth is offset by bloat, and elegant innovation is surrendered to the buyer, whose stagnant world it decorates.
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.
If today it is dominated by masculine egos, then it is at odds with itself -- and this contradiction can be leveraged.
Reason, like information, wants to be free, and patriarchy cannot give it freedom.
It names reason as an engine of feminist emancipation, and declares the right of everyone to speak as no one in particular.
Such a false guarantee treats universals as absolute, generating a debilitating disjuncture between the thing we seek to depose and the strategies we advance to depose it.
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.
It is against such maladies that XF innoculates.
To secede from or disavow capitalist machinery will not make it disappear.
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.
The disciplinary grid of gender is in no small part an attempt to mend that shattered foundation, and tame the lives that escaped it.
The time has now come to tear down this shrine entirely, and not bow down before it in a piteous apology for what little autonomy has been won.
These puritanical politics of shame -- which fetishize oppression as if it were a blessing, and cloud the waters in moralistic frenzies -- leave us cold.
The will will always be corrupted by the memes in which it traffics, but nothing prevents us from instrumentalizing this fact, and calibrating it in view of the ends it desires.
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.
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.
If we want to break the inertia that has kept the moribund figure of the nuclear family unit in place, which has stubbornly worked to isolate women from the public sphere, and men from the lives of their children, while penalizing those who stray from it, we must overhaul the material infrastructure and break the economic cycles that lock it, in place.
The rise of the internet and the hydra of black market pharmacies it let loose -- together with a publicly accessible archive of endocrinological knowhow -- was instrumental in wresting control of the hormonal economy away from 'gatekeeping' institutions seeking to mitigate threats to established distributions of the sexual.
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.
Calibrating a political hegemony or insurgent memeplex not only implies the creation of material infra-structures to make the values it articulates explicit, but places demands on us as subjects.
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.
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.
It is also a rhetorical strategy and a political method, one I would like to see more honoured within socialistfeminism.
Ths cyborg is our ontology; it gives us our politics.
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.
Nor does it mark time on an oedipal calendar, attempting to heal the terrible cleavages of gender in an oral symbiotic utopia or post-oedipal apocalypse.
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.
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.
They could not achieve man's dream, only mock it.
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).
The transcendent authorization of interpretation is lost, and with it the ontology grounding 'Western' epistemology.
Pop physics books on the consequences of quantum theory and the indeterminacy principle are a kind of popular scientific equivalent to Harlequin romances* as a marker of radical change in American white heterosexuality: they get it wrong, but they are on the right subject.
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.
Ironically, it might be the unnatural cyborg women making chips in Asia and spiral dancing in Santa Rita jail* whose constructed unities will guide effective oppositional strategies.
FRACTURED IDENTITIES It has become difficult to name one's feminism by a single adjective -- or even to insist in every circumstance upon the noun.
'Women of color', a name contested at its origins by those whom it would incorporate, as well as a historical consciousness marking systematic breakdown of all the signs of Man in 'Western' traditions, constructs a kind of postmodernist identity out of otherness, difference, and specificity.
These taxonomies tend to remake feminist history so that it appears to be an ideological struggle among coherent types persisting over time, especially those typical units called radical, liberal, and socialistfeminism.
It remains to be seen whether all 'epistemologies' as Western political people have known them fail us in the task to build effective affinities.
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.
We are excruciatingly conscious of what it means to have a historically constituted body.
That consciousness changes the geography of all previous categories; it denatures them as heat denatures a fragile protein.
Marxist/socialist-feminism does not 'natur-alize' unity; it is a possible achievement based on a possible standpoint rooted in social relations.
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.
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.
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.
It is no accident that woman disintegrates into women in our time.
It 's not just that igod'is dead; so is the 'goddess'.
It is 'irrational' to invoke concepts like primitive and civilized.
They have been cannibalized, or as Zoe Sofia (Sofoulis) might put it, they have been 'techno-digested'.
A stressed system goes awry; its communication processes break down; it fails to recognize the difference between self and other.
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.
However, the homework economy does not refer only to large-scale deskilling, nor does it deny that new areas of high skill are emerging, even for women and men previously excluded from skilled employment.
Black women in the United States have long known what it looks like to face the structural underemployment ('feminization') of black men, as well as their own highly vulnerable position in the wage 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.
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.
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.
These are our story-tellers exploring what it means to be embodied in high-tech worlds.
They insist on the organic, opposing it to the technological.
It is the simultaneity of breakdowns that cracks the matrices of domination and opens geometric possibilities.
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 marks Moraga's body, affirms it as the body of a woman of colour, against the possibility of passing into the unmarked category of the Anglo father or into the orientalist myth of 'original illiteracy' of a mother that never was.
It passes through women and other present-tense, illegitimate cyborgs, not of Woman born, who refuse the ideological resources of victimization so as to have a real life.
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.
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.
Superluminal stands also for the defining contradictions of a cyborg world in another sense; it embodies textually the intersection of feminist theory and colonial discourse in the science fiction I have alluded to in this chapter.
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.
The machine is not an it to be animated, worshipped, and dominated.
Gender might not be global identity after all, even if it has profound historical breadth and depth.
There is a compelling aspect to this claim, one that makes visible unvalued female activity and names it as the ground of life.
It is not just that science and technology are possible means of great human satisfaction, as well as a matrix of complex dominations.
It is an imagination of a feminist speaking in tongues to strike fear into the circuits of the supersavers of the new right.
It means both building and destroying machines, identities, categories, relationships, space stories.
RIOT GRRRL MANIFESTO [EN] (1989)
BECAUSE we wanna make it easier for girls to see/hear each other's work so that we can share strategies and criticize-applaud each other.
The 3D Additivist Manifesto [EN] (2015)
--- 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.
The 3D Additivist Manifesto [EN] (2015)
Just as a glitch can un-resolve an image, so it can resolve something more posthuman: manifold systems – biological, political, computational, material.
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 voids generated by a break are not only a lack of meaning, but also powers that force the reader to move away from the traditional discourse around the technology, and to open it up.
It can be a source for new patterns, anti-patterns and new possibilities that often exist on the border or membrane.
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...
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.
I manipulate, bend and break any medium towards the point where it becomes something new.
The glitch art genre moves like the weather; sometimes it evolves very slowly while at other times it can strike like lightning.
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.
When the glitch becomes domesticated, controlled by a tool, or technology (a human craft) it has lost its enchantment and has become predictable.
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.
Celebrate the critical trans-media aesthetics of glitch artifacts I use glitches to assess the inherent politics of any kind of medium by bringing it into a state of hypertrophy.
But to act against something does not mean to move away from it completely - in fact a reaction also prolongs a certain way or mode (at least as a reference).
The glitches I trigger show the technology as the obfuscated box that it actually is (and not absent or transparent).
--- 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).
Rather than continue to contemplate our annihilation, contributing to it or declaring hopelessness in front of it we should at least try another approach – and this approach has to exclude patriarchy in all its expressions and institutionalized forms of violence: domination, exploitation, slavery, colonialism, profit, exclusion, monarchy, oligarchy, mafia, religious wars.
Understanding the term does not mean thinking of a “women’s world” which excludes virility but as a world which mobilizes it towards humanist and animist goals rather than oppressive, violent and colonial enterprises.
Whatever soft power, it cannot be backed by hard power as usual.
While the world peace has been a goal of many states, attempted at through different international treaties, it has always failed into more arming and lately it has completely degenerated into the obsession of security, enforced through the militarization of the police force and the increasing surveillance of every aspect of our existence.
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.
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
Providing easy and simple answers for the complexity of human existence might fake the offering of a “meaning” and help some survive, but it will never help us evolve.
Development of technology must be pursued in agreement with the respect for nature and its limits and it must not be submitted to private interests or corporate profit.
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