<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Power = fucking and fighting, pretty much no matter what</title>
	<atom:link href="http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:51:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: M</title>
		<link>http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/#comment-68397</link>
		<dc:creator>M</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 00:31:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/#comment-68397</guid>
		<description>I want to be able to fuck, a lot. Be that just by myself. I don't see this as any sort of aggression though. I see it as sipping really good ice tea, on a beach.

Thene,
What indeed baffles me about Jensen is that he spends a lot of time talking about straight men, and getting credited for being a rare man who "gets it", yet he is actually gay. He talks about men fucking women, but he has no such natural urge in himself. I don't see his social critique in sex in the society so much different from that of women themselves. He might be a great sociologist, but I don't see why I should view him differently from other female sociologists. And I personally find his connection of physical sexual pleasure to violence of sorts, quite disappointing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I want to be able to fuck, a lot. Be that just by myself. I don&#8217;t see this as any sort of aggression though. I see it as sipping really good ice tea, on a beach.</p>
<p>Thene,<br />
What indeed baffles me about Jensen is that he spends a lot of time talking about straight men, and getting credited for being a rare man who &#8220;gets it&#8221;, yet he is actually gay. He talks about men fucking women, but he has no such natural urge in himself. I don&#8217;t see his social critique in sex in the society so much different from that of women themselves. He might be a great sociologist, but I don&#8217;t see why I should view him differently from other female sociologists. And I personally find his connection of physical sexual pleasure to violence of sorts, quite disappointing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Quin</title>
		<link>http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/#comment-68275</link>
		<dc:creator>Quin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:49:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/#comment-68275</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;And really, anarchy is all about the expression of personal power — certainly it’s tough to assume that we won’t have more raping and killing in an anarchy, yeah?&lt;/i&gt;

Well, it depends how you look at it. If you accept the argument that large scale warfare (with its attendant large scale raping and killing) is only possible when done by large scale states, then I think you've got a decent argument for anarchism. Not anarCHY, but anarCHISM-- seeking to weaken large centralized power structures wherever you find them.

The raping and killing which smaller scale power structures can accomplish (say, the mafia wars of Prohibition era Chicago) will always be outstripped by whole orders of magnitude by the raping and killing which large scale power structures can accomplish (say, just about any officially declared war between nations in the twentieth century).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>And really, anarchy is all about the expression of personal power — certainly it’s tough to assume that we won’t have more raping and killing in an anarchy, yeah?</i></p>
<p>Well, it depends how you look at it. If you accept the argument that large scale warfare (with its attendant large scale raping and killing) is only possible when done by large scale states, then I think you&#8217;ve got a decent argument for anarchism. Not anarCHY, but anarCHISM&#8211; seeking to weaken large centralized power structures wherever you find them.</p>
<p>The raping and killing which smaller scale power structures can accomplish (say, the mafia wars of Prohibition era Chicago) will always be outstripped by whole orders of magnitude by the raping and killing which large scale power structures can accomplish (say, just about any officially declared war between nations in the twentieth century).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lisa Kansas</title>
		<link>http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/#comment-68272</link>
		<dc:creator>Lisa Kansas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 16:43:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/#comment-68272</guid>
		<description>I don't think I could do justice to the awesomeness of the book so I'm going to pass you on forward:

From Wikipedia:

"The story is set on Anarres and Urras, the twin inhabited worlds of Tau Ceti.  Urras is presented as having much in common with cold-war era Earth. It is divided into several states which are dominated by the two largest ones, which are rivals. In a clear allusion to the United States and the Soviet Union, one has a capitalist economy and patriarchal system and the other is an authoritarian system that claims to rule in the name of the proletariat. The story takes place on the fictional planet Urras and its moon Anarres (since Anarres is massive enough to hold an atmosphere, this is often described as a double planet system). In order to forestall an anarcho-syndical workers' rebellion, the major Urrasti states gave the revolutionaries the right to live on Anarres, along with a guarantee of non-interference, approximately two hundred years before the events of The Dispossessed. Before this, Anarres had had no permanent settlements apart from some mining.

The protagonist Shevek is a physicist attempting to develop a General Temporal Theory. Anarres is in theory a society without government or coercive authoritarian institutions. Yet in pursuing research that deviates from his society's current consensus understanding, Shevek begins to come up against very real obstacles. Shevek gradually develops an understanding that the revolution which brought his world into being is stagnating, and power structures are beginning to exist where there were none before. He therefore embarks on the risky journey to the original planet, Urras, seeking to open dialog between the worlds and to spread his theories freely outside of Anarres. The novel details his struggles on both Urras and his homeworld of Anarres."

Also: 

http://www.amazon.com/Dispossessed-Novel-Perennial-Classics/dp/006051275X/ref=sr_1_22?ie=UTF8&#038;s=books&#038;qid=1212597436&#038;sr=1-22</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think I could do justice to the awesomeness of the book so I&#8217;m going to pass you on forward:</p>
<p>From Wikipedia:</p>
<p>&#8220;The story is set on Anarres and Urras, the twin inhabited worlds of Tau Ceti.  Urras is presented as having much in common with cold-war era Earth. It is divided into several states which are dominated by the two largest ones, which are rivals. In a clear allusion to the United States and the Soviet Union, one has a capitalist economy and patriarchal system and the other is an authoritarian system that claims to rule in the name of the proletariat. The story takes place on the fictional planet Urras and its moon Anarres (since Anarres is massive enough to hold an atmosphere, this is often described as a double planet system). In order to forestall an anarcho-syndical workers&#8217; rebellion, the major Urrasti states gave the revolutionaries the right to live on Anarres, along with a guarantee of non-interference, approximately two hundred years before the events of The Dispossessed. Before this, Anarres had had no permanent settlements apart from some mining.</p>
<p>The protagonist Shevek is a physicist attempting to develop a General Temporal Theory. Anarres is in theory a society without government or coercive authoritarian institutions. Yet in pursuing research that deviates from his society&#8217;s current consensus understanding, Shevek begins to come up against very real obstacles. Shevek gradually develops an understanding that the revolution which brought his world into being is stagnating, and power structures are beginning to exist where there were none before. He therefore embarks on the risky journey to the original planet, Urras, seeking to open dialog between the worlds and to spread his theories freely outside of Anarres. The novel details his struggles on both Urras and his homeworld of Anarres.&#8221;</p>
<p>Also: </p>
<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Dispossessed-Novel-Perennial-Classics/dp/006051275X/ref=sr_1_22?ie=UTF8&#038;s=books&#038;qid=1212597436&#038;sr=1-22" rel="nofollow">http://www.amazon.com/Dispossessed-Novel-Perennial-Classics/dp/006051275X/ref=sr_1_22?ie=UTF8&#038;s=books&#038;qid=1212597436&#038;sr=1-22</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: punkass marc</title>
		<link>http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/#comment-68267</link>
		<dc:creator>punkass marc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 15:44:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/#comment-68267</guid>
		<description>Is LeGuin pro-anarchy?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Is LeGuin pro-anarchy?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lisa KS</title>
		<link>http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/#comment-68262</link>
		<dc:creator>Lisa KS</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:30:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/#comment-68262</guid>
		<description>Read &lt;em&gt;The Dispossessed&lt;/em&gt; by Ursula K. LeGuin.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read <em>The Dispossessed</em> by Ursula K. LeGuin.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: punkass marc</title>
		<link>http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/#comment-68260</link>
		<dc:creator>punkass marc</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:24:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/#comment-68260</guid>
		<description>I am much more of a socialist than I am an anarchist.  And really, anarchy is all about the expression of personal power -- certainly it's tough to assume that we won't have more raping and killing in an anarchy, yeah?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am much more of a socialist than I am an anarchist.  And really, anarchy is all about the expression of personal power &#8212; certainly it&#8217;s tough to assume that we won&#8217;t have more raping and killing in an anarchy, yeah?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Quin</title>
		<link>http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/#comment-68246</link>
		<dc:creator>Quin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2008 04:48:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/#comment-68246</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;To get rid of these qualities, we won’t just have to dump the Patriarchy, we’ll have to dump every Archy.&lt;/i&gt;

Cool. You've become an Anarchist. 

I can dig it. &lt;a href="http://eyeofthestorm.blogs.com/" rel="nofollow"&gt;I've been thinking about it, too.&lt;/a&gt; Really, the biggest thing wrong with being an anarchist, as far as I can tell, is the same thing wrong with being a socialist, or an animal rights activist: namely, that due to decades of bad press from the powers-that-be, most people will dismiss you out of hand without listening to you due to your label.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>To get rid of these qualities, we won’t just have to dump the Patriarchy, we’ll have to dump every Archy.</i></p>
<p>Cool. You&#8217;ve become an Anarchist. </p>
<p>I can dig it. <a href="http://eyeofthestorm.blogs.com/" rel="nofollow">I&#8217;ve been thinking about it, too.</a> Really, the biggest thing wrong with being an anarchist, as far as I can tell, is the same thing wrong with being a socialist, or an animal rights activist: namely, that due to decades of bad press from the powers-that-be, most people will dismiss you out of hand without listening to you due to your label.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Thene</title>
		<link>http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/#comment-68231</link>
		<dc:creator>Thene</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 21:27:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/#comment-68231</guid>
		<description>I agree with you, Marc, and I think that it's because power and sexual success are such great forces that women are told to not want them.  Most women would find benefit in their lives if they could become more aggressive and assertive about their goals and wants.  &lt;i&gt;This is why we're told not to&lt;/i&gt;.

(My own last blog post was &lt;a href="http://aaru-tuesday.blogspot.com/2008/05/truth-consequences-in-stories-we-tell.html" rel="nofollow"&gt;mostly about this sort of ideal&lt;/a&gt;: idealising violent power and sexual success, but mysteriously insisting it is &lt;i&gt;always&lt;/i&gt; packaged with whiteness, maleness, straightness and wealth.  Why, why, why?  Don't ALL sorts of people lust after those things [if only as an imaginary want that you'd never take up IRL]?)

I also love Jensen's assumption that all guys are hetero and that you can find out everything you need to know about all guys ever by only asking the heteros.  Clearly gay men have nothing to add to the story of masculinity, because they're not really masculine or something?  Wtf is he smoking?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with you, Marc, and I think that it&#8217;s because power and sexual success are such great forces that women are told to not want them.  Most women would find benefit in their lives if they could become more aggressive and assertive about their goals and wants.  <i>This is why we&#8217;re told not to</i>.</p>
<p>(My own last blog post was <a href="http://aaru-tuesday.blogspot.com/2008/05/truth-consequences-in-stories-we-tell.html" rel="nofollow">mostly about this sort of ideal</a>: idealising violent power and sexual success, but mysteriously insisting it is <i>always</i> packaged with whiteness, maleness, straightness and wealth.  Why, why, why?  Don&#8217;t ALL sorts of people lust after those things [if only as an imaginary want that you'd never take up IRL]?)</p>
<p>I also love Jensen&#8217;s assumption that all guys are hetero and that you can find out everything you need to know about all guys ever by only asking the heteros.  Clearly gay men have nothing to add to the story of masculinity, because they&#8217;re not really masculine or something?  Wtf is he smoking?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amanda Marcotte</title>
		<link>http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/#comment-68227</link>
		<dc:creator>Amanda Marcotte</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:34:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/#comment-68227</guid>
		<description>The interplay between masculinity and the patriarchy goes back and forth.  To be a member of the power class of the patriarchy, you must show that you are worthy by being an asshole.  Even guys who don't really want to be assholes will go along if it's been made clear to them that they either act the part or get the boot.  Take the psychology of the gang rape.  Criminologists will say that a lot of gang rapists would never rape in other circumstances, but are basically told by their male friends that they join the rape or they aren't real men (i.e. eligible for the benefits of being men in the patriarchy).  Often after a gang rape, there'll be like one guy or two who did the raping for minimal amount of time to get past his friends and will take the victim home or even help with medical treatment.  I'm serious.  On its surface, it makes no sense, but in light of these dynamics, it does.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The interplay between masculinity and the patriarchy goes back and forth.  To be a member of the power class of the patriarchy, you must show that you are worthy by being an asshole.  Even guys who don&#8217;t really want to be assholes will go along if it&#8217;s been made clear to them that they either act the part or get the boot.  Take the psychology of the gang rape.  Criminologists will say that a lot of gang rapists would never rape in other circumstances, but are basically told by their male friends that they join the rape or they aren&#8217;t real men (i.e. eligible for the benefits of being men in the patriarchy).  Often after a gang rape, there&#8217;ll be like one guy or two who did the raping for minimal amount of time to get past his friends and will take the victim home or even help with medical treatment.  I&#8217;m serious.  On its surface, it makes no sense, but in light of these dynamics, it does.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lisa Kansas</title>
		<link>http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/#comment-68223</link>
		<dc:creator>Lisa Kansas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:03:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://punkassblog.com/2008/06/03/power/#comment-68223</guid>
		<description>Yeah, I'm extremely familiar with that dynamic.  It ends up trapping you inside it no matter how sincerely you feel it's hateful, because when you live in an -archy, you are not given the choice really between either choosing to play into the power structure or being left alone.  You're given the choices of either playing into the power structure or being played by it.  Which forces even those who want nothing more to change the system, to become part of the system in order to change it.  The fundamental problem there's pretty obvious, huh.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah, I&#8217;m extremely familiar with that dynamic.  It ends up trapping you inside it no matter how sincerely you feel it&#8217;s hateful, because when you live in an -archy, you are not given the choice really between either choosing to play into the power structure or being left alone.  You&#8217;re given the choices of either playing into the power structure or being played by it.  Which forces even those who want nothing more to change the system, to become part of the system in order to change it.  The fundamental problem there&#8217;s pretty obvious, huh.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
