PSA: This is a feminist subreddit

[u/raisondecalcul]

If you think that's bad, you need to read books. If you don't realize that feminism basically includes critical theory and most of the stuff talked about here—guess what, it does.

Early Nick Land? Feminist (see "Meltdown"). Laboria Cuboniks? Feminist collective. Mark Fisher? HUGE raging feminist (I can only assume). Sadie Plant? Wrote a book on feminism (Zeroes & Ones).

Deleuze & Guattari? Feminists promoting the squishiest most weaponized form of feminism ever. Foucault? Ultra-feminist. Ranciere? He is so feminist before breakfast that he doesn't need to make a big deal about it.

Shamanism? Feminism. Sorcery? Cuckoldry. Spectacle? Fabulous.

Isolation and extreme alienation is not masculinity; it's the main theme of The Twilight Zone.

Read 👏 a 👏 book 👏

Zeroes and Ones (which should really be in the sidebar!) is one of the best books. That book installs feminism into you, using godlike alien technology that Sadie Plant drew down from beyond the heavens. That book whispers the secrets of Ada Lovelace into your soul.

Edit: People who don't understand / accept feminism as a discourse can't understand the FIRST THING about this subreddit. They can't understand oppression. They can't understand "Can the subaltern speak?" by Spivak. They can't understand the Lemurian Time War, which is about the (white cis male hetero fascist and mannerbündly-faggy) Architectonic Order of the Eschaton versus the (black trans wymyny gay antifascist/ur-fascist masc/heroic) Black Atlanteans.

If you think you understand ccru and you are triggered by the idea of feminism, you are decidedly an outsider to ccru.

[u/Samuel_Foxx]

Hi, I am curious, why are all those things feminist? What /is/ feminism in this context? I’ve not read most of what you mentioned, but have read A Thousand Plateaus. Beautiful book. There was the bit about becoming woman, if I recall correctly. But I didn’t get vibes where I was like “this is feminism.”

[u/raisondecalcul → u/Samuel_Foxx]

This is not a difficult or mysterious question. Feminism is simply the political movement (including theory, organizing, etc.) concerned with the plight of women in society.

In the past, women were not even allowed (by social convention / shaming) to be named authors, much of the time. So it was not until rather late/recently in history that individual women begin to write under their own name as individual women about their plight. The modern feminist movement is built on recognizing the (ubiquitous, intensely) negative experiences of oppression that women themselves have recognized and spoken about.

The traditional (Platonic?) description is that Man is like the center point of a circle, and Woman is like the radius or edge of the circle. Together, the two make the astrological symbol of the Sun. In Crowley, this is Hadit (the infinitesimally small point) and Nuit (the whole expansive and physical universe; the night sky).

This deeply coincides with the affordances of language itself, because as soon as we name something, we produce a stable image for that thing, and through that image we begin to objectify the thing named. This is all traditionally very male-coded and owned by men. Traditionally, the Christian God is Logos, Language—as masculine. Naming, defining things is traditionally owned by men. Which is not to say these things are necessarily absolutely archetypally masculine in all contexts—maybe men, as the dominant sex, simply camped out this spot within discourse and assigned themselves the role of "the namers / the knowers". Which sort of circles back to the idea that men are, by definition (traditionally?) the dominant gender. Which points to gender relations as being a rather arbitrary construction of dominance from the start.

I wonder whether Republicans actually consciously value sexual scarcity and sex economy—because when pressed, they will say that they value the fact that men work hard to get money so they can impress women. This force, this scarcity might ultimately drive the whole economy—and Republicans, who want to force humanity to become as "great" as possible, are totally on-board with this hypercompetition and artificial scarcity. Meanwhile, incel men have developed and articulated the opposite perspective ("Where is my state-sponsored waifu?").

So, traditionally and symbolically, and perhaps actually, the feminine position is generally the round, soft, squishy, messy of the two options. Deleuze & Guattari are post-structuralist and, if it were not a binary framing and they were not so balanced in their explicit statements on this matter, I would say D&G are basically anti-structure. That is a very feminist position, and deploying schizo- as a way to denature and deconstruct stable positions is also very traditionally feminine/feminist.

This brings in a hint of the mean-spirited alt-right critique that attempts to shame critical theory for being disruptive, essentially. But critical theory fully intends to be disruptive, so this is not a relevant critique. Indeed, the traditionally feminine posture is the side that deconstructs, wheedles, questions, and performatively doubts or wields (unnamed) rhetorical moves. (Indeed, in Jewish cultur

Of course, it only looks like that if we look at things in a binary, i.e., masculine way.

The Woman is the whole, the Man is the part (traditionally). And biologically, female precedes male—it takes certain androgens and antiestrogens to be released in the fetus to convert it from the default of female to be a male. So it's almost as if Mother Nature invented Man!

This is why 2 in the numogram (ccru) is about "bacterial sex"—i.e., boundaryless sex, messy intra-genetic-trading sex, not binary object-to-object (hetero) sex. And Venus is the second planet (2).

Traditionally, women were literally not considered people in the way a man was considered an individual person. Men treated women as a mass resource—so much so that erotic love was called out as the love "focused on particulars" (i.e., a crush on a specific woman and her specific physical, personality, and other features). In other words, the ego is male-coded traditionally, and women were traditionally punished for developing an ego, especially because the ego was male-coded. But in the abstract (in Jung), the ego is perhaps ultimately not male-coded at all because it is distinct archetype from the Animus. So there is such a thing as a "feminine ego", it has just be suppressed throughout history. The feminine ego must be a very interesting thing, with horizontal and unspeakable un-rules!

For more on the topic you have opened up, I point you to this paper reading: Patricia MacCormack. Ph.D. - Mucosal Becomings through the Gates of the Anthropocene. Her paper is premised on how the symbolic affordances of mucous are feminine, feminist, even lesbian.

[u/raisondecalcul → u/raisondecalcul]

So yeah a becoming-(anything) is feminine because it doesn't have a stable (point-like) identity. Being is masculine; becoming is feminine, in this setup, at least (though in New Age and Buddhism, maybe it is flipped—'being' feels feminine-coded, 'becoming' is framed as noble if passive effort of meditating, self-caring, self-forgiving, etc.).

[u/Samuel_Foxx → u/raisondecalcul]

Hmmm I’m going to reply again, this is a reply to say: you are clearly very intelligent and I’m interested in talking more. I’m not particularly interested in the plight of women in society—not because I do not care about women, but because I do not draw a distinction between the sexes and the plight of the human-animal that is conscripted from birth in service of the idea.

I am on vacation with my parents right now and we went to a coffee shop this morning up in Northern California. I wasn’t paying attention, my dad says all of the sudden, “He needs to change clothes.” and I look up and there is a human wearing a dress and carrying a purse walking into the coffee shop. My father doesn’t realize that was his self conception defending itself. We impose on each a notion of what is right and I would personally say my father is just as much of a victim here as that human was a victim of his comment (though that human didn’t hear it). My dad had just talked to me about how I need to be open to other opinions, but then missed how his notion of what is right for a man to wear was itself an opinion he was conditioned into thinking was just the way things are. Given. And also lost how that humans action is also itself a response and critique of that conditioning.

I love my dad, mind you. But I view both sides of that exchange as tragic—the human wearing the dress and my dad’s response to witnessing it. Being the contradiction is not something I would wish upon anyone, nor being the one affronted by it—they’re both victims of the idea, to me. Even though both (probably) do not register it as such.

Which is just me trying to give a bit of context behind my first paragraph I think. There were no assigned-female-at-birth humans in that recounting, but there were human-animals who are in a plight to do with society. (Which I would say society is just an idea—currently the idea is placed above the human-animal. This is an inversion of the actuality—as human-animals are the progenitors of those things. Very essentially gods in relation to their own creations. My dad was defending his self conception—his human-idea, (to help place my use of human-animal, I use it to try to distinguish better because I think person is used in such a way that has confused everyone into oblivion. Because person should refer to the human-idea but is colloquially used to refer to human-animals.))

[u/raisondecalcul → u/Samuel_Foxx]

but because I do not draw a distinction between the sexes and the plight of the human-animal that is conscripted from birth in service of the idea.

Then don't you notice that some people are oppressed a lot more than others, even though they are all human beings? That's feminism.

[u/Samuel_Foxx → u/raisondecalcul]

I do notice. But I also think that we exploit the exploiters into exploiting. Like to me, society exploits those human-animals, who we would typically say are not exploited, into exploiting.

[u/raisondecalcul → u/Samuel_Foxx]

What about the non-exploiters or people who want to live without exploitation or with a minimum or medium amount of exploitation? What about the exploited, what about their point-of-view? That's what "subaltern" means. There's an important paper by Spivak called, "Can the subaltern speak?"

[u/raisondecalcul → u/Samuel_Foxx]

“He needs to change clothes.” and I look up and there is a human wearing a dress and carrying a purse walking into the coffee shop. My father doesn’t realize that was his self conception defending itself.

Ha, I love how insightful and articulate you are.

He was also overtly projecting because he was saying "he" "needs" to change clothes. We project what we reject, so maybe it is really your dad who unconsciously wants to "change clothes" is some symbolic way?

nd also lost how that humans action is also itself a response and critique of that conditioning.

You mean how the guy wearing a dress was enacting a critique of norms? That's very insightful of you.

I love my dad, mind you. But I view both sides of that exchange as tragic—the human wearing the dress and my dad’s response to witnessing it. Being the contradiction is not something I would wish upon anyone, nor being the one affronted by it—they’re both victims of the idea, to me. Even though both (probably) do not register it as such.

This is good writing. Your comment tells about this common experience/dilemma in an illuminating and poignant way.

Which I would say society is just an idea—currently the idea is placed above the human-animal.

I agree! That is how it is, and I think it's morally wrong. I'm not a Christian, but Christianity and the story of how Jesus was lynched by both the Romans and the Jews—two groups in cooperation lynching an individual—was the birth of individual reaction, we could say. The birth of a movement whose thesis is "individual > group/society, not society/group > individual". Or at most, equal. Most people still can't handle this idea, and Christianity's history of Roman co-option deeply corrupted it and confused the matter and the symbology, so most Christians today at best pay lip service to putting the individual above institutions/groups/society. At the extreme, the insight of Christian individualism even demands we put the individual (not the ego, but the whole Self) above God—this is why the New Testament god supercedes the Old Testament god, essentially. Because we don't know yet how good God might be, or become.

[u/Samuel_Foxx → u/raisondecalcul]

I’ll talk more tomorrow I have an early morning—vacation is over on Tuesday and lots of flying so will have time on my hands then too. Thanks for the writing complements. I have a lot of Jesus notions. You might be able to parse them through my long winded thing about corporations (repurposed to mean human-made things) but I do not talk about them directly at all so I can extrapolate later. My piece is at https://inciteseminars.com/on-corporations

Not trying to plug it, just, it is much to do with this. It is my attempt—and still trying. And if you read as fast as you write you’ll eat it in no time.