(no subject)

Someone emailed this to me as a submission for the site, but since i can't access the site, I'll just put it here for now...


Stop Wasting My Time - ropand@aol.com
We need to decide to be effective, to start taking power and our struggles seriously. The Left – and by that I mean counter-hegemonic movements that wants to organise power, and therefore wealth, equitably; or, in simpler speak, social justice movements – is weak. We need to build movement. This means committing ourselves to grounded and long-term organising.

We know largely where we are at. We have histories to guide us. We know the state and captialism – institutionalised in corporations – are among our main enemies. Despite debates about just what the state is we know when we encounter it. We know it in the courtrooms, and when confronted by police. We know it in the army tanks that drive into indigenous communities and when we cross borders. We confront the corporations whenever we confront the state, and the state whenever we confront capitalism. More often than not, it is hard to tell them apart. Working as one, the state and corporations inflict immense violence on people and the earth. We know we must stop their work.

Despite this knowledge, our dependence on the state and corporations is immense. We cannot feed, house, transport, educate, or heal ourselves without them. We are asking people to join us in a movement to end the work of the state and capitalism, but we depend on them to meet our most basic needs. The paradox in this is so stark as to outline a fundamental requirement of the Left: we must learn and organise to depend on ourselves, to create our own power, a counter-power.

This is not a new idea. People on the Left have long been theorising the process by which, instead of taking state power, we build our own power base, thereby rendering state and corporate power redundant and giving us the autonomy we need to struggle against them. We have only to look at the Zapatistas to see counter-power in action. These indigenous communities are meeting their basic needs autonomously. Of course, projects focused on meeting our basic needs risk marginalising the need for structural change, but projects that do nothing to meet these needs risk becoming purely symbolic.

From a feminist perspective, building a counter-power must include localising community tasks of caring for one another, for children, our elders, the sick, and the spaces we learn, work and live in. When this caretaking work is shared, it enables women – on whom most caretaking work usually falls - the time and energy to develop themselves in other ways than caretakers. Only by sharing this work can we remove ourselves from capitalism's sphere, from a dependency on payable people – usually poor non-white women - to act as caretakers.

I am not interested in building counter-power that is not consciously feminist. It is easy to imagine communities building counter-power in which violence against women is a daily naturalised phenomenon, in which women are objectified, and in which gendered
divisions of labour continue to disproportionately undervalue the work of women. It is easy because
in so much leftist movement this happens. This writing addresses the latter issue: it is a vocalisation of my frustration at the unwillingness of men to acknowledge that women do a disproportionate amount of undervalued invisible caretaking work in the world and the Left. Caretaking includes childcare, cleaning, cooking and emotional work. This work should be visible, valued and shared. This is not to say that no men do any of these things, simply that women do most of it.

In my late teens, I realized that women were often more active and sensitive listeners and more supportive than men. Later, when I “became political”, I found that, whereas men and women were both present around activism, women did most of the organising. I found also that men in the Left talked too much. This, combined with experiencing everything from sleaziness to sexual assault from leftist men, led me to organise almost entirely with women. I am suddenly doing political work with more men than I ever have before. As a group these men are not doing their share of caretaking work. This, coupled with the fact that men outside the left also do not do a fair share of caretaking work, means that I feel surrounded by men who – like boys demand caretaking but do not give in return.

When I point out this inequity to men, they respond in different ways. Some say that when you clean in front of them they feel “guilty”, but they nevertheless do not help. Others say they don't have to clean up after themselves because they “do other stuff”, are “good activists” or “do favours” for you. Others say cleanliness is relative; if you are bothered by their mess, that is your problem. Others point to the cleaning they do. This behaviour is a testament to the ongoing conviction amongst men that doing some cleaning is exceptional, wheras women think doing some cleaning is an obvious part of life.

Men who make women ask them to do obvious caretaking work don't respect the energy required to do this asking. Nor do they respect that they are forcing us into a problematic gender role whereby women become nags, mothers, or angry bitches.

Men tell me they have few male friends with whom they talk about how they are feeling. Women tell me they usually rely on female friends for their emotional needs. I take from this and my personal experience that fewer men than women are doing the day-to-day emotional work necessary to get us through life's ups and downs. Often men not practised in giving
emotional support nonetheless demand it from women, so women are asked to give but can expect little in return. I seldom hear men on the Left express gratitude
for the emotional work women do. It is as if this work is invisible. This has contributed to my frustration when men ask formally at collective meetings how they might support a woman in a trying situation. I have wanted to say that, because women are practised caretakers, we know how to support without always asking or waiting to be told and so support first and support well. By the time men ask formally how they can help, women already have the bases covered.

While some men have made conscious efforts to unlearn sexist behaviour – including how to do and proactively doing caretaking work – these men are few. For many others, women's caretaking work remains invisible. To these men, I think it is worth considering the idea of a privileged standpoint. People experience the world differently and thus have different knowledge of the world, but this knowledge is not all equal. Rather, those groups disadvantaged by power have a privileged perspective of the world. A person who grows up in a working class household, without inherited wealth, income security, a university fund, and “connections” that come from inherited social capital, has experiences that lend themselves to a critique of class privilege. Affluent people, less aware of differences between their opportunities and those of less affluent people, will believe that they have “earned” their class positionality. Likewise, people of colour suffer racial profiling, discrimination in the housing and job market, differential treatment from
educators and healthcare workers, have experiences that lend themselves to a critique of race privilege. White people, will often not see their own privilege. This does not mean all knowledge is relative, because we read power into these differences.

The same extends to men's and women's respective knowledge of the world. If men do not see the caretaking work women do, that does not mean women don't do it or that women's complaints can be ignored. It means men must look harder. If men don't see women's work, it is because this labour inequity is so normal as to not merit thought. It is inconvenient to women and thus we question it more.

Unless you are one of a small number of men who gets it, you should take personal responsibility for the collective short falling of men as a gender. This is not to say that by doing more caretaking work you will single-handedly dismantle the patriarchy. This is rather to say that the politics of patriarchy manifest in individual behaviour. The personal is political. When men refuse to equitably share care-taking work with women, they are flexing their privilege and they are wasting women's time.

Women carry fatigue and frustration at the invisibility of their work around them for along time before finally overflowing with anger. When we do overflow, often we do so at one or two men who happen to not be doing their share at that particular moment at which we can take no more. Our anger, though directed at those one or two men, is also directed at a plethora of other men. Our anger is collective, but we can rarely gather together all the men who have pissed us off and speak to them collectively. The male behaviours that upset us happen in small and big ways every day but in such a dispersed way that we have no looming symbols or institutional centres, no corporate offices or parliamentary buildings, at which we can concentrate feminist protest. Rather, we politicise behavioral patterns.

This is important to remember when women lose it at men for something that to those men, might seem small. A small failure to do obvious caretaking work is part of a larger collective failure. This larger failure is the cause of our anger, and this anger is justified. When I am angry with men who behave like boys, it is not because I'm a bitch or a nag, but because these men are wasting my time, and I do not have much to spare. What will burn me out more quickly than the state and capitalism is the unwillingness of men in the Left to see, value and share the caretaking work women do. To men as a collective: please, open your eyes, take some personal responsibility and stop wasting my time.

June 2009
Mutiny Zine #39, June 2009, Sydney Australia. http://jura.org.au/files/jura/Muti… 39_web.pdf

yay, new stuff

Refusing to Wait: Anarchism and Intersectionality

"Without justice there can be no love."--bell hooks

by Deric Shannon (WSA/NEFAC) and J. Rogue (WSA/Common Action)


Anarchism can learn a lot from the feminist movement. In many respects it already has. Anarcha-feminists have developed analyses of patriarchy that link it to the state form. We have learned from the slogan that "the personal is political" (e.g. men who espouse equality between all genders should treat the women in their lives with dignity and respect). We have learned that no revolutionary project can be complete while men systematically dominate and exploit women; that socialism is a rather empty goal--even if it is "stateless"--if men's domination of women is left in tact.

This essay argues that anarchists can likewise learn from the theory of "intersectionality" that emerged from the feminist movement. Indeed, anarchist conceptions of class struggle have widened as a result of the rise of feminist movements, civil rights movements, gay and lesbian liberation movements (and, perhaps more contemporarily, the queer movements), disability rights movements, etc. But how do we position ourselves regarding those struggles? What is their relationship to the class struggle that undergirds the fight for socialism? Do we dismiss them as "mere identity politics" that obscure rather than clarify the historic task of the working class? If not, how might anarchists include their concerns in our political theory and work?

Why Intersectionality? How We Got here

Many people locate the beginning of the feminist movement in the U.S. with the struggle of women to gain the vote. This focus on electoralism was criticized for its narrowness by many turn-of-the-century radical women. After all, what did the vote provide for working class women? How could voting for a new set of rulers put food in their mouths and the mouths of their families? In fact, many radical women of this time period refused to identify as “feminists”, as they viewed feminism as a bourgeois women's movement unconcerned with the class struggle (for an interesting discussion of this in the context of early 1900s Spanish anarcho-syndicalism, see Ackelsberg 2005: 118-119 and 123-124). Indeed, many working class women saw their "feminist" contemporaries as being in alliance "with all the forces that have been the most determined enemies of the working people, of the poor and disinherited"--that is, they saw the early feminist movement as a purely bourgeois women's movement that had no solutions to the pervasive poverty and exploitation inherent in the working class experience in a classed society (Parker 2001: 125).

Anarchists of this time period, on the other hand, at times anticipated some of the arguments to come out of the feminist movement regarding intersectionality. We argued against the class reductionism that often occurred within the broader socialist milieu. Early anarchists were writing about issues such as prostitution and sex trafficking (Goldman 2001), forced sterilizations (Kropotkin 2001), and marriage (de Cleyre 2004 and 2001) to widen the anarchist critique of hierarchy to give critical concern to women's issues in their own right, while also articulating a socialist vision of a future cooperative and classless society. Much of this early work demonstrated connections between the oppression of women and the exploitation of the working class. The refusal of many working class women to join their “feminist” contemporaries likewise demonstrated some of the problems of a universalized identity-based feminism that saw women’s oppression as a hierarchy that can be fought without also fighting capitalism.

This is not to suggest that anarchists weren’t at times reductionist. Unfortunately, many anarchist men were dismissive of women’s concerns. Part of the reason that the Mujeres Libres saw a need for a separate women’s organization around the time of the Spanish Civil War was because "many anarchists treated the issue of women's subordination as, at best, secondary to the emancipation of workers, a problem that would be resolved 'on the morrow of the revolution'" (Ackelsberg 2005: 38). Unfortunately, in some contexts, this attitude isn't just a historical oddity, though it should be. And it was these kinds of assumptions that became an important theoretical backdrop for feminism's "Second Wave".

Competing Visions in the "Second Wave"

During the late 60s through the early 80s, new forms of feminism began to emerge. Many feminists seemed to gravitate to four competing theories with very different explanations for the oppression of women.

Like their historical bourgeois predecessors,liberal feminists saw no need for a revolutionary break with existing society. Rather, their focus was on breaking the "glass ceiling", getting more women into positions of political and economic power. Liberal feminists assumed that the existing institutional arrangements were fundamentally unproblematic. Their task was to see to women's equality accommodated under capitalism.

Another theory, sometimes referred to as radical feminism, argued for abandoning the "male Left", as it was seen as hopelessly reductionist. Indeed, many women coming out of the Civil Rights movement and anti-war movements complained of pervasive sexism within the movements, being relegated to secretarial tasks, philandering male leaders, and a generalized alienation from Left politics. According to many radical feminists of the time, this was due to the primacy of the system of patriarchy--or men's systematic and institutionalized domination of women. To these feminists, the battle against patriarchy was the primary struggle to create a free society, as gender was our most entrenched and oldest hierarchy (see especially Firestone 1970).

Marxist feminists, on the other hand, tended to locate women's oppression within the economic sphere. The fight against capitalism was seen as the "primary" battle, as "The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles"--that is, human history could be reduced to class (Marx and Engels 1967). Further, Marxist feminists tended to believe that the economic "base" of society had a determining effect on its cultural "superstructures". Thus, the only way to achieve equality between women and men would be to smash capitalism--as new, egalitarian economic arrangements would give rise to new, egalitarian superstructures. Such was the determining nature of the economic base.

Out of the conversations between Marxist feminism and radical feminism another approach emerged called "dual systems theory" (see e.g. Hartmann 1981; Young 1981). A product of what came to be dubbed socialist feminism, dual systems theory argued that feminists needed to develop "a theoretical account which gives as much weight to the system of patriarchy as to the system of capitalism" (Young 1981: 44). While this approach did much to resolve some of the arguments about which fight should be "primary" (i.e. the struggle against capitalism or the struggle against patriarchy), it still left much to be desired. For example, black feminists argued that this perspective left out a structural analysis of race (Joseph 1981). Further, where was oppression based on sexuality, ability, age, etc. in this analysis? Were all of these things reducible to capitalist patriarchy?

It is within this theoretical backdrop that intersectionality emerged. But it wasn't just abstraction and theory that led to these insights. As mentioned before, part of the reason feminists saw a need for a separate analysis of patriarchy as a systemic form of oppression was due to their experiences with the broader Left. Without an analysis of patriarchy that put it on equal footing with capitalism as an organizing system in our lives, there was no adequate response to male leaders who suggested that we deal with women's oppression after we deal with the "primary" or "more important" class struggle.

But these tensions were not limited to the Left, they also existed within the feminist movement. Perhaps one of the best examples of this on the ground was in the pro-choice movement in the United States. Before Roe vs. Wade in 1973, abortion law was considered an issue to be dealt with on a state-by-state basis. Feminists mobilized around Roe Vs. Wade to see that legal abortion would be guaranteed throughout the country. The ruling eventually did give legal guarantees to abortion through the second trimester, but the "choice" and "legalization" rhetoric left too much unaddressed for many feminists.

And this experience set the stage for re-thinking the idea of a universalized, monolithic experience of "womanhood" as it is often expressed in traditional identity politics. Black feminists and womanists, for example, argued that focusing solely on legalized abortion obscured the ways that black women in the United States underwent forced sterilizations and were often denied the right to have children (see Roberts 1997). Further, working class women argued that legalized "choice" is pretty meaningless without socialism, as having abortion legal, but unaffordable, didn't exactly constitute a "choice". True reproductive freedom meant something more than just legal abortion for working class women. Many wanted to have kids but simply couldn't afford raising them; some wanted a change in the cultural norms and mores of a society that judged the decisions women made about their bodies; others wanted proximity to clinics for reproductive health--in short, a "reproductive freedom" framework would take into account the interests of all women, not just be structured around white, heterosexual, middle-class women's concerns (the seeming default position of the "pro-choice" movement).

Intersections

These experiences within the feminist movement and the broader Left raised many questions for feminists. How do we create a movement that isn't focused around the interests of its most privileged elements? How do we retain our commitment to socialism without being subsumed into a politic that sees women's issues as "secondary"? What might political organization look like based on a common commitment to ending domination rather than an assumed common experience based on some single identity? These questions began to be answered largely by feminists of color, queers, and sex radicals with the theory of intersectionality--a theory that was critical of traditional class and identity politics (see especially e.g. hooks 2000; Collins 2000).

Intersectionality posits that our social locations in terms of race, class, gender, sexuality, nation of origin, ability, age, etc. are not easily parsed out one from the other. To speak of a universal experience as a "woman", for example, is problematic because "womanhood" is experienced quite differently based on race, class, sexuality-- any number of factors. As such, a non-reflective feminist movement centered ostensibly on the concerns of "women" tended to reflect the interests of the most privileged members of that social category.

As well, our various social locations and the hierarchies they inform intersect in complex ways and are not easily separable. People don't exist as "women", "men", "white", "working class", etc. in a vacuum devoid of other patterned social relationships. Further, these systems of exploitation and oppression function in unique ways. To name two rather obvious examples, class is a social relationship based on the exploitation of one's labor. As socialists, we seek the abolition of classes, not the end of class elitism under capitalism. This makes class unique. Similarly, the idea of "sexual orientation" developed in the 1800s with the invention of "the homosexual" as a species of a person. This effectively created an identity out of preferred gender choices in sexual partners, more or less ignoring the myriad other ways that people organize their sexuality (i.e. number of partners, preferred sexual acts, etc.). It also effectively limited sexual identity to three categories: hetero, homo, and bi--as if there could not be a large range of attractions and variety within humanity. Part of liberation based on sexuality is troubling these categories to provide a viable sexual/social existence for everyone. This makes sexuality, likewise, unique.

These structured inequalities and hierarchies inform and support one another. For example, the labor of women in child-bearing and rearing provides new bodies for the larger social factory to allow capitalism to continue. White supremacy and racism allow capitalists control over a segment of the labor market that can serve as stocks of cheap labor. Compulsory heterosexuality allows the policing of the patriarchal family form, strengthening patriarchy and male dominance. And all structured forms of inequality add to the nihilistic belief that institutionalized hierarchy is inevitable and that liberatory movements are based on utopian dreams.

Proponents of intersectionality, then, argue that all struggles against domination are necessary components for the creation of a liberatory society. It is unnecessary to create a totem pole of importance out of social struggles and suggest that some are "primary" while others are "secondary" or "peripheral" because of the complete ways that they intersect and inform one another. Further, history has shown us that this method of ranking oppressions is divisive and unnecessary--and worse, it undermines solidarity. As well, when organizing and developing political practice, we can self-reflexively move the margins to the center of our analyses to avoid the biases of privilege that has historically led to so many divisions in feminism and the Left.

A good contemporary example of intersectionality in the context of social movement practice is Incite! Women of Color Against Violence. Incite! “is a national activist organization of radical feminists of color advancing a movement to end violence against women of color and our communities through direct action, critical dialogue and grassroots organizing” (Incite! 2009). One reason Incite! stands out against other anti-violence organizations is their systemic analysis. They see women of color who have experienced violence as living in the “dangerous intersections” of white supremacy, patriarchy, capitalism, and other oppressive structures and institutions. Rather than simply reducing the experiences to the individual, they recognize the systems that oppress and exploit people and have structured their approach in such a way that calls for the “recentering” of marginalized folks, as opposed to a method of "inclusiveness" based on one single identity or social location. Incite! argues that “inclusiveness” simply adds a multicultural component to individualistic white-dominated organizing so common in the United States. Instead, they call for recentering the framework around the most marginalized peoples. This push is to ensure that their organizing addresses the needs of those historically overlooked by feminism, with the understanding that all people benefit from the liberation of their more marginalized peers--while focusing on the more privileged elements within a given social category leaves others behind (as in the examples we gave in the struggle for the vote and the legalization of abortion). Incite! makes a point to focus on the needs of the working class who have generally been neglected (i.e. sex workers, the incarcerated, trans folks and injection drug users). By centering these people in their organizing, they are focusing on the people standing at more dangerous intersections of oppression and exploitation, therefore tackling the entirety of the system and not just the more visible or advantaged aspects. Additionally, Incite! views the state as a major perpetrator of violence against women of color and seeks to build grassroots organizations independent of and against it. Anarchists could learn a lot from Incite! about the importance of addressing the needs of ALL sections of the working class and their attempt to check the tendency of the Left to ignore or dismiss the concerns, needs, ideas and leadership of people living in the dangerous intersections of capitalism, white supremacy, patriarchy, etc.

And What Can Anarchism Provide the Theory of Intersectionality?

We firmly believe that this learning process is a two-way street. That is, when synthesizing our practice to include these concerns raised by feminists, feminism could stand to benefit from learning from anarchism as well. We see the contributions of anarchists to intersectionality in two major areas. First, anarchism can provide a radical base from which to critique liberal interpretations of intersectionality. Secondly, anarchists can offer a critical analysis of the state.

Too often people using an intersectional analysis ignore the uniqueness of various systems of domination. One way this is done is by articulating a general opposition to classism. While we believe that class elitism exists, often this opposition to "classism" does not recognize the unique qualities of capitalism and can lead to a position that essentially argues for an end to class elitism under capitalism. As anarchists, we do not just oppose class elitism, we oppose class society itself. We do not want the ruling class to treat us nicer under a system based on inequality and exploitation (i.e. capitalism). We want to smash capitalism to pieces and build a new society in which classes no longer exist--that is, we fight for socialism. Anarchists, as part of the socialist movement, are well-placed to critique this liberal interpretation of intersectionality (see especially Schmidt and van der Walt 2009).

Likewise, as anarchists, we are well-placed to put forward our critiques of the state. The state, in addition to being a set of specific institutions (such as the courts, police, political bodies like senates, presidents, etc.), is a social relationship. And the state has an influence over our lives in myriad ways. For example, former prisoners are often unemployable, particularly if they have committed felonies. One only needs to take a cursory glance at the racial and class make-up of US prisons to see how intersectionality can be put to use here. Former prisoners, workers who are targeted for striking or engaging in direct actions and/or civil disobedience, etc. all have specific needs as subjects in a society that assumes political rulers and passive, ruled subjects. And the state tends to target specific sets of workers based on their existence within the dangerous intersections we mentioned above. Anarchists can offer to the theory of intersectionality an analysis of the ways that the state has come to rule our lives just as much as any other institutionalized system of domination. And we can, of course, argue for smashing such a social arrangement and replacing it with non-hierarchical social forms.

Refusing to Wait

In many ways, anarchists have historically anticipated some of the ideas in intersectionality. Further, anarchism as a political philosophy--and as a movement against all forms of structured domination, coercion, and control--seems well-suited for an intersectional practice. Unfortunately, we still have debilitating arguments about what hierarchy is "primary" and should be prioritized above others. Like in times past, this leads to easy division and a lack of solidarity (imagine being told to give up some struggle that directly involves YOU for the "correct" or "primary" fight!). Further, the smashing of any structured hierarchy can have a destabilizing effect on the rest, as the simple existence of any of these social divisions serves to naturalize the existence of all other hierarchies.

We've tried here to explain the rise of the theory of intersectionality within feminism and describe its contours. Perhaps more importantly, we've attempted to relate it throughout this piece to political practice and social movement struggles so as to avoid complete abstraction and theorization apart from practice. We hope that more anarchists become acquainted with intersectionality and put it to positive use in our political work. Finally, it is our hope that more people from marginalized groups refuse to wait, that we recognize the value of all fights against injustice and hierarchy in the here and now--and that we build a reflexive practice based on solidarity and mutual aid instead of divisive prescriptions about what struggles are "primary" and which ones, by extension, are "secondary" or "peripheral". Rather, they are all linked and we have good reason to refuse to wait until after "the revolution" to address them!


Bibliography

Ackelsberg, Martha A. 2005. The Free Women of Spain: Anarchism and the Struggle for the Emancipation of Women. Oakland: AK Press.

Collins, Patricia Hill. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York: Routledge.

de Cleyre, Voltairine. 2001. "They Who Marry do Ill". Pp. 103-113 in Anarchy!: An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, edited by Peter Glassgold. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint.

_____. 2004. "Sex Slavery". Pp. 93-103 in The Voltairine de Cleyre Reader, edited by A.J. Brigati. Oakland: AK Press.

Firestone, Shulamith. 1970. The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution. New York: Morrow.

Goldman, Emma. 2001. "The White Slave Traffic". Pp. 113-120 in Anarchy!: An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, edited by Peter Glassgold. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint.

Hartmann, Heidi. 1981. "The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a More Progressive Union." in Women and Revolution, by Lydia Sargent (ed.). Boston, MA: South End Press.

hooks, bell. 2000. Feminism is for Everybody: Passionate Politics. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

Incite!. 2009. http://www.incite-national.org/. Last accessed, October 2009.

Joseph, Gloria. 1981. "The Incompatible Menage à Trois: Marxism, Feminism, and Racism." in Women and Revolution, by Lydia Sargent (ed.). Boston, MA: South End Press.

Kropotkin, Peter. 2001. "The Sterilization of the Unfit". Pp. 120-123 in Anarchy!: An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, edited by Peter Glassgold. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. 1967. The Communist Manifesto. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Parker, Robert Allerton. 2001. "Feminism in America". Pp. 124-126 in Anarchy!: An Anthology of Emma Goldman's Mother Earth, edited by Peter Glassgold. Washington, D.C.: Counterpoint.

Roberts, Dorothy. 1997. Killing the Black Body: Race, Reproduction, and the Meaning of Liberty. New York: Vintage.

Schmidt, M. & van der Walt, L. 2009. Black Flame: The revolutionary class politics of anarchism and syndicalism. Oakland: AK Press.

Young, Iris. 1981. "Beyond the Unhappy Marriage: A Critique of the Dual Systems Theory." in Women and Revolution, by Lydia Sargent (ed.). Boston, MA: South End Press.

From http://anarkismo.net/article/14923

lots of new links

Don't Be A Dick
BLOODLUST: a feminist journal against civilization
We Are All Survivors, We Are All Perpetrators // What To Do When...
Taking The First Step: Suggestions To People Called Out For Abusive Behavior
Why She Doesn't Give A Fuck About Your Insurrection
Militant Flamboyance: a brief history of Stonewall and other queer happenings
Patriarchy, Civilization, and the Origins of Gender
This is Not a Love Story - Armed Struggle against the Institutions of Patriarchy
Subversive Submissive #1
Gynocracy Song
Raise some Hell - a Feminist Childrearing Zine For Everyone
What to Do When Someone Tells You that You Committed (Sexual) Assault
Ladders and Hips: An Open Letter to the Boys in My Life
Liberating Ourselves in the Boudoir, An Anarchist-Feminist Perspective Against BDSM
Riot, Don't Diet
Hot Lead for Patriarchy
Burn the Idols of False Beauty
FACE OFF...women and the beauty industry
Transgender Herb Garden, The
La Comandanta
Dismantling the Boy's Club
Erinyen #2
Don't Rape Each Other!
Gay Shame Opposes Marriage in Any Form
Learning Good Consent
Interview with Philly's Pissed & Philly Stands Up
Supporting a Survivor of Sexual Assault
Herbs for Trauma
From the Kitchen: Sexism, Anarchism and Men
Mentally Ill
No Authority But Oneself by Sharon Presly
Class Equality, Sexual Equality, Racial Equality
Women in the Spanish Revolution
Tranzmision
Voltairine de Cleyre Reader, The
Sisters in Arms: Women in the Spanish Revolution
Women, the State and the Family
Emma Goldman: A Voice For Women?
Who Are You Calling a Lady?
Against Separatism
Judeo-Christian Degradation of Women
Pieces of Self
Anarchist Revolution and the Liberation of Women by Martha A. Ackelsburg
Anarchism: The Feminist Connectionby Peggy Kornegger
Said the Pot to the Kettle
Breaking the MANacles
Anarcha-Feminism zine
Fighting Back: Self Defense for Women and Girls
Working Women and their Organizations
Trans Gender Liberation
Tenacious Writings from women in prison #5 mother's day issue
Sparks Fly Women Political Prisoners and Prisoners of War in the U.S., Biographies, writings, art
Sex and Men
Daily Disrespects and Direct ActionsStreet Harassment: A feminist guide to analysis and direct action
Don't Leave Your Friends Behind anarcha-feminism and supporting mothers and children, La Rivolta! anarcha-feminist festival Boston 2006
Reproduce Freely: A Reproductive Autonomy Zine
Politics of Fat, The
HPV
Vasectomy Party
Regaining Control: Taking Health Care Into Our Own Hands
Herbal Abortion
by wemoons army
Sexual Violence by the Berkeley Students Cooperative

Anarcha-Feminism Facebook page
Thinking about anarchism: Capitalism and the exploitation of women
WIEDZMA Polish Anarcha-Feminist Zine

more updates

Feminism, Class and Anarchism by Deirdre Hogan, RAG, 2007

RAG (Revolutionary Anarcha-Feminist Group)

Anarcha-Feminism by Laure Akai

ERINYEN anarcha-feminist collective

Some Thoughts of AnarchoFeminism by Sunchana (jpg) (Erinyen)

I Refuse to Be the Second Sex by Andreea (Erinyen)

How Free are Autonomous Free Spaces? Page 1 | Page 2 (Erinyen)

Unmarked Categories and the question of power: some anarcha-feminist notes- Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 by the Erinyen collective

No Border Camp Ukraine '07- Sexism at the Camp Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 by Karina and Kristina

Abortion is Every Woman's Right Page 1 | Page 2 by LoveKills Collective

Anarcha-Feminist page in Russian language

updates

Jane: Documents from Chicago’s Clandestine Abortion Service 1968-1973 published by firestarter press

Men's Sexual and Reproductive Health (flier) (pdf)

DIY guide to preventing sexual assault

How to induce a miscarriage herbally (and safely)

Marie Equi

Overground Literature Distribution: Womyn's Liberation and Womyn's Health

Overground Literature Distribution: Sexuality and Relationships

Overground Literature Distribution: Rape, Sexual Assault, Abuse, Self-Defense, and Recovery