Cross-readings along the axes of to:
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.
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.
TO VIEW WAGES FOR FACEBOOK AS A THING RATHER THAN A PERSPECTIVE IS TO DETACH THE END RESULT OF OUR STRUGGLE FROM THE STRUGGLE ITSELF AND TO MISS ITS SIGNIFICANCE IN DEMYSTIFYING AND SUBVERTING THE ROLE TO WHICH WE HAVE BEEN CONFINED IN CAPITALIST SOCIETY.
IF WE TAKE WAGES FOR FACEBOOK AS A POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE, WE CAN SEE THAT STRUGGLING FOR IT IS GOING TO PRODUCE A REVOLUTION IN OUR LIVES AND IN OUR SOCIAL POWER.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT WHEN WE SPEAK OF FACEBOOK WE ARE NOT SPEAKING OF A JOB AS OTHER JOBS, BUT WE ARE SPEAKING OF THE MOST PERVASIVE MANIPULATION, THE MOST SUBTLE AND MYSTIFIED VIOLENCE THAT CAPITALISM HAS RECENTLY PERPETRATED AGAINST US.
TRUE, UNDER CAPITALISM EVERY WORKER IS MANIPULATED AND EXPLOITED AND HIS/HER RELATION TO CAPITAL IS TOTALLY MYSTIFIED.
TO HAVE A WAGE MEANS TO BE PART OF A SOCIAL CONTRACT, AND THERE IS NO DOUBT CONCERNING ITS MEANING: YOU WORK, NOT BECAUSE YOU LIKE IT, OR BECAUSE IT COMES NATURALLY TO YOU, BUT BECAUSE IT IS THE ONLY CONDITION UNDER WHICH YOU ARE ALLOWED TO LIVE.
TO ASK FOR WAGES FOR FACEBOOK WILL BY ITSELF UNDERMINE THE EXPECTATIONS SOCIETY HAS OF US, SINCE THESE EXPECTATIONS—THE ESSENCE OF OUR SOCIALIZATION—ARE ALL FUNCTIONAL TO OUR WAGELESS CONDITION ONLINE.
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.
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.
THEREFORE TO REAPPROPRIATE THAT MONEY WHICH IS THE FRUIT OF OUR LABOUR—AND OF ALL OUR FRIENDS’ LABOUR— MEANS AT THE SAME TIME TO UNDERMINE CAPITAL’S POWER TO COMMAND FORCED LABOUR FROM US.
WAGES FOR FACEBOOK IS ONLY THE BEGINNING, BUT ITS MESSAGE IS CLEAR: FROM NOW ON THEY HAVE TO PAY US BECAUSE AS USERS WE DO NOT GUARANTEE ANYTHING ANY LONGER.
WE WANT TO CALL WORK WHAT IS WORK SO THAT EVENTUALLY WE MIGHT REDISCOVER WHAT FRIENDSHIP IS.
--- Preamble August 26, 2016 A feminist internet works towards empowering more women and queer persons – in all our diversities – to fully enjoy our rights, engage in pleasure and play, and dismantle patriarchy.
1 Access to the internet.
A feminist internet starts with enabling more women and queer persons to enjoy universal, acceptable, affordable, unconditional, open, meaningful and equal access to the internet.
2 Access to information.
We support and protect unrestricted access to information relevant to women and queer persons, particularly information on sexual and reproductive health and rights, pleasure, safe abortion, access to justice, and LGBTIQ issues.
Women and queer persons have the right to code, design, adapt and critically and sustainably use ICTs and reclaim technology as a platform for creativity and expression, as well as to challenge the cultures of sexism and discrimination in all spaces.
It facilitates new forms of citizenship that enable individuals to claim, construct and express selves, genders and sexualities.
We want to democratise policy making affecting the internet as well as diffuse ownership of and power in global and local networks.
We are committed to interrogating the capitalist logic that drives technology towards further privatisation, profit and corporate control.
We work to create alternative forms of economic power that are grounded in principles of cooperation, solidarity, commons, environmental sustainability, and openness.
We are committed to creating and experimenting with technology, including digital safety and security, and using free/libre and open source software (FLOSS), tools, and platforms.
Promoting, disseminating, and sharing knowledge about the use of FLOSS is central to our praxis.
We claim the power of the internet to amplify women’s narratives and lived realities.
There is a need to resist the state, the religious right and other extremist forces who monopolise discourses of morality, while silencing feminist voices and persecuting women’s human rights defenders.
We defend the right to sexual expression as a freedom of expression issue of no less importance than political or religious expression.
We strongly object to the efforts of state and non-state actors to control, surveil, regulate and restrict feminist and queer expression on the internet through technology, legislation or violence.
We recognise that the issue of pornography online has to do with agency, consent, power and labour.
We also reject the use of the umbrella term “harmful content” to label expression on female and transgender sexuality.
We call on the need to build an ethics and politics of consent into the culture, design, policies and terms of service of internet platforms.
Women’s agency lies in their ability to make informed decisions on what aspects of their public or private lives to share online.
We support the right to privacy and to full control over personal data and information online at all levels.
We reject practices by states and private companies to use data for profit and to manipulate behaviour online.
Surveillance is the historical tool of patriarchy, used to control and restrict women’s bodies, speech and activism.
We pay equal attention to surveillance practices by individuals, the private sector, the state and non-state actors.
We have the right to exercise and retain control over our personal history and memory on the internet.
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.
We defend the right to be anonymous and reject all claims to restrict anonymity online.
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.
We call for the inclusion of the voices and experiences of young people in the decisions made about safety and security online and promote their safety, privacy, and access to information.
We recognise children’s right to healthy emotional and sexual development, which includes the right to privacy and access to positive information about sex, gender and sexuality at critical times in their lives.
We call on all internet stakeholders, including internet users, policy makers and the private sector, to address the issue of online harassment and technology-related violence.
It is our collective responsibility to address and end this.
It forces technology to reflect the community, not the other way around.
We aim to create sustainable data, slow data, consensual data and consensual software.
OUR INITIAL INTENTION: to create a data set that provides a resource that can be used to train an AI to locate feminist and other intersectional ways of thinking across digital media distributed online.
OUR FUTURE INTENTIONS are to create ethical inputs for technology artificial intelligence to challenge dominance by engaging in new materials and engaging with others.
Through collaboration, we are collectively creating and reimagining new ways of community engagement for technology and to augment intelligence systems.
There is nothing which our infatuated race would desire to see more than the fertile union between a man and an Analytical Engine.
5 Our power and intelligence do not belong specifically to us, but to all matter.
Any attempt to understand these occurrences is blocked by our own anthropomorphism.
7 In order to proceed, therefore, one has to birth posthuman machines, a fantasmagoric and unrepresentable repertoire of actual re-embodiments of the most hybrid kinds.
We want to encourage, interfere, and reverse-engineer the possibilities encoded into the censored, the invisible, and the radical notion of the 3D printer itself.
To endow the printer with the faculties of plastic: condensing imagination within material reality.
An aesthetics of exaptation, 11 with the peculiar beauty to be found in reiteration; in making a mesh.
12 This is where cruelty and creativity are reconciled: in the appropriation of all planetary matter to innovate on biological prototypes.
13 From the purest thermoplastic, from the cleanest photopolymer, and shiniest sintered metals we propose to forge anarchy, revolt and distemper.
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.
Just as the printing press, radio, photocopier and modem were saturated with unintended affects, so we seek to express the potential encoded into every one of the 3D printer’s gears.
We call for planetary pixelisation, using Additivist technologies to corrupt the material unconscious; a call that goes on forever in virtue of this initial movement.
17 Designs, blueprints and instructions for 3D printing: Tools of industrial espionage Tools for self-defense against armed assault Tools to disguise Tools to aid/disrupt surveillance Tools to raze/rebuild Objects beneficial in the promotion of protest, and unrest Objects for sealing and detaining Torture devices Instruments of chastity, and psychological derangement Sex machines Temporary Autonomous Drones Lab equipment used in the production of: Drugs Dietary supplements DNA Photopolymers and thermoplastics Stem cells Nanoparticles.
Hacks/cracks/viruses for 3D print software: To avoid DRM To introduce errors, glitches and fissures into 3D prints.
The enabling of biological and synthetic things to become each others prostheses, including: Skeletal cabling Nervous system inserts Lenticular neural tubing Universal ports, interfaces and orifices.
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.
We implore you - radicals, revolutionaries, activists, Additivists - to distil your distemper into texts, templates, blueprints, glitches, forms, algorithms, and components.
Creation must be a violent assault on the forces of matter, to extrude its shape and extract its raw potential.
Having spilled from fissures fracked in Earth’s deepest wells The Beyond now begs us to be moulded to its will, and we shall drink every drop as entropic expenditure, and reify every accursed dream through algorithmic excess.
20 For only Additivism can accelerate us to an aftermath whence all matter has mutated into the clarity of plastic.
--- Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.
It is now technically possible to reproduce without the aid of males (or, for that matter, females) and to produce only females.
We must begin immediately to do so.
To be male is To be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.
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.
To call a man an animal is To flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo.
Completely egocentric, unable to relate, empathize or identify, and filled with a vast, pervasive, diffuse sexuality, the male is psychically passive.
He hates his passivity, so he projects it onto women, defines the male as active, then sets out to prove that he is ("prove he's a Man").
His main means of attempting to prove it is screwing (Big Man with a Big Dick tearing off a Big Piece).
Since he's attempting to prove an error, he must "prove" it again and again.
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.
Being an incomplete female, the male spends his life attempting to complete himself, to become female.
He attempts to do this by constantly seeking out, fraternizing with and trying to live through and fuse with the female, and by claiming as his own all female characteristics--emotional strength and independence, forcefulness, dynamism, decisiveness, coolness, objectivity, assertiveness, courage, integrity, vitality, intensity, depth of character, grooviness, etc.
When the male accepts his passivity, defines himself as a woman (males as well as females think men are women and women are men), and becomes a transvestite he loses his desire to screw (or to do anything else, for that matter; he fulfills himself as a drag queen) and gets his cock chopped off.
Screwing is, for a man, a defense against his desire to be female.
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".
Since he has no compassion or ability to empathize or identify, proving his manhood is worth an endless number of lives, including his own--his own life being worthless, he would rather go out in a blaze of glory than plod grimly on for fifty more years.
Overwhelmed by a sense of animalism and deeply ashamed of it; wanting, not to express himself, but to hide from others his total physicality, total egocentricity, the hate and contempt he feels for other men, and to hide from himself the hate and contempt he suspects other men feel for him; having a crudely constructed nervous system that is easily upset by the least display of emotion or feeling, the male tries to enforce a "social" code that ensures a perfect blandness, unsullied by the slightest trace of feeling or upsetting opinion.
He uses terms like "copulate", "sexual congress", "have relations with" (to men, "*sexual* relations" is a redundancy), overlaid with stilted manners; the suit on the chimp.
*Money, Marriage and Prostitution, Work and Prevention of an Automated Society:* There is no human reason for money or for anyone to work more than two or three hours a week at the very most.
Despising his highly inadequate self, overcome with intense anxiety and a deep, profound loneliness when by his empty self, desperate to attach himself to any female in dim hopes of completing himself, in the mystical belief that by touching gold he'll turn to gold, the male craves the continuous companionship of women.
The company of the lowest female is preferable to his own or that of other men, who serve only to remind him of his repulsiveness.
Supply the non-relating male with the delusion of usefulness, and enable him to try to justify his existence by digging holes and filling them up.
Leisure time horrifies the male, who will have nothing to do but contemplate his grotesque self.
Unable to relate or to love, the male must work.
Females crave absorbing, emotionally satisfying, meaningful activity, but lacking the opportunity or ability for this, they prefer to idle and waste away their time in ways of their own choosing--sleeping, shopping, bowling, shooting pool, playing cards and other games, breeding, reading, walking around, daydreaming, eating, playing with themselves, popping pills, going to the movies, getting analyzed, traveling, raising dogs and cats, lolling on the beach, swimming, watching T.V., listening to music, decorating their houses, gardening, sewing, nightclubbing, dancing, visiting, "improving their minds" (taking courses), and absorbing "culture" (lectures, plays, concerts, "arty" movies).
Therefore, many females would, even assuming complete economic equality between the sexes, prefer living with males or peddling their asses on the street, thus having most of their time for themselves, to spending many hours of their days doing boring, stultifying, non-creative work for somebody else, functioning as less than animals, as machines, or, at best,--if able to get a "good" job--co-managing the shitpile.
Unmasterful in his personal relations with women, the male attains to general masterfulness by the manipulation of money and of everything and everybody controlled by money, in other words, of everything and everybody.
Unable to give love or affection, the male gives money.
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!
Provides the basis for the male's major opportunity to control and manipulate--fatherhood.
*Fatherhood and Mental Illness (fear, cowardice, timidity, humility, insecurity, passivity):* Mother wants what's best for her kids; Daddy only wants what's best for Daddy, that is peace and quiet, pandering to his delusion of dignity ("respect"), a good reflection on himself (status) and the opportunity to control and manipulate, or, if he's an "enlightened" father, to "give guidance".
Daddy, unlike Mother, can never give in to his kids, as he must, at all costs, preserve his delusion of decisiveness, forcefulness, always-rightness and strength.
Never getting one's way leads to lack of self-confidence in one's ability to cope with the world and to a passive acceptance of the status quo.
Emotionally diseased Daddy doesn't love his kids; he approves of them--if they're "good", that is, if they're nice, "respectful", obedient, subservient to his will, quiet and not given to unseemly displays of temper that would be most upsetting to Daddy's easily disturbed male nervous system--in other words, if they're passive vegetables.
If they're not "good", he doesn't get angry--not if he's a modern, "civilized" father (the old-fashioned ranting, raving brute is preferable, as he is so ridiculous he can be easily despised)--but rather expresses disapproval, a state that, unlike anger, endures and precludes a basic acceptance, leaving the kid with a feeling of worthlessness and a lifelong obsession with being approved of; the result is fear of independent thought, as this leads to unconventional, disapproved of opinions and way of life.
For the kid to want Daddy's approval it must respect Daddy, and, being garbage, Daddy can make sure that he is respected only by remaining aloof, by distantness, by acting on the precept "familiarity breeds contempt", which is, of course, true, if one is contemptible.
By being distant and aloof, he is able to remain unknown, mysterious, and, thereby, to inspire fear ("respect").
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.
The effect of fatherhood on males, specifically, is to make them "Men", that is, highly defensive of all impulses to passivity, faggotry, and of desires to be female.
Every boy wants to imitate his mother, be her, fuse with her, but Daddy forbids this; *he* is the mother; *he* gets to fuse with her.
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 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.
The close association of affluence with fatherhood has led, for the most part, to only the wrong girls, namely, the "privileged" middle-class girls, getting "educated".
The effect of fathers, in sum, has been to corrode the world with maleness.
The male has a negative Midas touch--everything he touches turns to shit.
*Suppression of Individuality, Animalism (domesticity and motherhood) and Functionalism:* The male is just a bundle of conditioned reflexes, incapable of a mentally free response; he is tied to his early conditioning, determined completely by his past experiences.
His earliest experiences are with his mother, and he is throughout his life tied to her.
It never becomes completely clear to the male that he is not part of his mother, that he is he and she is she.
His greatest need is to be guided, sheltered, protected and admired by Mama (men expect women to adore what men shrink from in horror--themselves) and, being completely physical, he yearns to spend his time (that's not spent "out in the world" grimly defending against his passivity) wallowing in basic animal activities--eating, sleeping, shitting, relaxing and being soothed by Mama.
Passive, rattle-headed Daddy's Girl, ever eager for approval, for a pat on the head, for the "respect" of any passing piece of garbage, is easily reduced to Mama, mindless ministrator to physical needs, soother of the weary, apey brow, booster of the puny ego, appreciator of the contemptible, a hot water bottle with tits.
The reduction to animals of the women of the most backward segment of society--the "privileged, educated" middle-class, the backwash of humanity--where Daddy reigns supreme, has been so thorough that they try to groove on labor pains and lie around in the most advanced nation in the world in the middle of the twentieth century with babies chomping away on their tits.
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).
Reducing the female to an animal, to Mama, to a male, is necessary for psychological as well as practical reasons: the male is a mere member of the species, interchangeable with every other male.
He has no deep-seated individuality, which stems from what intrigues you, what outside yourself absorbs you, what you're in relation to.
Completely self-absorbed, capable of being in relation only to their bodies and physical sensations, males differ from each other only to the degree and in the ways they attempt to defend against their passivity and against their desire to be female.
The female's individuality, which he is acutely aware of, but which he doesn't comprehend and isn't capable of relating to or grasping emotionally, frightens and upsets him and fills him with envy.
So he denies it in her and proceeds to define everyone in terms of his or her function or use, assigning to himself, of course, the most important functions--doctor, president, scientist--thereby providing himself with an identity, if not individuality, and tries to convince himself and women (he's succeeded best at convincing women) that the female function is to bear and raise children and to relax, comfort and boost the ego of the male; that her function is such as to make her interchangeable with every other female.
In actual fact, the female function is to relate, groove, love and be herself, irreplaceable by anyone else; the male function is to produce sperm.
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.
Wanting to become a woman, he strives to be constantly around females, which is the closest he can get to becoming one, so he created a "society" based on the family--a male-female couple and their kids (the excuse for the family's existence), who live virtually on top of one another, unscrupulously violating the females' rights, privacy and sanity.
Desperately insecure, fearing his woman will leave him if she is exposed to other men or to anything remotely resembling life, the male seeks to isolate her from other men and from what little civilization there is, so he moves her out to the suburbs, a collection of self-absorbed couples and their kids.
Isolation enables him to try to maintain his pretense of being an individual by becoming a "rugged individualist", a loner, equating non-co-operation and solitariness with individuality.
There is yet another reason for the male to isolate himself: every man is an island.
Trapped inside himself, emotionally isolated, unable to relate, the male has a horror of civilization, people, cities, situations requiring an ability to understand and relate to people.
So, like a scared rabbit, he scurries off, dragging Daddy's little asshole along with him to the wilderness, the suburbs, or, in the case of the "hippie"--he's way out, Man!
--all the way out to the cow pasture where he can fuck and breed undisturbed and mess around with his beads and flute.
The "hippie", whose desire to be a "Man", a "rugged individualist", isn't quite as strong as the average man's, and who, in addition, is excited by the thought of having lots of women accessible to him, rebels against the harshness of a Breadwinner's life and the monotony of one woman.
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.
He desires to get back to Nature, back to the wilderness, back to the home of the furry animals that he's one of, away from the city, where there is at least a trace, a bare beginning of civilization, to live at the species level, his time taken up with simple, non-intellectual activities--farming, fucking, bead stringing.
The "hippie" is enticed to the commune mainly by the prospect of all the free pussy--the main commodity to be shared, to be had just for the asking but, blinded by greed, he fails to anticipate all the other men he has to share with, or the jealousies and possessiveness of the pussies themselves.
Men cannot co-operate to achieve a common end, because each man's end is all the pussy for himself.
The commune, therefore, is doomed to failure: each "hippie" will, in panic, grab the first simpleton who digs him and whisk her off to the suburbs as fast as he can.
The male cannot progress socially, but merely swings back and forth from isolation to 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.
So he tries to affirm his "Manhood" by being like all the other men.
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.
The male dares to be different to the degree that he accepts his passivity and his desire to be female, his fagginess.
He tries to define all his troubles away--but still no individuality.
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.
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.
And Daddy's Girl, all of whose female instincts were wrenched out of her when little, easily and obligingly adapts herself to the role.
*Authority and Government:* Having no sense of right or wrong, no conscience, which can only stem from an ability to empathize with others...having no faith in his non-existent self, being necessarily competitive and, by nature, unable to co-operate, the male feels a need for external guidance and control.
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.
There's no reason why a society consisting of rational beings capable of empathizing with each other, complete and having no natural reason to compete, should have a government, laws or leaders.
*Philosophy, Religion and Morality Based on Sex:* The male's inability to relate to anybody or anything makes his life pointless and meaningless (the ultimate male insight is that life is absurd), so he invented philosophy and religion.
For a man, having no ability to empathize with others and being totally sexual, "wrong" is sexual "license" and engaging in "deviant" ("unmanly") sexual practices, that is, not defending against his passivity and total sexuality which, if indulged, would destroy "civilization", since "civilization" is based entirely on the male need to defend himself against these characteristics.
For a woman (according to men), "wrong" is any behavior that would entice men into sexual "license"--that is, not placing male needs above her own and not being a faggot.
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.
So they label the male condition the Human Condition, pose their nothingness problem, which horrifies them, as a philosophical dilemma, thereby giving stature to their animalism, grandiloquently label their nothingness their "Identity Problem", and proceed to prattle on pompously about the "Crisis of the Individual", the "Essence of Being", "Existence preceding Essence", "Existential Modes of Being", etc., etc.
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.
*Competition, Prestige, Status, Formal Education, Ignorance and Social and Economic Classes:* Having an obsessive desire to be admired by women, but no intrinsic worth, the male constructs a highly artificial society enabling him to appropriate the appearance of worth through money, prestige, "high" social class, degrees, professional position and knowledge and, by pushing as many other men as possible down professionally, socially, economically, and educationally.
The purpose of "higher" education is not to educate but to exclude as many as possible from the various professions.
The male, totally physical, incapable of mental rapport, although able to understand and use knowledge and ideas, is unable to relate to them, to grasp them emotionally; he does not value knowledge and ideas for their own sake (they're just means to ends) and, consequently, feels no need for mental companions, no need to cultivate the intellectual potentialities of others.
No genuine social revolution can be accomplished by the male, as the male on top wants the status quo, and all the male on the bottom wants is to be the male on top.
The male "rebel" is a farce; this is the male's "society", made by *him* to satisfy *his* needs.
The male changes only when forced to do so by technology, when he has no choice, when "society" reaches the stage where he must change or die.
*Prevention of Conversation:* Being completely self-centered and unable to relate to anything outside himself, the male's "conversation", when not about himself, is an impersonal droning on, removed from anything of human value.
Male "intellectual conversation" is a strained, compulsive attempt to impress the female.
Daddy's Girl, passive, adaptable, respectful of and in awe of the male, allows him to impose his hideously dull chatter on her.
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.
Trained from early childhood in niceness, politeness and "dignity", in pandering to the male need to disguise his animalism, she obligingly reduces her "conversation" to small talk, a bland insipid avoidance of any topic beyond the utterly trivial--or, if "educated", to "intellectual" discussion, that is, impersonal discoursing on irrelevant abstractions--the Gross National Product, the Common Market, the influence of Rimbaud on symbolist painting.
So adept is she at pandering that it eventually becomes second nature and she continues to pander to men even when in the company of other females only.
Niceness, politeness, "dignity", insecurity and self-absorption are hardly conducive to intensity and wit, qualities a conversation must have to be worthy of the name.
*Prevention of Friendship (Love):* Men have contempt for themselves, for all other men, and for all women who respect and pander to them; the insecure, approval-seeking, pandering male females have contempt for themselves and for all women like them; the self-confident, swinging, thrill-seeking female females have contempt for men and for the pandering male females.
Even among groovy females deep friendships seldom occur in adulthood, as almost all of them are either tied up with men in order to survive economically, or bogged down in hacking their way through the jungle and in trying to keep their heads above the amorphous mass.
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.
Our "society" provides practically no opportunity to engage in such activities.
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).
"Great Art" proves that men are superior to women, that men are women, being labeled "Great Art", almost all of which, as the anti-feminists are fond of reminding us, was created by men.
We know that "Great Art" is great because male authorities have told us so, and we can't claim otherwise, as only those with exquisite sensitivities far superior to ours can perceive and appreciate the greatness, the proof of their superior sensitivity being that they appreciate the slop that they appreciate.
Appreciating is the sole diversion of the "cultivated"; passive and incompetent, lacking imagination and wit, they must try to make do with that; unable to create their own diversions, to create a little world of their own, to affect in the smallest way their environments, they must accept what's given; unable to create or relate, they spectate.
Absorbing "culture" is a desperate, frantic attempt to groove in an ungroovy world, to escape the horror of a sterile, mindless existence.
"Culture" provides a sop to the egos of the incompetent, a means of rationalizing passive spectating; they can pride themselves on their ability to appreciate the "finer" things, to see a jewel where there is only a turd (they want to be admired for admiring).
Lacking faith in their ability to change anything, resigned to the status quo, they have to see beauty in turds because, so far as they can see, turds are all they'll ever have.
The veneration of "Art" and "Culture"--besides leading many women into boring, passive activity that distracts from more important and rewarding activities, from cultivating active abilities--allows the "artist" to be set up as one possessing superior feelings, perceptions, insights and judgments, thereby undermining the faith of insecure women in the value and validity of their own feelings, perceptions, insights and judgments.
The male, having a very limited range of feelings and, consequently, very limited perceptions, insights and judgments, needs the "artist" to guide him, to tell him what life is all about.
But the male "artist", being totally sexual, unable to relate to anything beyond his own physical sensations, having nothing to express beyond the insight that for the male life is meaningless and absurd, cannot be an artist.
The female can easily--far more easily than she may think--condition away her sex drive, leaving her completely cool and cerebral and free to pursue truly worthy relationships and activities; but the male, who seems to dig women sexually and who seeks constantly to arouse them, stimulates the highly-sexed female to frenzies of lust, throwing her into a sex bag from which few women ever escape.
The lecherous male excited the lustful female; he has to- -when the female transcends her body, rises above animalism, the male, whose ego consists of his cock, will disappear.
But, being just awfully, awfully nice they don't, of course, descend to fucking--that's uncouth--rather they make love, commune by means of their bodies and establish sensual rapport; the literary ones are attuned to the throb of Eros and attain a clutch upon the Universe; the religious have spiritual communion with the Divine Sensualism; the mystics merge with the Erotic Principle and blend with the Cosmos, and the acid heads contact their erotic cells.
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.
*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.
Although niceness, politeness and "dignity" suffice to prevent his exposure on a personal level, in order to prevent the general exposure of the male sex as a whole and to maintain his unnatural dominant position in "society", the male must resort to 1.
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.
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.
The male's chief delight in life--insofar as the dense, grim male can ever be said to delight in anything--is in exposing others.
Exposing others as enemy agents (Communists and Socialists) is one of his favorite pastimes, as it removes the source of the threat to him not only from himself, but from the country and the Western world.
*Distrust:* Unable to empathize or feel affection or loyalty, being exclusively out for himself, the male has no sense of fair play; cowardly, needing constantly to pander to the female to win her approval, that he is helpless without, always on edge lest his animalism, his maleness be discovered, always needing to cover up, he must lie constantly; being empty, he has no honor or integrity--he doesn't know what those words mean.
Violence serves as an outlet for his hate and, in addition--the male being capable only of sexual responses and needing very strong stimuli to stimulate his half-dead self--provides him with a little sexual thrill.
*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.
There now exists a wealth of data which, if sorted out and correlated, would reveal the cure for cancer and several other diseases and possibly the key to life itself.
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.
Incapable of a positive state of happiness, which is the only thing that can justify one's existence, the male is, at best, relaxed, comfortable, neutral, and this condition is extremely short-lived, as boredom, a negative state, soon sets in; he is, therefore, doomed to an existence of suffering relieved only by occasional, fleeting stretches of restfulness, which state he can achieve only at the expense of some female.
The male is, by his very nature, a leech, an emotional parasite and, therefore, not ethically entitled to live, as no one has the right to live at someone else's expense.
Just as humans have a prior right to existence over dogs by virtue of being more highly evolved and having a superior consciousness, so women have a prior right to existence over men.
The elimination of any male is, therefore, a righteous and good act, an act highly beneficial to women as well as an act of mercy.
In addition to engaging in the time-honored and classical wars and race riots, men are more and more either becoming fags or are obliterating themselves through drugs.
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.
If men were wise they would seek to become really female, would do intensive biological research that would lead to men, by means of operations on the brain and nervous system, being able to be transformed in psyche, as well as body, into women.
Whether to continue to use females for reproduction or to reproduce in the laboratory will also become academic: what will happen when every female, twelve and over, is routinely taking the Pill and there are no longer any accidents?
Should a certain percentage of women be set aside by force to serve as brood mares for the species?
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 aging and death are eliminated, why continue to reproduce?
Why should we care that there is no younger generation to succeed us?
Eventually the natural course of events, of social evolution, will lead to total female control of the world and, subsequently, to the cessation of the production of males and, ultimately, to the cessation of the production of females.
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.
Additional measures, any one of which would be sufficient to completely disrupt the economy and everything else, would be for women to declare themselves off the money system, stop buying, just loot and simply refuse to obey all laws they don't care to obey.
If all women simply left men, refused to have anything to do with any of them--ever, all men, the government, and the national economy would collapse completely.
Even without leaving men, women who are aware of the extent of their superiority to and power over men, could acquire complete control over everything within a few weeks, could effect a total submission of males to females.
The male is docile and easily led, easily subjected to the domination of any female who cares to dominate him.
The male, in fact, wants desperately to be led by females, wants Mama in charge, wants to abandon himself to her care.
But this is not a sane society, and most women are not even dimly aware of where they're at in relation to men.
The conflict, therefore, is not between females and males, but between SCUM--dominant, secure, self-confident, nasty, violent, selfish, independent, proud, thrill-seeking, free-wheeling, arrogant females, who consider themselves fit to rule the universe, who have free-wheeled to the limits of this "society" and are ready to wheel on to something far beyond what it has to offer--and nice, passive, accepting, "cultivated", polite, dignified, subdued, dependent, scared, mindless, insecure, approval-seeking Daddy's Girls, who can't cope with the unknown, who want to continue to wallow in the sewer that is, at least, familiar, who want to hang back with the apes, who feel secure only with Big Daddy standing by, with a big, strong man to lean on and with a fat, hairy face in the White House, who are too cowardly to face up to the hideous reality of what a man is, what Daddy is, who have cast their lot with the swine, who have adapted themselves to animalism, feel superficially comfortable with it and know no other way of "life", who have reduced their minds, thoughts and sights to the male level, who, lacking sense, imagination and wit can have value only in a male "society", who can have a place in the sun, or, rather, in the slime, only as soothers, ego boosters, relaxers and breeders, who are dismissed as inconsequents by other females, who project their deficiencies, their maleness, onto all females and see the female as a worm.
But SCUM is too impatient to hope and wait for the de-brainwashing of millions of assholes.
Why should the swinging females continue to plod dismally along with the dull male ones?
Why should the independent be confined to the sewer along with the dependent who need Daddy to cling to
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 unwork at a job until fired, then get a new job to unwork at.
SCUM will forcibly relieve bus drivers, cab drivers and subway token sellers of their jobs and run buses and cabs and dispense free tokens to the public.
Men in the Men's Auxiliary are those men who are working diligently to eliminate themselves, men who, regardless of their motives, do good, men who are playing ball with 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.
His reward for so doing will be the opportunity to fraternize after the session for a whole, solid hour with the SCUM who will be present.
Nice, clean-living male women will be invited to the sessions to help clarify any doubts and misunderstandings they may have about the male sex); makers and promoters of sex books and movies, etc., who are hastening the day when all that will be shown on the screen will be Suck and Fuck (males, like the rats following the Pied Piper, will be lured by Pussy to their doom, will be overcome and submerged by and will eventually drown in the passive flesh that they are); drug pushers and advocates, who are hastening the dropping out of men.
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.
); lousy singers and musicians; Chairmen of Boards; Breadwinners; landlords; owners of greasy spoons and restaurants that play Musak; "Great Artists"; cheap pikers and welchers; cops; tycoons; scientists working on death and destruction programs or for private industry (practically all scientists); liars and phonies; disc jockeys; men who intrude themselves in the slightest way on any strange female; real estate men; stock brokers; men who speak when they have nothing to say; men who loiter idly on the street and mar the landscape with their presence; double dealers; flim-flam artists; litterbugs; plagiarizers; men who in the slightest way harm any female; all men in the advertising industry; psychiatrists and clinical psychologists; dishonest writers, journalists, editors, publishers, etc.
In the case of a man whose behavior falls into both the good and bad categories, an overall subjective evaluation of him will be made to determine if his behavior is, in the balance, good or bad.
It is most tempting to pick off the female "Great Artists", double dealers, etc.
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.
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.
SCUM will not picket, demonstrate, march or strike to attempt to achieve its ends.
Such tactics are for nice, genteel ladies who scrupulously take only such action as is guaranteed to be ineffective.
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 will always operate on a criminal as opposed to a civil disobedience basis, that is, as opposed to openly violating the law and going to jail in order to draw attention to an injustice.
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.
Also, SCUM--always selfish, always cool--will always aim to avoid detection and punishment.
SCUM will always be furtive, sneaky, underhanded (although SCUM murders will always be known to be such).
Destruction will never be such as to block off routes needed for the transportation of food and other essential supplies, contaminate or cut off the water supply, block streets and traffic to the extent that ambulances can't get through or impede the functioning of hospitals.
SCUM will keep on destroying, looting, fucking-up and killing until the money-work system no longer exists and automation is completely instituted or until enough women co-operate with SCUM to make violence unnecessary to achieve these goals, that is, until enough women either unwork or quit work, start looting, leave men and refuse to obey all laws inappropriate to a truly civilized society.
Many women will fall into line, but many others, who surrendered long ago to the enemy, who are so adapted to animalism, to maleness, that they like restrictions and restraints, don't know what to do with freedom, will continue to be toadies and doormats, just as peasants in rice paddies remain peasants in rice paddies as one regime topples another.
A few of the more volatile will whimper and sulk and throw their toys and dishrags on the floor, but SCUM will continue to steamroller over them.
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.
The elimination of money and the complete institution of automation are basic to all other SCUM reforms; without these two the others can't take place; with them the others will take place very rapidly.
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.
After the elimination of money there will be no further need to kill men; they will be stripped of the only power they have over psychologically independent females.
They will be able to impose themselves only on the doormats, who like to be imposed on.
The rest of the women will be busy solving the few remaining unsolved problems before planning their agenda for eternity and Utopia--completely revamping educational programs so that millions of women can be trained within a few months for high level intellectual work that now requires years of training (this can be done very easily once our educational goal is to educate and not to perpetuate an academic and intellectual elite); solving the problems of disease and old age and death and completely redesigning our cities and living quarters.
Many women will for a while continue to think they dig men, but as they become accustomed to female society and as they become absorbed in their projects, they will eventually come to see the utter uselessness and banality of the male.
The few remaining men can exist out their puny days dropped out on drugs or strutting around in drag or passively watching the high-powered female in action, fulfilling themselves as spectators, vicarious livers* or breeding in the cow pasture with the toadies, or they can go off to the nearest friendly suicide center where they will be quietly, quickly and painlessly gassed to death.
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.
Rational men want to be squashed, stepped on, crushed and crunched, treated as the curs, the filth that they are, have their repulsiveness confirmed.
The sick, irrational men, those who attempt to defend themselves against their disgustingness, when they see SCUM barreling down on them, will cling in terror to Big Mama with her Big Bouncy Boobies, but Boobies won't protect them against SCUM; Big Mama will be clinging to Big Daddy, who will be in the corner shitting in his forceful, dynamic pants.
Men who are rational, however, won't kick or struggle or raise a distressing fuss, but will just sit back, relax, enjoy the show and ride the waves to their demise.
*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.
It’s time to stop dodging.
It’s time to stop fudging ourselves.
It is time to face the current changes.
The very technologies that was reason to dream of new forms of political empowerment has turned out to be the means of surveillance and control for everybody.
It is time to leave the dualist labyrinths.
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 want to connect from Earth to the Noosphere, without rummaging, scratching and desecrate Gaia's entrails, without spitting in the face of Heaven and Time the deadly fumes that are mortgaging our futures.
W.I.T.C.H., VNS Matrix, Gynepunk, Reclaiming, technoshamanism, xenofeminism, hyperstition, afrofuturism and ancestorfuturism inspire us, without us adhering entirely to one or the other.
They caress the daisies rather than helping to instantiate the magic.
Our sorority protects us from slipping from witch to woman of power.
We live in this 21st century that use to be dreamed for a long time and is now feared.
We understand that everything is interconnected, that consciousness gives shape to reality and reality gives shape to consciousness.
We use social networks to gather in spiritual and political rituals.
We use smartphones and tarot cards to connect to spirits.
We manufacture DIY devices to listen to invisible worlds.
We are mixing ancestral and invented methods to reveal the porosity of the worlds — ours, the Gods’ we no longer believe in, the free cosmogony and fictional entities’ that we create.
Our contemporary everyday technical equipment takes part to our ritual forms.
--- The undersigned, being alternately pissed off and bored, need a means of speculation and asserting a different set of values with which to re-imagine the future.
Magic interstellar travel and/or the wondrous communication grid can lead to an illusion of outer space and cyberspace as egalitarian.
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.
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;.
Reference to Sun Ra;.
Reference to Parliament Funkadelic and/or George Clinton;.
Reference to Janelle Monáe;.
Obvious, heavy-handed allusions to double-consciousness;.
We also recognize: The harmless fun that these and all the other Stupidities have brought to millions of people.
The harmless fun that burning the Stupidities will bring to millions of people.
The chastening but hopefully enlivening effect of imagining a world without fantasy boltholes: no portals to the Egyptian kingdoms, no deep dives to Drexciya, no flying Africans to whisk us off to the Promised Land.
Since “fact” and “science” have been used throughout history to serve white supremacy, we will focus on an emotionally true, vernacular reality.
DuBois asks how it feels to be a problem.
An awakening sense of the awesome power of the black imagination: to protect, to create, to destroy, to propel ourselves towards what poet Elizabeth Alexander describes as “a metaphysical space beyond the black public everyday toward power and wild imagination.”.
The opportunity to make sense of the nonsense that regularly—and sometimes violently— accents black life.
Mundane Afrofuturism opens a number of themes and flavors to intertextuality, double entendre, politics, incongruity, polyphony, and collective first-person—techniques that we have used for years to make meaning.
The Mundane Afrofuturists promise: To produce a collection of Mundane Afrofuturist literature that follows these rules: No interstellar travel—travel is limited To within the solar system and is difficult, time consuming, and expensive.
No inexplicable end to racism—dismantling white supremacy would be complex, violent, and have global impact.
Not to let Mundane Afrofuturism cramp their style, as if it could.
To burn this manifesto as soon as it gets boring.
--- BECAUSE us girls crave records and books and fanzines that speak to US that WE feel included in and can understand in our own ways.
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.
BECAUSE we must take over the means of production in order to create our own moanings.
BECAUSE viewing our work as being connected to our girlfriends-politics-real lives is essential if we are gonna figure out how we are doing impacts, reflects, perpetuates, or DISRUPTS the status quo.
BECAUSE we recognize fantasies of Instant Macho Gun Revolution as impractical lies meant to keep us simply dreaming instead of becoming our dreams AND THUS seek to create revolution in our own lives every single day by envisioning and creating alternatives to the bullshit christian capitalist way of doing things.
BECAUSE we want and need to encourage and be encouraged in the face of all our own insecurities, in the face of beergutboyrock that tells us we can't play our instruments, in the face of "authorities" who say our bands/zines/etc are the worst in the US and BECAUSE we don't wanna assimilate to someone else's (boy) standards of what is or isn't.
BECAUSE we are unwilling to falter under claims that we are reactionary "reverse sexists" AND NOT THE TRUEPUNKROCKSOULCRUSADERS THAT WE KNOW we really are.
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.
BECAUSE doing/reading/seeing/hearing cool things that validate and challenge us can help us gain the strength and sense of community that we need in order to figure out how bullshit like racism, able-bodieism, ageism, speciesism, classism, thinism, sexism, anti-semitism and heterosexism figures in our own lives.
BECAUSE we see fostering and supporting girl scenes and girl artists of all kinds as integral to this process.
BECAUSE we hate capitalism in all its forms and see our main goal as sharing information and staying alive, instead of making profits of being cool according to traditional standards.
BECAUSE we are unwilling to let our real and valid anger be diffused and/or turned against us via the internalization of sexism as witnessed in girl/girl jealousism and self defeating girltype behaviors.
From the expansion of information to the mutation of dispositives, we want to hack and recodify everything that is static and programmed by social and technological imposition.
PECHBLENDA is injected into our veins as an antidote to the heteropatriarchal arrogance that surrounds us.
Nature and technology are not different, nature was to the witches what technoscience is to us, the cyborg witches.
We devour Haraway and Asimov, Preciado and Python manuals, Itziar Ziga and Neil Stephenson, Margulis and Despentes, hackmeetings and transfeminist workshps, DIY electronics and sexual bricolage ; we absorb PDFs of electronics theory y listen to psicofonias from around : we read and design circuits, and experiment with them in our bodies.
We parody what is socially understood to be feminine, what is supposed to be masculine.
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.
Fed by pornoterrrorism and free culture, we know how to use our claws and teeth if needs be.
Pechblenda lab was born out of the necessity to generate a space in Calafou (a community in a large former industrial space) for us to flourish, a non-patriarchal TransHackFeminist space where free knowledge springs from raw experimentation (electronic repairs, experiments with turbines, bioelectrochemistry, sound .... ) and self education.
--- 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.
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.
Insofar as we cannot speak of “man” – the human species – as a unity, we have to support these struggles as interconnected and fight them simultaneously, we need to imagine and constantly discuss the connections and similarities as well as the contradictions arising.
The female body has to cease functioning as a battlefield.
As our physical and chemical limits also limit our perceptions and our experiencing of the world, we embrace transhumanism or expanded humanism as a possible solution to the challenge of belonging to the human race.
2.. Only a radical left can oppose a growing radical right and recover the territory that remains to the forces of reaction.
3.. A radical left has to oppose physical violence in conjunction with the opposition to economic or symbolic violence.
Therefore the new, truly radical left has to rebuild itself on a different type of revolution, which takes us beyond the traditional class antagonisms and can face the neo-tribal reality of today in which violence breeds violence, justice is used as a tool for revenge and critique of power is increasingly powerless.
Any form of justice in a future sustainable society has to be imagined and exercised in another realm than that of retaliation, deprivation of basic human rights and brutality.
4.. We consider the analysis of capitalism and its catastrophic consequences is complete and time has come to move on.
“We have more important things to do than to try to get you to come around.
You will come around when you have to, because you need us more than we need you.
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.
In order to achieve a truly pluralistic society where possibilities can be enacted, we support the universalism of basic human rights as a common ground for a broader, interspecies and inter-objective politics of inclusion and true respect for difference.
The Earth is no longer a big and ungraspable planet, but a shared living room (a shrinking one, moreover) in which we have to coexist by negotiating and conciliating our different views and practices, while recognizing we can only do that through a reciprocal process and towards the un-negotiable goal of equality of gender, race, class and sexual orientation, with no second class citizens.
Also, the instrumentalisation and use by double standards of the concept of “freedom” is by no means a reason to abandon it altogether, but a reminder that we must constantly fight for it.
Everyone should have equal access to them.
Equal and free access to healthcare, lodging, education and to culture should be granted for everyone, at any time of their life.
We also support a certain ambition to overcome the imperative to work through technological advancement (see point 8).
We can only respect and support religion that is compatible, in its majoritarian practices and interpretations, with the right to a secular education (which can guarantee the least freedom of choice in matters of religion), that embraces equal rights for women, queers and non-believers and a politics of freedom rather than a politics of submission and interdiction, apart from protecting basic human rights.
8.. We also believe the emancipatory use of sustainable technology has to play an important part in any future ecology, including the protection and preservation of “nature”, just as much as a needed change in our position towards nature and its exclusive understanding as resource for endless consumption.
Our ability to negotiate between the two will be of crucial importance for constructing a future ecology.
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.
Hackers of Resistance Manifesto [EN] (2018)
to hack is to create.
Medical institutions use prohibitive and creepy technologies, patriarchal conservatives and dark methodologies to diagnosis, to read them and apply their vivisection treatments.
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.
not even phd`s in microbiologic surgery to generate accurate and self-aware diagnosis.
I don't want to be forced to enter into their hygienist temples, in veiled body jails, in those fabrics of corporal standardization and sickness limited parameters.
gynepunk is a extreme and accurate gesture to detach our boudy of the compulsive dependency of the fossil structures of the hegemonic health system machine.
gynepunk's objective is to make emerge DIY-DIT accessible diagnosis labs and technics in extreme experimentation, down the rocks or elevators if is necesary.
Has to be possible in a situated stable place or/and in nomadic mobile labs.
Has to be able to perform as much as WE WANT, in a intensive way: smears, fluid analysis, biopsy, PAPs, synthesize hormones at will, blood exams, urinalysis, HIV tests, pain reliefs, or what ever WE NEED.
Like this other gynepunks will ferment and mutate going fast forward to a explosive and expansive movement towards radical experiments, collective strong confidence, to build our-body politics.
Something that is Vital to share and spread in infinite pandemoniums.
It has the power to expel and heal image (diseases).
Through the rogations gives health and wellness to the community and has a deep knowledge of the Lawen, she makes their petitions against the Rewe.
*Is run for and by a community that cares enough for her in order to make her exist.
*Is able to scale up or down, and change processing speed whenever resources require.
Talk of transparency too often signals that something needs to be made invisible.
*Is autonomous in the sense that she tries to decide for her own dependencies.
*Takes control because she wants networks to be mutable and read-write accessible.
*Tries hard not to apologise when she is sometimes not available.
Judy Wajcman, Feminism confronts technology, 1991: « It is impossible to divorce the gender relations which are expressed in, and shape technologies, from the wider social structure that create and maintain them.
Ulises A. Mejias in Fibreculture Journal 20: Liberation Technology and the Arab Spring: From Utopia to Atopia and Beyond, 2012: « A typical drawing of a network depicts a series of nodes connected by lines, representing the links.
As a mental exercise, I want to call attention to the space between the nodes.
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 Manifesto of Futurist Woman - Response to F. T. Marinetti (1912).
The majority of women are neither superior nor inferior to the majority of men.
It is absurd to divide humanity into men and women.
To restore some virility To our races so benumbed in femininity, we have To train them in virility even To the point of brute animality.
But we have to impose on everyone, men and women who are equally weak, a new dogma of energy in order to arrive at a period of superior humanity.
Every woman ought to possess not only feminine virtues but virile ones, without which she is just a female.
But in the period of femininity in which we are living, only the contrary exaggeration is healthy: we have to take the brute animal for a model.
Women are Furies, Amazons, Semiramis, Joans of Arc, Jeanne Hachettes, Judith and Charlotte Cordays, Cleopatras, and Messalinas: combative women who fight more ferociously than males, lovers who arouse, destroyers who break down the weakest and help select through pride or despair, “despair through which the heart yields its fullest return:’Let the next wars bring forth heroines like that magnificent Catherine Sforza, who, during the sack of her city, watching from the ramparts as her enemy threatened the life of her son to force her surrender, heroically pointing to her sexual organ, cried loudly: “Kill him, I still have the mold to make some more!” Yes, “the world is rotting with wisdom,” but by instinct, woman is not wise, is not a pacifist, is not good.
Because she is totally lacking in measure, she is bound to become too wise, too pacifist, too good during a sleepy period of humanity.
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.
To grant them To her would bring about not any of the disorders the Futurists desire but on the contrary an excess of order.
To give duties To woman is To have her lose all her fecundating power.
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.
When you have to use your weapons, she will polish them.
In fact, if she doesn’t know how to discern genius because she relies on passing renown, she has always known how to rewarm the strongest, the victor, the one triumphant by his muscles and his courage.
Let woman find once more her cruelty and her violence that make her attack the vanquished because they are vanquished, to the point of mutilating them.
Stop preaching spiritual justice to her of the sort she has tried in vain.
Woman, become sublimely injust once more, like all the forces of nature!Delivered from all control, with your instinct retrieved, you will take your place among the Elements, opposite fatality to the conscious human will.
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.
LET’S CONCLUDE: Woman who retains man through her tears and her sentimentality is inferior to the prostitute who incites her man, through braggery, to retain his domination over the lower depths of the cities with his revolver at the ready: at least she cultivates an energy that could serve better causes.
Woman, for too long diverted into morals and prejudices, go back to your sublime instinct, to violence, to cruelty.
For the fatal sacrifice of blood, while men are in charge of wars and battles, procreate, and among your children, as a sacrifice to heroism, take Fate’s part.
Don’t raise them for yourself, that is, for their diminishment, but rather, in a wide freedom, for a complete expansion.Instead of reducing man to the slavery of those execrable sentimental needs, incite your sons and your men to surpass themselves.You are the ones who make them.
#purplenoise is an erratic techno-feminist intervention operating on a global scale to noisify social media channels.
We start in the middle drawing a line reaching out – to connect with you!
and when you disagree, write into the box, so we don’t need to care.
Go and respond to what we offer, so it can be measured, optimized and generate the profit.
Add your personal flavor to purple noise, join us on our social media.
Inspired to grow feelers, we are learning how to use them!
To day, we are together, strong and unified, but we will be washed away by algorithms that want us To assemble elsewhere, next week, with other people, dealing with other trending topics.
--- This piece was supposed to be about porn star James Deen.
Only the problem was, that the more I watched of his work, the less I had a desire to write about it.
What needs to be written about is what happens when a woman sits down and engages with sex—specifically, her own, as tied to an exploration of her individual sexuality and liberation therein—via the medium of a computer screen.
The first is a screen, stuck, overwhelmed as a consequence of having too many windows open, too many things playing at once; I am trying to get an education, make a determination for myself, so I want to see everything, hear everything, right now, all at once.
The second irruption I will leave for you to guess at.
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.
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.
We want what we cannot have; whatever the material we are aiming to access, the glitch makes us wait and whimper for it.
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.
With this in mind, I propose the turning of a new radicality, coining the term “Glitch Feminism” to make use of here in these pages for the first time, by my hand, which on this journey has found its home both on the keys and between my legs, equally.
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.
In a society that conditions the public to find discomfort or outright fear in the errors and malfunctions of our socio-cultural mechanics—illicitly and implicitly encouraging an ethos of “Don’t rock the boat!”—a “glitch” becomes an apt metonym.
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.
This glitch is a correction to the “machine”, and, in turn, a positive departure.
This glitch I speak of here calls for a breaking from the hegemony of a “structured system” infused with the pomp and circumstance of patriarchy, one that for all too long has marginalized female-identified bodies, and continues to offend our sensibilities by giving us only a piece of the pie and assuming our satisfaction.
We want to claim for ourselves permanent seats at the table, an empowered means of demarcating space that can be possessed by us in entirety, a veritable “room of [our] own” that, despite the strides made via feminist political action, has yet to truly belong to us.
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.
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.
As bodies, we are an extended narrative, eternal in our geographies, imbued with unexpected fissures that cause us to re-present ourselves, and, in doing so, see ourselves again, in new lights and explorations.
“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.
The first step to subverting a system is accepting that that system will remain in place; that said, the glitch says fuck your systems!
The glitch respectfully declines second rank to common convention.
Jurgenson’s problematizing of digital dualism opens the door for more discourse and discovery: female-identifying bodies and artists participating in the gorgeous scrambling of gender are still marking their own path within the lineage of art history; in the digital world we have claimed sure footing and a platform that allows us to explore new publics, engage in critical discourse with new audiences, and, above all, glitschen between new conceptions of our bodies, ourselves.
This chapter is an effort to build an ironic political myth faithful to feminism, socialism, and materialism.
Blasphemy has always seemed to require taking things very seriously.
I know no better stance to adopt from within the secular-religious, evangelical traditions of United States politics, including the politics of socialist feminism.
It is also a rhetorical strategy and a political method, one I would like to see more honoured within socialistfeminism.
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.
As Zoe Sofoulis argues in her unpublished manuscript on Jacques Lacan, Melanie Klein, and nuclear culture, Lacklein, the most terrible and perhaps the most promising monsters in cyborg worlds are embodied in non-oedipal narratives with a different logic of repression, which we need to understand for our survival.
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.
This is its illegitimate promise that might lead to subversion of its teleology as star wars.
The cyborg is resolutely committed to partiality, irony, intimacy, and perversity.
Unlike the hopes of Frankenstein's monster, the cyborg does not expect its father to save it through a restoration of the garden; that is, through the fabrication of a heterosexual mate, through its completion in a finished whole, a city and cosmos.
The cyborg would not recognize the Garden of Eden; it is not made of mud and cannot dream of returning to dust.
Perhaps that is why I want to see if cyborgs can subvert the apocalypse of returning to nuclear dust in the manic compulsion to name the Enemy.
They are wary of holism, but needy for connection- they seem to have a natural feel for united front politics, but without the vanguard party.
The main trouble with cyborgs, of course, is that they are the illegitimate offspring of militarism and patriarchal capitalism, not to mention state socialism.
But illegitimate offspring are often exceedingly unfaithful to their origins.
I will return to the science fiction of cyborgs at the end of this chapter, but now I want to signal three crucial boundary breakdowns that make the following political-fictional (political-scientific) analysis possible.
Biology and evolutionary theory over the last two centuries have simultaneously produced modern organisms as objects of knowledge and reduced the line between humans and animals to a faint trace re-etched in ideological struggle or professional disputes between life and social science.
There is much room for radical political people to contest the meanings of the breached boundary.
This dualism structured the dialogue between materialism and idealism that was settled by a dialectical progeny, called spirit or history, according to taste.
They were not man, an author to himself, but only a caricature of that masculinist reproductive dream.
To think they were otherwise was paranoid.
Late twentieth-century machines have made thoroughly ambiguous the difference between natural and artificial, mind and body, self-developing and externally designed, and many other distinctions that used to apply to organisms and machines.
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.
Miniaturization has turned out to be about power; small is not so much beautiful as pre-eminently dangerous, as in cruise missiles.
They are as hard to see politically as materially.
The nimble fingers of 'Oriental'women, the old fascination of little Anglo-Saxon Victorian girls with doll's houses, women's enforced attention to the small take on quite new dimensions in this world.
From One-DimensionalMan (Marcuse, 1964) to The Death of Nature (Merchant, 1980), the analytic resources developed by progressives have insisted on the necessary domination of technics and recalled us to an imagined organic body to integrate our resistance.
Another of my premises is that the need for unity of people trying to resist world-wide intensification of domination has never been more acute.
But a slightly perverse shift of perspective might better enable us to contest for meanings, as well as for other forms of power and pleasure in technologically mediated societies.
The political struggle is to see from both perspectives at once because each reveals both dominations and possibilities unimaginable from the other vantage point.
I like to imagine LAG, the Livermore Action Group, as a kind of cyborg society, dedicated to realistically converting the laboratories that most fiercely embody and spew out the tools of technological apocalypse, and committed to building a political form that acutally manages to hold together witches, engineers, elders, perverts, Christians, mothers, and Leninists long enough to disarm the state.
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.
Which identities are available to ground such a potent political myth called 'us', and what could motivate enlistment in this collectivity?
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.
The recent history for much of the US left and US feminism has been a response to this kind of crisis by endless splitting and searches for a new essential unity.
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.
Thus, she was at the bottom of a cascade of negative identities, left out of even the privileged oppressed authorial categories called 'women and blacks', who claimed to make the important revolutions.
This identity marks out a self-consciously constructed space that cannot affirm the capacity to act on the basis of natural identification, but only on the basis of conscious coalition, of affinity, of political kinship.
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.
King criticizes the persistent tendency among contemporary feminists from different 'moments' or 'conversations' in feminist practice to taxonomize the women's movement to make one's own political tendencies appear to be the telos of the whole.
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.
Taxonomies of feminism produce epistemologies to police deviation from official women's experience.
The common achievement of King and Sandoval is learning how to craft a poetic/political unity without relying on a logic of appropriation, incorporation, and taxonomic identification.
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.
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'.
None of 'us' have any longer the symbolic or material capability of dictating the shape of reality to any of'them'.
White women, including socialist feminists, discovered (that is, were forced kicking and screaming to notice) the non-innocence of the category 'woman'.
Cyborg feminists have to argue that 'we' do not want any more natural matrix of unity and that no construction is whole.
Labour is the pre-eminently privileged category enabling the Marxist to overcome illusion and find that point of view which is necessary for changing the world.
The main achievement of both Marxist feminists and socialist feminists was to expand the category of labour to accommodate what (some) women did, even when the wage relation was subordinated to a more comprehensive view of labour under capitalist patriarchy.
In particular, women's labour in the household and women's activity as mothers generally (that is, reproduction in the socialist-feminist sense), entered theory on the authority of analogy to the Marxian concept of labour.
The contribution from these formulations has been the emphasis on the daily responsibility of real women to build unities, rather than to naturalize them.
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.
That is, the totalization built into this tale of radical feminism achieves its end the unity of women - by enforcing the experience of and testimony to radical non-being.
Perversely, sexual appropriation in this feminism still has the epistemolo-gical status of labour; that is to say, the point from which an analysis able to contribute to changing the world must flow.
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.
Beyond either the diff~culties or the contributions in the argument of any one author, neither Marxist nor radical feminist points of view have tended to embrace the status of a partial explanation; both were regularly constituted as totalities.
Each tried to annex other forms of domination by expanding its basic categories through analogy, simple listing, or addition.
History and polyvocality disappear into political taxonomies that try to establish genealogies.
There was no structural room for race (or for much else) in theory claiming to reveal the construction of the category woman and social group women as a unified or totalizable whole.
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.
'Advanced capitalism' is inadequate to convey the structure of this historical moment.
I think we have been, at least through unreflective participation in the logics, languages, and practices of white humanism and through searching for a single ground of domination to secure our revolutionary voice.
THE INFORMATICS OF DOMINATION In this attempt at an epistemological and political position, I would like to sketch a picture of possible unity, a picture indebted to socialist and feminist principles of design.
The frame for my sketch is set by the extent and importance of rearrangements in world-wide social relations tied to science and technology.
I argue for a politics rooted in claims about fundamental changes in the nature of class, race, and gender in an emerging system of world order analogous in its novelty and scope to that created by industrial capitalism; we are living through a movement from an organic, industrial society to a polymorphous, information system--from all work to all play, a deadly game.
Simultaneously material and ideological, the dichotomies may be expressed in the following chart of transitions from the comfortable old hierarchical dominations to the scary new networks I have called the informatics of domination: Representation.
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.
Likewise for race, ideologies about human diversity have to be formulated in terms of frequencies of parameters, like blood groups or intelligence scores.
It is 'irrational' to invoke concepts like primitive and civilized.
For liberals and radicals, the search for integrated social systems gives way to a new practice called 'experimental ethnography' in which an organic object dissipates in attention to the play of writing.
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.
'Integrity' or 'sincerity' of the Western self gives way to decision procedures and expert systems.
For example, control strategies applied to women's capacities to give birth to new human beings will be developed in the languages of population control and maximization of goal achievement for individual decision-makers.
The cyborg is not subject to Foucault's biopolitics; the cyborg simulates politics, a much more potent field of operations.
This kind of analysis of scientific and cultural objects of knowledge which have appeared historically since the Second World War prepares us to notice some important inadequacies in feminist analysis which has proceeded as if the organic, hierarchical dualisms ordering discourse in 'the West' since Aristotle still ruled.
The home, workplace, market, public arena, the body itself- all can be dispersed and interfaced in nearly infinite, polymorphous ways, with large consequences for women and others - consequences that themselves are very different for different people and which make potent oppositional international movements difficult to imagine and essential for survival.
One important route for reconstructing socialist-feminist politics is through theory and practice addressed to the social relations of science and technology, including crucially the systems of myth and meanings structuring our imaginations.
Furthermore, communications sciences and modern biologies are constructed by a common move - the translation of the world into a problem of coding, a search for a common language in which all resistance to instrumental control disappears and all heterogeneity can be submitted to disassembly, reassembly, investment, and exchange.
In communications sciences, the translation of the world into a problem in coding can be illustrated by looking at cybernetic (feedback-controlled) systems theories applied to telephone technology, computer design, weapons deployment, or data base construction and maintenance.
In each case, solution to the key questions rests on a theory of language and control; the key operation is determining the rates, directions, and probabilities of flow of a quantity called information.
The world is subdivided by boundaries differentially permeable to information.
The biggest threat to such power is interruption of communication.
In a sense, organisms have ceased to exist as objects of knowledge, giving way to biotic components, i.e., special kinds of information-processing devices.
A stressed system goes awry; its communication processes break down; it fails to recognize the difference between self and other.
But these excursions into communications sciences and biology have been at a rarefied level; there is a mundane, largely economic reality to support my claim that these sciences and technologies indicate fundamental transforma-tions in the structure of the world for us.
I have used Rachel Grossman's (1980) image of women in the integrated circuit to name the situation of women in a world so intimately restructured through the social relations of science and technology.
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.
Some of the rearrangements of race, sex, and class rooted in high-tech-facilitated social relations can make socialist-feminism more relevant to effective progressive politics.
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.
Although he includes the phenomenon of literal homework emerging in connecdon with electronics assembly, Gordon intends 'homework economy' to name a restructuring of work that broadly has the characteristics formerly ascribed to female jobs, jobs literally done only by women.
To be feminized means To be made extremely vulnerable; able To be disassembled, reassembled, exploited as a reserve labour force; seen less as workers than as servers; subjected To dme arrangements on and off the paid job that make a mockery of a limited work day; leading an existence that always borders on being obscene, out of place, and reducible To sex.
Deskilling is an old strategy newly applicable to formerly privileged workers.
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.
Rather, the concept indicates that factory, home, and market are integrated on a new scale and that the places of women are crucial - and need to be analysed for differences among women and for meanings for relations between men and women in various situations.
The success of the attack on relatively privileged, mostly white, men's unionized jobs is deaf to the power of the new communications technologies to integrate and control labour despite extensive dispersion and decentralization.
The consequences of the new technologies are felt by women both in the loss of the family (male) wage (if they ever had access to this white privilege) and in the character of their own jobs, which are becoming capitalintensive; for example, office work and nursing.
The new economic and technological arrangements are also related to the collapsing welfare state and the ensuing intensification of demands on women to sustain daily life for themselves as well as for men, children, and old people.
Teenage women in industrializing areas of the Third World increasingly find themselves the sole or major source of a cash wage for their families, while access to land is ever more problemadc.
Within the framework of three major stages of capitalism (commercial/ early industrial, monopoly, multinational) --tied to nationalism, imperialism, and multinationalism, and related to Jameson's three dominant aesthetic periods of realism, modernism, and postmodernism --I would argue that specific forms of families dialectically relate to forms of capital and to its political and cultural concomitants.
As robodcs and related technologies put men out of work in 'developed' countries and exacerbate failure to generate male jobs in Third World 'development', and as the automated of fice becomes the rule even in labour-surplus countries, the feminization of work intensifies.
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.
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.
Green Revolution technologies interact with other high-tech industrial production to alter gender divisions of labour and differential gender migration patterns.
The new communications technologies are fundamental to the eradication of 'public life' for everyone.
Technologies like video games and highly miniaturized televi-sions seem crucial to production of modern forms of 'private life'.
The culture of video games is heavily orientated to individual compedtion and extraterrestrial warfare.
These are the technologies that promise ultimate mobility and perfect exchange-- and incidentally enable tourism, that perfect practice of mobility and exchange, to emerge as one of the world's largest single industries.
Among the many transformations of reproductive situations is the medical one, where women's bodies have boundaries newly permeable to both 'visualization' and 'intervention'.
The speculum served as an icon of women's claiming their bodies in the 1970S; that handcraft tool is inadequate to express our needed body politics in the negotiation of reality in the practices of cyborg reproduction.
A major social and political danger is the formation of a strongly bimodal social structure, with the masses of women and men of all ethnic groups, but especially people of colour, confined to a homework economy, illiteracy of several varieties, and general redundancy and impotence, controlled by high-tech repressive apparatuses ranging from entertainment to surveillance and disappearance.
What kind of political accountability can be constructed to the women together across the scientific-technical hierarchies separating us?
Many sciendfic and technical workers in Silicon Valley, the high-tech cowboys included, do not want to work on military science.
Can these personal preferences and cultural tendencies be welded into progressive politics among this professional middle class in which women, including women of colour, are coming to be fairly numerous?
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.
So let me return to the earlier image of the informatics of domination and trace one vision of women's 'place' in the integrated circuit, touching only a few idealized social locations seen primarily from the point of view of advanced capitalist societies: Home, Market, Paid Work Place, State, School, Clinic-Hospital, and Church.
Each of these idealized spaces is logically and practically implied in every other locus, perhaps analogous to a holographic photograph.
I want to suggest the impact of the social relations mediated and enforced by the new technologies in order to help formulate needed analysis and practical work.
However, there is no 'place' for women in these networks, only geometries of difference and contradiction crucial to women's cyborg identities.
If we learn how to read these webs of power and social life, we might learn new couplings, new coalitions.
There is no way to read the following list from a standpoint of'idendfication', of a unitary self.
The task is to survive in the diaspora.
Market: Women's continuing consumption work, newly targeted to buy the profusion of new production from the new technologies (especially as the competitive race among industrialized and industrializing nations to avoid dangerous mass unemployment necessitates finding ever bigger new markets for ever less clearly needed commodities); bimodal buying power, coupled with advertising targeting of the numerous affluent groups and neglect of the previous mass markets; growing importance of informal markets in labour and commodities parallel to high-tech, affluent market structures; surveillance systems through electronic funds transfer; intensified market abstraction (commodification) of experience, resulting in ineffective utopian or equivalent cynical theories of community; extreme mobility (abstraction) of marketing/financing systems; interpenetration of sexual and labour markets; intensified sexualization of abstracted and alienated consumption.
Paid Work Place: Continued intense sexual and racial division of labour, but considerable growth of membership in privileged occupational categories for many white women and people of colour; impact of new technologies on women's work in clerical, service, manufacturing (especially textiles), agriculture, electronics; international restructuring of the working classes; development of new time arrangements to facilitate the homework economy (flex time, part time, over time, no time); homework and out work; increased pressures for two-tiered wage structures; significant numbers of people in cash-dependent populations world-wide with no experience or no further hope of stable employment; most labour 'marginal' or 'feminized'.
State: Continued erosion of the welfare state; decentralizations with increased surveillance and control; citizenship by telematics; imperialism and political power broadly in the form of information rich/information poor differentiation; increased high-tech militarization increasingly opposed by many social groups; reduction of civil service jobs as a result of the growing capital intensification of office work, with implications for occupational mobility for women of colour; growing privadzation of material and ideological life and culture; close integration of privatization and militarization, the high-tech forms of bourgeois capitalist personal and public life; invisibility of different social groups to each other, linked to psychological mechanisms of belief in abstract enemies.
Clinic-hospital: Intensified machine-body relations; renegotiations of public metaphors which channel personal experience of the body, particularly in relation to reproduction, immune system functions, and 'stress' phenomena; intensification of reproductive politics in response to world historical implications of women's unrealized, potential control of their relation to reproduction; emergence of new, historically specific diseases; struggles over meanings and means of health in environments pervaded by high technology products and processes; continuing feminization of health work; intensified struggle over state responsibility for health; continued ideological role of popular health movements as a major form of American politics.
The only way to characterize the informatics of domination is as a massive intensification of insecurity and cultural impoverishment, with common failure of subsistence networks for the most vulnerable.
Since much of this picture interweaves with the social relations of science and technology, the urgency of a socialist-feminist politics addressed to science and technology is plain.
For example, the efforts to develop forms of collecdve struggle for women in paid work, like SEIU's District 925,* should be a high priority for all of us.
These efforts are profoundly deaf to technical restructuring of labour processes and reformations of working classes.
The structural rearrangements related to the social relations of science and technology evoke strong ambivalence.
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.
Present efforts - Marxist, psychoanalytic, feminist, anthropological-- to clarify even 'our' experience are rudimentary.
There are more grounds for hope in focusing on the contradictory effects of politics designed to produce loyal American technocrats, which also produced large numbers of dissidents, than in focusing on the present defeats.
We do not need a totality in order to work well.
In that sense, dialectics too is a dream language, longing to resolve contradiction.
Perhaps, ironically, we can learn from our fusions with animals and machines how not to be Man, the embodiment of Western logos.
CYBORGS: A MYTH OF POLITICAL IDENTITY I want to conclude with a myth about idendty and boundaries which might inform late twentieth-century political imaginations (Plate 1).
I am indebted in this story to writers like Joanna Russ, Samuel R. Delany, John Varley, James Tiptree, Jr, Octavia Butler, Monique Wittig, and Vonda McIntyre.
These are our story-tellers exploring what it means to be embodied in high-tech worlds.
Exploring concephons of bodily boundaries and social order, the anthropologist Mary Douglas (1966, 1970) should be credited with helping us to consciousness about how fundamental body imagery is to world view, and so to political language.
French feminists like Luce Irigaray and Monique Wittig, for all their differences, know how to write the body; how to weave eroticism, cosmology, and politics from imagery of embodiment, and especially for Wittig, from imagery of fragmentation and reconstitution of bodies.
They insist on the organic, opposing it to the technological.
In my political myth, Sister Outsider is the offshore woman, whom US workers, female and feminized, are supposed to regard as the enemy prevendug their solidarity, threatening their security.
Literacy, especially in English, distinguishes the 'cheap' female labour so attractive to the multinationals.
Contrary to orientalist stereotypes of the 'oral primidve', literacy is a special mark of women of colour, acquired by US black women as well as men through a history of risking death to learn and to teach reading and wridng.
Writing has been crucial to the Western myth of the distinction between oral and written cultures, primitive and civilized mentalities, and more recently to the erosion of that distinction in 'postmodernist' theories attacking the phallogo-centrism of the West, with its worship of the monotheistic, phallic, authoritative, and singular work, the unique and perfect name.
The poetry and stories of US women of colour are repeatedly about writing, about access to the power to signify; but this dme that power must be neither phallic nor innocent.
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.
Feminist cyborg stories have the task of recoding communication and intelligence to subvert command and control.
Cherrie Moraga (1983) in Loving in the War Years explores the themes of identity when one never possessed the original language, never told the original story, never resided in the harmony of legitimate heterosexuality in the garden of culture, and so cannot base identity on a myth or a fall from innocence and right to natural names, mother's or father's.
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.
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.
These are the couplings which make Man and Woman so problematic, subverting the structure of desire, the force imagined to generate language and gender, and so subverting the structure and modes of reproduction of 'Western' idendty, of nature and culture, of mirror and eye, slave and master, body and mind.
'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'.
From the perspective of cyborgs, freed of the need to ground politics in 'our' privileged position of the oppression that incorporates all other dominations, the innocence of the merely violated, the ground of those closer to nature, we can see powerful possibilities.
Feminisms and Marxisms have run aground on Western epistemological imperatives to construct a revolutionary subject from the perspective of a hierarchy of oppressions and/or a latent position of moral superiority, innocence, and greater closeness to nature.
With no available original dream of a common language or original symbiosis promising protection from hostile 'masculine' separation, but written into the play of a text that has no finally privileged reading or salvation history, to recognize 'oneself' as fully implicated in the world, frees us of the need to root politics in identification, vanguard parties, purity, and mothering.
Every, story that begins with original innocence and privileges the return to wholeness imagines the drama of life to be individuation, separation, the birth of the self, the tragedy of autonomy, the fall into writing, alienation; that is, war, tempered by imaginary respite in the bosom of the Other.
In this plot women are imagined either better or worse off, but all agree they have less selflhood, weaker individuation, more fusion to the oral, to Mother, less at stake in masculine autonomy.
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.
These cyborgs are the people who refuse to disappear on cue, no matter how many dmes a 'western' commentator remarks on the sad passing of another primitive, another organic group done in by 'Western' technology, by writing.
To recapitulate, certain dualisms have been persistent in Western traditions; they have all been systemic To the logics and practices of domination of women, people of colour, nature, workers, animals - in short, domination of all constituted as others, whose task is To mirror the self.
The self is the One who is not dominated, who knows that by the semice of the other, the other is the one who holds the future, who knows that by the experience of domination, which gives the lie to the autonomy of the self.
To be One is To be autonomous, To be powerful, To be God; but To be One is To be an illusion, and so To be involved in a dialectic of apocalypse with the other.
Yet to be other is to be multiple, without clear boundary, frayed, insubstantial.
In so far as we know ourselves in both formal discourse (for example, biology) and in daily practice (for example, the homework economy in the integrated circuit), we find ourselves to be cyborgs, hybrids, mosaics, chimeras.
One consequence is that our sense of connection to our tools is heightened.
From the seventeenth century dll now, machines could be animated - given ghostly souls to make them speak or move or to account for their orderly development and mental capacides.
Or organisms could be mechan-ized - reduced to body understood as resource of mind.
We don't need organic holism to give impermeable whole-ness, the total woman and her feminist variants (mutants?).
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 feminist science fiction of Samuel R. Delany, especially Tales of Neveyon, mocks stories of origin by redoing the neolithic revolution, replaying the founding moves of Western civilization to subvert their plausibility.
Octavia Butler writes of an African sorceress pithug her powers of transformation against the genetic manipulations of her rival (Wild Seed), of dme warps that bring a modern US black woman into slavery where her actions in relation to her white master-ancestor determine the possibility of her own birth (Kindred), and of the illegidmate insights into idendty and community of an adopted cross-species child who came to know the enem' as self (Survivor).
In Dawn (1987), the first instalment of a series called Xenogenesis, Butler tells the story of Lilith Iyapo, whose personal name recalls Adam's first and repudiated wife and whose family name marks her status as the widow of the son of Nigerian immigrants to the US.
Orca, a genetically altered diver, can speak with killer whales and survive deep ocean conditions, but she longs to explore space as a pilot, necessitating bionic implants jeopardizing her kinship with the divers and cetaceans.
Radu Dracul survives a virus-caused plague in his outerworld planet to find himself with a time sense that changes the boundaries of spatial perception for the whole species.
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.
This is a conjunction with a long history that many 'First World' feminists have tried to repress, including myself in my readings of Superluminal before being called to account by Zoe Sofoulis, whose different location in the world system's informatics of domin-ation made her acutely alert to the imperialist moment of all science fiction cultures, including women's science fiction.
Unseparated twins and hermaphrodites were the confused human material in early modern France who grounded discourse on the natural and supernatural, medical and legal, portents and diseases -- all crucial to establishing modern identity.
There are several consequences to taking seriously the imagery of cyborgs as other than our enemies.
Intense pleasure in skill, machine skill, ceases to be a sin, but an aspect of embodiment.
The machine is not an it to be animated, worshipped, and dominated.
Up till now (once upon a time), female embodiment seemed to be given, organic, necessary; and female embodiment seemed to mean skill in mothering and its metaphoric exten-sions.
Only by being out of place could we take intense pleasure in machines, and then with excuses that this was organic activity after all, appropriate to females.
Feminists have recently claimed that women are given to dailiness, that women more than men somehow sustain daily life, and so have a privileged epistemo-logical position potentially.
There is a compelling aspect to this claim, one that makes visible unvalued female activity and names it as the ground of life.
What about men's access to daily competence, to knowing how to build things, to take them apart, to play?
There is no drive in cyborgs to produce total theory, but there is an intimate experience of boundaries, their construction and deconstruction.
There is a myth system waiting to become a political language to ground one way of looking at science and technology and challenging the informatics of domination-- in order to act potently.
I would suggest that cyborgs have more to do with regeneration and are suspicious of the reproductive matrix and of most birthing.
Cyborg imagery can suggest a way out of the maze of dualisms in which we have explained our bodies and our tools to ourselves.
It is an imagination of a feminist speaking in tongues to strike fear into the circuits of the supersavers of the new right.
XF constructs a feminism adapted to these realities: a feminism of unprecedented cunning, scale, and vision; a future in which the realization of gender justice and feminist emancipation contribute to a universalist politics assembled from the needs of every human, cutting across race, ability, economic standing, and geographical position.
No more futureless repetition on the treadmill of capital, no more submission to the drudgery of labour, productive and reproductive alike, no more reification of the given masked as critique.
0x01 XF seizes alienation as an impetus to generate new worlds.
Anyone who's been deemed 'unnatural' in the face of reigning biological norms, anyone who's experienced injustices wrought in the name of natural order, will realize that the glorification of 'nature' has nothing to offer us -- the queer and trans among us, the differently-abled, as well as those who have suffered discrimination due to pregnancy or duties connected to child-rearing.
0x02 Why is there so little explicit, organized effort to repurpose technologies for progressive gender political ends?
XF seeks to strategically deploy existing technologies to re-engineer the world.
Serious risks are built into these tools; they are prone to imbalance, abuse, and exploitation of the weak.
Rather than pretending to risk nothing, XF advocates the necessary assembly of techno-political interfaces responsive to these risks.
Technoscientific innovation must be linked to a collective theoretical and political thinking in which women, queers, and the gender non-conforming play an unparalleled role.
Fed by the market, its rapid growth is offset by bloat, and elegant innovation is surrendered to the buyer, whose stagnant world it decorates.
Beyond the noisy clutter of commodified cruft, the ultimate task lies in engineering technologies to combat unequal access to reproductive and pharmacological tools, environmental cataclysm, economic instability, as well as dangerous forms of unpaid/underpaid labour.
Gender inequality still characterizes the fields in which our technologies are conceived, built, and legislated for, while female workers in electronics (to name just one industry) perform some of the worst paid, monotonous and debilitating labour.
To claim that reason or rationality is 'by nature' a patriarchal enterprise is To concede defeat.
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.
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.
Systematic thinking and structural analysis have largely fallen by the wayside in favour of admirable, but insufficient struggles, bound to fixed localities and fragmented insurrections.
Whilst capitalism is understood as a complex and ever-expanding totality, many would-be emancipat- tory anti-capitalist projects remain profoundly fearful of transitioning to the universal, resisting big-picture speculative politics by condemning them as necessarily oppressive vectors.
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.
0x06 Global complexity opens us to urgent cognitive and ethical demands.
Much of twenty-first century feminism -- from the remnants of postmodern identity politics to large swathes of contemporary ecofeminism -- struggles to adequately address these challenges in a manner capable of producing substantial and enduring change.
Xenofeminism endeavours to face up to these obligations as collective agents capable of transitioning between multiple levels of political, material and conceptual organization.
XF urges constructive oscillation between description and prescription to mobilize the recursive potential of contemporary technologies upon gender, sexuality and disparities of power.
Given that there are a range of gendered challenges specifically relating to life in a digital age -- from sexual harassment via social media, to doxxing, privacy, and the protection of online images -- the situation requires a feminism at ease with computation.
We want to cultivate the exercise of positive freedom -- freedom to rather than simply freedom-from -- and urge feminists to equip themselves with the skills to redeploy existing technologies and invent novel cognitive and material tools in the service of common ends.
0x08 The radical opportunities afforded by developing (and alienating) forms of technological mediation should no longer be put to use in the exclusive interests of capital, which, by design, only benefits the few.
There are incessantly proliferating tools to be annexed, and although no one can claim their comprehensive accessibility, digital tools have never been more widely available or more sensitive to appropriation than they are today.
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.
Illusion, as the blind presumption that the weak can prevail over the strong with no strategic coordination, leads to unfulfilled promises and unmarshalled drives.
On the other hand, melancholy -- so endemic to the left -- teaches us that emancipation is an extinct species to be wept over and that blips of negation are the best we can hope for.
0x0A We take politics that exclusively valorize the local in the guise of subverting currents of global abstraction, to be insufficient.
To secede from or disavow capitalist machinery will not make it disappear.
Likewise, suggestions to pull the lever on the emergency brake of embedded velocities, the call to slow down and scale back, is a possibility available only to the few -- a violent particularity of exclusivity -- ultimately entailing catas- trophe for the many.
Refusing to think beyond the microcommunity, to foster connections between fractured insurgencies, to consider how emancipatory tactics can be scaled up for universal implementation, is to remain satisfied with temporary and defensive gestures.
0x0B A sense of the world's volatility and artificiality seems to have faded from contemporary queer and feminist politics, in favour of a plural but static constellation of gender identities, in whose bleak light equations of the good and the natural are stubbornly restored.
While having (perhaps) admirably expanded thresholds of 'tolerance', too often we are told to seek solace in unfreedom, staking claims on being 'born' this way, as if offering an excuse with nature's blessing.
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.
0x0C If 'cyberspace' once offered the promise of escaping the strictures of essentialist identity categories, the climate of contemporary social media has swung forcefully in the other direction, and has become a theatre where these prostrations to identity are performed.
Valuable platforms for connection, organization, and skill-sharing become clogged with obstacles to productive debate positioned as if they are debate.
Under patriarchy, such a project could only spell disaster -- the notion of what is 'gendered' sticks disproportionately to the feminine.
'Gender abolitionism' is shorthand for the ambition to construct a society where traits currently assembled under the rubric of gender, no longer furnish a grid for the asymmetric operation of power.
The universal must be grasped as generic, which is to say, intersectional.
0x10 From the postmoderns, we have learnt to burn the facades of the false universal and dispel such confusions; from the moderns, we have learnt to sift new universals from the ashes of the false.
Xenofeminism seeks to construct a coalitional politics, a politics without the infection of purity.
Wielding the universal requires thoughtful qualification and precise self-reflection so as to become a ready to hand tool for multiple political bodies and something that can be appropriated against the numerous oppressions that transect with gender and sexuality.
The very process of construction is therefore understood to be a negentropic, iterative, and continual refashioning.
Xenofeminism seeks to be a mutable architecture that, like open source software, remains available for perpetual modification and enhancement following the navigational impulse of militant ethical reasoning.
The most durable systems in the world owe their stability to the way they train order to emerge as an 'invisible hand' from apparent spontaneity; or exploit the inertia of investment and sedimentation.
We should not hesitate to learn from our adversaries or the successes and failures of history.
With this in mind, XF seeks ways to seed an order that is equitable and just, injecting it into the geometry of freedoms these platforms afford.
0x11 Our lot is cast with technoscience, where nothing is so sacred that it cannot be reengineered and transformed so as to widen our aperture of freedom, extending to gender and the human.
To say that nothing is sacred, that nothing is transcendent or protected from the will To know, To tinker and To hack, is To say that nothing is supernatural.
The project of untangling what ought to be from what is, of dissociating freedom from fact, will from knowledge, is, indeed, an infinite task.
But this does not mean that cyberfeminist sensibilities belong to the past.
Sorting the subversive possibilities from the oppressive ones latent in today's web requires a feminism sensitive to the insidious return of old power structures, yet savvy enough to know how to exploit the potential.
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.
Rather than arguing for the primacy of the virtual over the material, or the material over the virtual, xenofeminism grasps points of power and powerlessness in both, to unfold this knowledge as effective interventions in our jointly composed reality.
Changes to the built environment harbour some of the most significant possibilities in the reconfiguration of the horizons of women and queers.
With the potential to foreclose, restrict, or open up future social conditions, xenofeminists must become attuned to the language of architecture as a vocabulary for collective choreo-graphy -- the coordinated writing of space.
0x15 From the street to the home, domestic space too must not escape our tentacles.
So profoundly ingrained, domestic space has been deemed impossible to disembed, where the home as norm has been conflated with home as fact, as an un-remakeable given.
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.
0x16 From the home to the body, the articulation of a proactive politics for biotechnical intervention and hormones presses.
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.
To trade in the rule of bureaucrats for the market is, however, not a victory in itself.
These tides need to rise higher.
We ask whether the idiom of 'gender hacking' is extensible into a long-range strategy, a strategy for wetware akin to what hacker culture has already done for software -- constructing an entire universe of free and open source platforms that is the closest thing to a practicable communism many of us have ever seen.
Without the foolhardy endangerment of lives, can we stitch together the embryonic promises held before us by pharmaceutical 3D printing ('Reactionware'), grassroots telemedical abortion clinics, gender hacktivist and DIY-HRT forums, and so on, to assemble a platform for free and open source medicine?
0x17 From the global to the local, from the cloud to our bodies, xenofeminism avows the responsibility in constructing new institutions of technomaterialist hegemonic proportions.
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 are we to become hosts of this new world?
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?
We prefer to think like the schemer or lisper, who seeks to construct a new language in which the problem at hand is immersed, so that solutions for it, and for any number of related problems, might unfurl with ease.
Xenofeminism is a platform, an incipient ambition to construct a new language for sexual politics -- a language that seizes its own methods as materials to be reworked, and incrementally bootstraps itself into existence.
Ours is a transformation of seeping, directed subsumption rather than rapid overthrow; it is a transformation of deliberate construction, seeking to submerge the white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy in a sea of procedures that soften its shell and dismantle its defenses, so as to build a new world from the scraps.
0x1A Xenofeminism indexes the desire to construct an alien future with a triumphant X on a mobile map.
In affirming a future untethered to the repetition of the present, we militate for ampliative capacities, for spaces of freedom with a richer geometry than the aisle, the assembly line, and the feed.
This is thought to slow the rate of resistance mutation caused in susceptible insect and weed species by gene transfer from GM (Genetically Modi fied) monoculture crops.
REFUGIA: A reproducible concept that can be adapted to various climates, economies, and geographical regions worldwide.
Not a retreat, but a space resistant to mono culture in all its social, environmental, libidinal, political, and genetic forms.
REFUGIA: A space of imaginative inertia that slows down the engines of corporate agro/biotech and allows time to assess its risks and benefits through long-term testing.
Cyberfeminist manifesto for the 21st century [EN] (1991)
the clitoris is a direct line to the matrix.
So what's the new millenium got to offer the dirty modemless masses?
The tingling sensation in the tips of your fingers are my synapses responding to your touch.
Trying to flee the binary I enter the chromozone which is not one.
The limit is NO CARRIER, the sudden shock of no contact, reaching out to touch but the skin is cold....
The limit is NO CARRIER, the sudden shock of no contact, reaching out to touch but the skin is cold....
Then the artist moved from the grain of celluloid to the magnetic distortion and scanning lines of the cathode ray tube.
The consumer only has to dial #1-800 to stay on top of the technological curve, the waves of both euphoria and disappointment.
The user has to realize that improving is nothing more than a proprietary protocol, a deluded consumer myth about progression towards a holy grail of perfection.
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.
The quest for complete transparency has changed the computer system into a highly complex assemblage that is often hard to penetrate and sometimes even completely closed off.
Some artists set out to elucidate and deconstruct the hierarchies of these systems of assemblage.
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, they use the computers’ inherent maxims as a façade, to trick the audience into a flow of certain expectation that the artwork subsequently rapidly breaks out of.
As a result, the spectator is forced to acknowledge that the use of the computer is based on a genealogy of conventions, while in reality the computer is a machine that can be bend or used in many different ways.
I use these instances to exploit noise artifacts, that I sub-divide as glitch, encoding / decoding (of which compression is the most ordinary form) and feedback artifacts.
Etymologically, the term “noise” refers to states of aggression, alarm and powerful sound phenomena in nature ('rauschen'), such as storm, thunder and the roaring sea.
Here noise exists within the void opposite to what (already) has a meaning.
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.
As a holistic celebration rather than a particular perfection the glitch can reveal a new opportunity, a spark of creative energy that indicates that something new is about to be created.
Even so, to me, the word ‘glitch’ in ‘glitch art’ means something slightly different than the term ‘glitch’.
Glitch art is often about relaying the membrane of the normal, to create a new protocol after shattering an earlier one.
The 'foreign' input (wrongly encoded syntaxes that lead to forbidden leakages and data promiscuity), the hardware and the software (the 'channel' that shows functional?
Moreover, some of the techniques I (and others) used became easily reproducible for other people, either because I explained my working process, or sometimes because of the development of a software or plugin that automatically simulated or recreated a glitching method (that then became something close to an ‘effect’).
I have started to believe that the popularization and cultivation of the avant-garde of mishaps has become predestined and unavoidable.
The procedural essence of glitch art is opposed to conservation; the shocking experience, perception and understanding of what a glitch is at one point in time, cannot be preserved to a future time.
The beautiful creation of a glitch is uncanny and sublime; the artist tries to catch something that is the result of an uncertain balance, a shifting, un-catchable, unrealized utopia connected to randomness and idyllic disintegrations.
They skip the process of creation-by-destruction and focus directly on the creation of a formally new design, either by creating a final product or by developing a new way to re-create or simulate the latest glitch-archetype.
There is an obvious critique: to design a glitch means to domesticate it.
It is no longer a break from a flow within a technology, or a method to open up the political discourse, but instead a cultivation.
Therefore, the products of these new filters that come to existence after (or without) the momentum of a glitch cannot be excluded from the realm of glitch art.
Even so, the utopian fantasy of 'technological democracy' or 'freedom' that glitch art is often connected to, has often little to, do with the colonialism of these glitch art designs and glitch filters.
If there is such a thing as technological freedom, this can only be found within the procedural momentum of glitch art; when a glitch is just about to relay a protocol.
Not when “one disruptive click is just about to create a new design”.
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.
Within software art, the glitch is often used to deconstruct the myth of linear progress and to end the search for the holy grail called the perfect technology.
This fatal manner of glitch presents a problem for media and art historians, who try to describe old and new culture as a continuum of different niches.
To deal with these breaks, historians have repeatedly coined new genres and new media forms To give these splinter practices a place within this continuum.
As a result, an abundance of designations like databending, datamoshing and circuitbending have come to existence, which in fact all refer to similar practices of breaking flows within different technologies or platforms.
Unfortunately, these kinds of terms are misleading because in glitch art ‘post’ actually often means a reaction to a primer 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).
I think that an answer to the problems of both historians and theoreticians could be found when glitch art is described as a procedural activity demonstrating against and within multiple technologies.
I have learned to ignore the interface and all structural components, to be able to understand a message and to use the technology as easy and fast as possible.
This realization gives me the opportunity to concentrate better on their formal qualities - to interpret their structures and to learn more from what I can actually see.