Cross-readings along the axes of not:
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.
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.
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.
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.
100. cyberfeminism has not only one language.
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.
WE ARE SEEN AS USERS OR POTENTIAL FRIENDS, NOT WORKERS IN STRUGGLE.
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.
BUT EXPLOITED AS YOU MIGHT BE, YOU ARE NOT THAT WORK.
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.
AND FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF WORK WE CAN ASK NOT ONE WAGE BUT MANY WAGES, BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN FORCED INTO MANY JOBS AT ONCE—WE ALSO WORK FOR GOOGLE, TWITTER, MICROSOFT, YOUTUBE AND COUNTLESS OTHERS.
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.
*Does not strive for seamlessness.
Vulnerability is not an alibi.
*Is a paranodal (we did not mean: paranoid) technology.
*Does not confuse a sense of false security with providing a safe place.
*Tries hard not to apologise when she is sometimes not available.
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.
Refugia [EN] (2002)
Not a retreat, but a space resistant to mono culture in all its social, environmental, libidinal, political, and genetic forms.
Not without anxiety but with determination.
Our voices mingle: "We do not defend nature, we are the nature defending itself".
We acknowledge that the master's tools will not dismantle the master's house.
But we are not Icarus: the Sirens are our sisters and we are too keen on the sensuality of the stones and the tenderness of the trees to give in to transhumanist pride.
We are not unitary but labile and evanescent.
Our will, our actions, our directed energy, our choices made not once but several times: this is our magic.
--- 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.
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.
We see the feminine as equivalent not to a gender but to a condition, not a “natural” condition but a cultural one.
Moreover, trying to imagine a future ecology for the whole planetary assemblage, not only a future for the human race, we support the idea that any desirable mode of existence connected/integrated into nature-culture or constituted of equally important organic and inorganic life-forms (including an animistic perspective) cannot be separated from the human subject’s struggle to overcome oppression based on gender, race and class within the species.
Domestic violence is not depending on the degree of wealth or education.
Hunting for pleasure or destroying natural and cultural monuments that are part of humanity’s patrimony are not class-related.
.” (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.
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.
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.
The Mundane Afrofuturists recognize that: We did not originate in the cosmos.
This dream of utopia can encourage us to forget that outer space will not save us from injustice and that cyberspace was prefigured upon a “master/slave” relationship.
While we are often Othered, we are not aliens.
Though our ancestors were mutilated, we are not mutants.
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;.
Not to let Mundane Afrofuturism cramp their style, as if it could.
Perhaps the point is not Deen himself and how he has been lauded via the wheel of favorable ratings by female audiences online.
In Chris Baraniuk’s “Feedback, White Noise and Glitches: Cyberspace Strikes Back”, Baraniuk observes, “Glitches, feedback, whitenoise, interference, static—although these may not be the final frontier, they are demonstrably—for now—the edge,” further noting that, “.
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 .
” When faced with this sort of interruption we opt to make physical with ourselves, our partners, the world around us, that which, without this pause, we might not feel the urgency to manifest for ourselves, with ourselves.
The glitch is the catalyst, not the error.
When the computer freezes mid-conversation, when the video buffers and refuses to progress, these moments are a new mode of foreplay, something that needs to be acknowledged not as a fetish, but as a new possibly for foreplay within sexual routine.
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.
Glitch Feminism, however, embraces the causality of “error”, and turns the gloomy implication of glitch on its ear by acknowledging that an error in a social system that has already been disturbed by economic, racial, social, sexual, and cultural stratification and the imperialist wrecking-ball of globalization—processes that continue to enact violence on all bodies— may not, in fact, be an error at all, but rather a much-needed erratum.
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” 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.
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.
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.
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 does not dream of community on the model of the organic family, this time without the oedipal project.
The cyborg would not recognize the Garden of Eden; it is not made of mud and cannot dream of returning to dust.
Cyborgs are not reverent; they do not re-member the cosmos.
The main trouble with cyborgs, of course, is that they are the illegitimate offspring of militarism and patriarchal capitalism, not to mention state socialism.
The last beachheads of uniqueness have been polluted if not turned into amusement parks-language tool use, social behaviour, mental events, nothing really convincingly settles the separation of human and animal.
Movements for animal rights are not irrational denials of human uniqueness; they are a clear-sighted recognition of connection across the discredited breach of nature and culture.
But basically machines were not self-moving, self-designing, autonomous.
They could not achieve man's dream, only mock it.
They were not man, an author to himself, but only a caricature of that masculinist reproductive dream.
Now we are not so sure.
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'.
Miniaturization has turned out to be about power; small is not so much beautiful as pre-eminently dangerous, as in cruise missiles.
From another perspective, a cyborg world might be about lived social and bodily realities in which people are not afraid of their joint kinship with animals and machines, not afraid of permanently partial identities and contradictory standpoints.
(Affinity: related not by blood but by choice, the appeal of one chemical nuclear group for another, avidiy.
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.
Painful fragmentation among feminists (not to mention among women) along every possible fault line has made the concept of woman elusive, an excuse for the matrix of women's dominations of each other.
But there has also been a growing recognition of another response through coalition - affinity, not identity.
Sandoval's oppositional consciousness is about contradic156 tory locations and heterochronic calendars, not about relativisms and pluralisms.
For example, a Chicana or US black woman has not been able to speak as a woman or as a black person or as a Chicano.
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.
Sandoval argues that 'women of colour' have a chance to build an effective unity that does not replicate the imperializing, totalizing revolutionary subjects of previous Marxisms and feminisms which had not faced the consequences of the disorderly polyphony emerging from decolonization.
The theoretical and practical struggle against unity-through-domination or unity-through in corporation ironically not only undermines the justifica-tions for patriarchy, colonialism, humanism, positivism, essentialism, scient-ism, and other unlamented -isms, but all claims for an organic or natural standpoint.
I do not know of any other time in history when there was greater need for political unity to confront effectively the dominations of 'race', 'gender', 'sexuality', and 'class'.
I also do not know of any other time when the kind of unity we might help build could have been possible.
Cyborg feminists have to argue that 'we' do not want any more natural matrix of unity and that no construction is whole.
Marxist/socialist-feminism does not 'natur-alize' unity; it is a possible achievement based on a possible standpoint rooted in social relations.
As for the Marxist/ socialist feminist, consciousness is an achievement, not a natural fact.
MacKinnon argues that feminism necessarily adopted a different analyt-ical strategy from Marxism, looking first not at the structure of class, but at the structure of sex/gender and its generative relationship, men's constitu-tion and appropriation of women sexually.
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.
But sexual object)fication, not alienation, is the consequence of the structure of sex/gender.
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.
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.
Her dates are doubtful; but we are now accustomed to remembering that as objects of knowledge and as historical actors, 'race' did not always exist, 'class' has a historical genesis, and 'homosexuals' are quite junior.
Perhaps socialist feminists were not substantially guilty of producing essentialist theory that suppressed women's particularity and contradictory interests.
It's not just that igod'is dead; so is the 'goddess'.
In relation to objects like biotic components, one must not think in terms of essential properties, but in terms of design, boundary constraints, rates of flows, systems logics, costs of lowering constraints.
One should expect control strategies to concentrate on boundary conditions and interfaces, on rates of flow across boundaries-- and not on the integrity of natural objects.
The cyborg is not subject to Foucault's biopolitics; the cyborg simulates politics, a much more potent field of operations.
I used the odd circumlocution, 'the social relations of science and technology', to indicate that we are not dealing with a technological determinism, but with a historical system depending upon structured relations among people.
White men in advanced industrial societies have become newly vulnerable to permanent job loss, and women are not disappearing from the job rolls at the same rates as men.
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.
The homework economy as a world capitalist organizational structure is made possible by (not caused by) the new technologies.
The feminization of poverty-generated by dismantling the welfare state, by the homework economy where stable jobs become the exception, and sustained by the expectation that women's wages will not be matched by a male income for the support of children-- has become an urgent focus.
Many more women and men will contend with similar situations, which will make cross-gender and race alliances on issues of basic life support (with or without jobs) necessary, not just mice.
Women are excluded generally from benefiting from the increased high-tech commodification of food and energy crops, their days are made more arduous because their responsibilides to provide food do not diminish, and their reproductive situations are made more complex.
The new technologies affect the social relations of both sexuality and of reproduction, and not always in the same ways.
Self-help is not enough.
Many sciendfic and technical workers in Silicon Valley, the high-tech cowboys included, do not want to work on military science.
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.
Ambivalence towards the disrupted unides mediated by high-tech culture requires not sorting consciousness into categories of clear-sighted critique grounding a solid political epistemology' *Service Employees International Union's office workers' organization in the US.
But what people are experiencing is not transparently clear, and we lack aufficiently subtle connections for collectively building effective theories of experience.
We do not need a totality in order to work well.
Perhaps, ironically, we can learn from our fusions with animals and machines how not to be Man, the embodiment of Western logos.
They would simply bewilder anyone not preoccupied with the machines and consciousness of late capitalism.
Cyborg writing must not be about the Fall, the imagination of a once-upon-a-time wholeness before language, before writing, before Man.
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 language is not 'whole'; it is self-consciously spliced, a chimera of English and Spanish, both conqueror's languages.
Sister Outsider hints at the possibility of world survival not because of her innocence, but because of her ability to live on the boundaries, to write without the founding myth of original wholeness, with its inescapable apocalypse of final return to a deathly oneness that Man has imagined to be the innocent and all-powerful Mother, freed at the End from another spiral of appropriation by her son.
Malinche was mother here, not Eve before eating the forbidden fruit.
Writing affirms Sister Outsider, not the Woman-before-the-Fall-into-Writing needed by the phallogocentric Family of Man.
'We' did not originally choose to be cyborgs, but choice grounds a liberal politics and epistemology that imagines the reproduction of individuals before the wider replications of 'texts'.
This is not just literary deconstruction, but liminal transformation.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Katie King clarifies how pleasure in reading these fictions is not largely based on idendfication.
Students facingJoanna Russ for the first time, students who have learned to take modernist writers like James Joyce or Virginia Woolf without flinching, do not know what to make of The Adventures of Alyx or The Female Man, where characters refuse the reader's search for innocent wholeness while granting the wish for heroic quests, exuberant eroticism, and serious politics.
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 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.
We can be responsible for machines; they do not dominate or threaten us.
Gender might not be global identity after all, even if it has profound historical breadth and depth.
We require regeneration, not rebirth, and the possibilities for our reconstitution include the utopian dream of the hope for a monstrous world without gender.
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.
If we cant make noise its not our revolution.
Nature and technology are not different, nature was to the witches what technoscience is to us, the cyborg witches.
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.
The Call for Feminist Data [EN] (2018)
It forces technology to reflect the community, not the other way around.
Purple Noise Manifesto [EN] (2018)
Engagement is the product, not WHAT you say.
Purple Noise Manifesto [EN] (2018)
But we are not Dada, we are FmFm.
Every woman ought to possess not only feminine virtues but virile ones, without which she is just a female.
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.
We must not give woman any of the rights claimed by feminists.
To grant them to her would bring about not any of the disorders the Futurists desire but on the contrary an excess of order.
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.
5 Our power and intelligence do not belong specifically to us, but to all matter.
To mobilise this entanglement we propose a collective: one figured not only on the resolution of particular objects, but on the change those objects enable as instruments of revolution and systemic disintegration.
14 We call not for passive, dead technologies but rather for a gradual awakening of matter, the emergence, ultimately, of a new form of life.
Sacred items used during incantation and transcendence, including: The private parts of Gods and Saints Idols Altars Cuauhxicalli Ectoplasm Nantag stones The production of further mimetic forms, not limited to: Vorpal Blades Squirdles Energon Symmetriads Asymmetriads Capital Junk Love Alephs Those that from a long way off look like flies.
There is no innovation that has not an aggressive character.
As an artist I strive to reposition these membranes; I do not feel locked into one medium or between contradictions like real vs. virtual or digital vs. analog.
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.
Sometimes, noise stands for unaccepted sounds: not music, not valid information or what is not a message.
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.
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.
Not only the artist who creates the work of glitch art is responsible for the glitch.
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.
Nevertheless, some artists do not focus on the procedural entity of the glitch.
Not when “one disruptive click is just about to create a new design”.
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.
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).
On the one hand, these aesthetics media show a medium in a critical state (a ruined, unwanted, not recognized, accidental and horrendous state).
The glitches I trigger show the technology as the obfuscated box that it actually is (and not absent or transparent).
In the acousmatic videoscape synesthesia exists not just as a metaphor for transcoding one medium upon another (with a new algorithm), but as a conceptually driven meeting of the visual and the sonic within the newly uncovered quadrants of technology.
Bitch Mutant Manifesto [EN] (1996)
It's not chemistry, it's electric.
Bitch Mutant Manifesto [EN] (1996)
Trying to flee the binary I enter the chromozone which is not one.
Gynepunk Manifesto [EN] (2014)
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.
Gynepunk Manifesto [EN] (2014)
not even phd`s in microbiologic surgery to generate accurate and self-aware diagnosis.
RIOT GRRRL MANIFESTO [EN] (1989)
BECAUSE we are unwilling to falter under claims that we are reactionary "reverse sexists" AND NOT THE TRUEPUNKROCKSOULCRUSADERS THAT WE KNOW we really are.
RIOT GRRRL MANIFESTO [EN] (1989)
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.
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.
But this is precisely why feminism must be a rationalism -- because of this miserable imbalance, and not despite it.
Science is not an expression but a suspension of gender.
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.
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.
To secede from or disavow capitalist machinery will not make it disappear.
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.
'Gender abolitionism' is not code for the eradication of what are currently considered 'gendered' traits from the human population.
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.
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.
Open, however, does not mean undirected.
We should not hesitate to learn from our adversaries or the successes and failures of history.
0x12 This does not mean that the distinction between the ontological and the normative, between fact and value, is simply cut and dried.
But this does not mean that cyberfeminist sensibilities belong to the past.
Digital technologies are not separable from the material realities that underwrite them; they are connected so that each can be used to alter the other towards different ends.
0x15 From the street to the home, domestic space too must not escape our tentacles.
To trade in the rule of bureaucrats for the market is, however, not a victory in itself.
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.
How do we build a better semiotic parasite -- one that arouses the desires we want to desire, that orchestrates not an autophagic orgy of indignity or rage, but an emancipatory and egalitarian community buttressed by new forms of unselfish solidarity and collective self-mastery?
Not if this means anything so crude as a recipe, or a single-purpose tool by which a determinate problem is solved.
This X does not mark a destination.
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.
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.
Surely not pleasure.
It's not ego satisfaction; that doesn't explain screwing corpses and babies.
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.
The male, because of his obsession to compensate for not being female combined with his inability to relate and to feel compassion, has made of the world a shitpile.
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.
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.
So he tells the boy, sometimes directly, sometimes indirectly, to not be a sissy, to act like a "Man".
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 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.
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.
Being empty, not being a complete, separate being, having no self to groove on and needing to be constantly in female company, he sees nothing at all wrong in intruding himself on any woman's thoughts, even a total stranger's, anywhere at any time, but rather feels indignant and insulted when put down for doing so, as well as confused--he can't, for the life of him, understand why anyone would prefer so much as one minute of solitude to the company of any creep around.
*Isolation, Suburbs and Prevention of Community:* Our society is not a community, but merely a collection of isolated family units.
A true community consists of individuals- -not mere species members, -not couples--respecting each other's individuality and privacy, at the same time interacting with each other mentally and emotionally--free spirits in free relation to each other-and co-operating with each other to achieve common ends.
*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.
If other men are A and he's not, he must not, be a man; he must be a fag.
Not completely convinced that he's a woman, highly insecure about being sufficiently female, he conforms compulsively to the man-made feminine stereotype, ending up as nothing but a bundle of stilted mannerisms.
Being empty, he looks outward, not only for guidance and control, but for salvation and for the meaning of life.
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.
Religion not only provides the male with a goal (Heaven) and helps keep women tied to men, but offers rituals through which he can try to expiate the guilt and shame he feels at not defending himself enough against his sexual impulses; in essence, that guilt and shame he feels at being a male.
Most men, utterly cowardly, project their inherent weaknesses onto women, label them female weaknesses and believe themselves to have female strengths; most philosophers, not quite so cowardly, face the fact that male lacks exist in men, but still can't face the fact that they exist in men only.
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 male needs scapegoats onto whom he can project his failings and inadequacies and upon whom he can vent his frustration at not being female.
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.
He's never satisfied, because he's not capable of being satisfied.
*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.
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.
Not only does she permit his babble to dominate, she adapts her own "conversation" accordingly.
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 male "artistic" aim being, not to communicate (having nothing inside him, he has nothing to say), but to disguise his animalism, he resorts to symbolism and obscurity ("deep" stuff).
How can he who is not capable of life tell us what life is all about?
*Sexuality:* Sex is not part of a relationship; on the contrary, it is a solitary experience, non-creative, a gross waste of time.
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.
*Boredom:* Life in a "society" made by and for creatures who, when they are not grim and depressing are utter bores, can only be, when not grim and depressing, an utter bore.
*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.
Responding reflexively to isolated words and phrases rather than cerebrally to overall meanings, the male attempts to prevent the arousal and discovery of his animalism by censoring not only "pornography", but any work containing "dirty" words, no matter in what context they are used.
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.
*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.
This, however, will not occur within the male establishment, because: 1.
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 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.
Obviously this will not do.
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.
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.
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.
For example, SCUM salesgirls will not charge for merchandise; SCUM telephone operators will not charge for calls; SCUM office and factory workers, in addition to fucking up their work, will secretly destroy equipment.
SCUM will kill all men who are not in the Men's Auxiliary of SCUM.
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.
Women are improvable; men are not, although their behavior is.
Dropping out is not the answer; fucking-up is.
Looking inside yourself for salvation, contemplating your navel, is not, as the Drop Out people would have you believe, the answer.
Self-forgetfulness should be one's goal, not self-absorption.
The male, capable of only the latter, makes a virtue of an irremediable fault and sets up self-absorption, not only as a good but as a Philosophical Good, and thus gets credit for being deep.
SCUM will not picket, demonstrate, march or strike to attempt to achieve its ends.
SCUM consists of individuals; SCUM is not a mob, a blob.
Also, SCUM, being cool and selfish, will not subject itself to getting rapped on the head with billy clubs; that's for the nice, "privileged, educated", middle-class ladies with a high regard for the touching faith in the essential goodness of Daddy and policemen.
SCUM is out to destroy the system, not attain certain rights within it.
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.
Also specific to Cyberfeminism is not [EN+DE+NL+FR] (1997):
cyberfeminism ist cyberfeminismus nicht nije keine cyberfeminismo cyberfeminisme not es kein pas est n 100 sajbrfeminizm niet sale boring modern post 43 prozor 45 fragrance 54 73 93 46 truegerisch movie tiene 64 banana triste 71 22 74 90 51 nettime cojones Network 1997 caffeine 97 86 theorie mythical