A recent post included a documentary on Rojava’s all-female military units. Abdullah Ocalan, their leader, wrote this essay: Killing the dominant male: Instituting the Third Sexual Rupture against the dominant male. It’s a good example of what we’re missing out on in the United States, where the political spectrum is super narrow and to the far right. However these ideas look on paper, the Kurds are doing more to dismantle patriarchy than the most correct-on-paper of #MeToo activists.
Although male dominance is well institutionalised, men too are enslaved. The system is in fact reproducing itself in the individual male and female and their relationship. Therefore, if we want to defeat the system, we need a radical, new approach towards woman, man and their relationship.
History, in a sense, is the history of the dominant male who gained power with the rise of classed society. The ruling class character is formed concurrent with the dominant male character. Again, rule is validated through mythological lies and divine punishment. Beneath these masks lies the reality of bare force and coarse exploitation. In the name of honour, man seized the position and rights of woman in the most insidious, traitorous and despotic manner. The fact that, throughout history, woman was left bereft of her identity and character – the eternal captive – at the hands of man, has caused considerably more damage than class division has. The captivity of woman is a measure of society’s general enslavement and decline; it is also a measure of its lies, theft and tyranny. The dominant male character of society has to date not even allowed for scientific analysis of the phenomenon of woman.
The fundamental question is why man is so jealous, dominant and villainous where woman is concerned; why he continues to play the rapist. Undoubtedly, rape and domination are phenomena related to social exploitation; they reflect society’s rape by hierarchy, patriarchy and power. If we look a little deeper, we will see that these acts also express a betrayal of life.
Woman’s multi-faceted devotion to life may clarify man’s societal sexist stand. Societal sexism means the loss of wealth of life under the blinding and exhausting influence of sexism and the consequent rise of anger, rape and a dominating stance.
Expressing such views in the United States will cause women to react with disgust at “male feminists” and their underhanded ways.
This is a strange mix of good points, essentialism, and an inversion of Freud’s penis envy.
This is why it is important to place on the agenda the problem of man, which is far more serious than the issue of woman. It is probably more difficult to analyse the concepts of domination and power, concepts related to man. It is not woman but man that is unwilling to transform. He fears that abandoning the role of the dominant male figure would leave him in the position of the monarch who has lost his state. He should be made aware that this most hollow form of domination leaves him bereft of freedom as well and, even worse, it forecloses reform.
In order to lead a meaningful life, we need to define woman and her role in societal life. This should not be a statement about her biological attributes and social status but an analysis of the all-important concept of woman as a being. If we can define woman, it may be possible to define man. Using man as point of departure when defining woman or life will render invalid interpretations because woman’s natural existence is more central than man’s. Woman’s status is demeaned and made out to be insignificant by the male dominant society, but this should not prevent us from forming a valid understanding of her reality.
Thus, it is clear that woman’s physique is not deficient or inferior; to the contrary, the female body is more central than that of man. This is the root of man’s extreme and meaningless jealousy.
A lot of truth and also the idea that Men Are The Real Victims.
The natural consequence of their differing physiques is that woman’s emotional intelligence is much stronger than man’s is. Emotional intelligence is connected to life; it is the intelligence that governs empathy and sympathy. Even when woman’s analytic intelligence develops, her emotional intelligence gives her the talent to live a balanced life, to be devoted to life, not to be destructive.
As can be seen even from this short argumentation, man is a system. The male has become a state and turned this into the dominant culture. Class and sexual oppression develop together; masculinity has generated ruling gender, ruling class, and ruling state. When man is analysed in this context, it is clear that masculinity must be killed.
Indeed, to kill the dominant man is the fundamental principle of socialism. This is what killing power means: to kill the one-sided domination, the inequality and intolerance. Moreover, it is to kill fascism, dictatorship and despotism. We should broaden this concept to include all these aspects.
Liberating life is impossible without a radical woman’s revolution which would change man’s mentality and life. If we are unable to make peace between man and life and life and woman, happiness is but a vain hope. Gender revolution is not just about woman. It is about the five thousand years old civilisation of classed society which has left man worse off than woman. Thus, this gender revolution would simultaneously mean man’s liberation.
This is where the strength of anarchism as an ideology is an apparent. It’s comprehensive.
I have often written about “total divorce”, i.e. the ability to divorce from the five thousand years old culture of male domination. The female and male gender identities that we know today are constructs that were formed much later than the biological female and male. Woman has been exploited for thousands of years according to this constructed identity; never acknowledged for her labour. Man has to overcome always seeing woman as wife, sister, or lover – stereotypes forged by tradition and modernity.
Claiming that we first have to address the question of state then the question of family, is not sound. No serious social problem can be understood if addressed in isolation. A far more effective method is to look at everything within the totality, to render meaning to each question within its relationship to the other. This method also holds when we try to resolve problems. Analysing the social mentality without analysing the state, analysing the state without analysing the family, and analysing the woman without analysing the man would render insufficient results. We need to analyse these social phenomena as an integrated whole; if not, the solutions we arrive at will be inadequate.
“Intersectionality” follows naturally from all this.
Radical feminism is really a subset of anarchism, or at least logically entailed by anarchism.
The solutions for all social problems in the Middle East should have woman’s position as focus. The fundamental objective for the period ahead of us must be to realise the third major sexual rupture; this time against the male. Without gender equality, no demand for freedom and equality can be meaningful. In fact, freedom and equality cannot be realised without the achievement of gender equality. The most permanent and comprehensive component of democratisation is woman’s freedom. The societal system is most vulnerable because of the unresolved question of woman; woman who was first turned into property and who today is a commodity; completely, body and soul. The role the working class have once played, must now be taken over by the sisterhood of women. So, before we can analyse class, we must be able to analyse the sisterhood of women – this will enable us to form a much clearer understanding of the issues of class and nationality. Woman’s true freedom is only possible if the enslaving emotions, needs and desires of husband, father, lover, brother, friend and son can all be removed. The deepest love constitutes the most dangerous bonds of ownership. We will not be able to discern the characteristics of a free woman if we cannot conduct a stringent critique of the thought, religious and art patterns concerning woman generated by the male dominated world.
Woman’s freedom cannot just be assumed once a society has obtained general freedom and equality. A separate and distinct organisation is essential and woman’s freedom should be of a magnitude equal to its definition as a phenomenon. Of course a general democratisation movement may also uncover opportunities for woman. But it will not bring democracy on its own. Women need to determine their own democratic aim, and institute the organisation and effort to realise it. To achieve this, a special definition of freedom is essential in order for woman to break free from the slavery ingrained in her.
I’m not prepared to go full love is just a bourgeois construct.
If you love something, let it go. Love isn’t ultimately satisfying if it’s not freely given. The reality of life is that we have horrible insecurities and self-doubts, whose pain we try to alleviate in the people we love. This is the basis of monogamy, not “ownership.”