Am I “Cute” Enough?

Am I “Cute” Enough?
By Kirsten Anderberg (http://www.kirstenanderberg.com)
Written Feb. 21, 2007

Emma Goldman is exalted by anarchist *men*, yet most of them would not get within ten feet of a woman like that as a lover. The same is true for Mother Jones. I find it ironic and sad, that in this day and age, we have so many middle aged anarchist males who are crying out desperately for young, thin, “cute,” “smart,” women who wear lipstick and want to be just fuck buddies. The idea that only young women, only “cute” women, only sexually available noncommittal women are the desires of old, ugly anarchist males is haunting, dangerous and makes me run from the current anarchist trend.

Chuck Munson runs Infoshop.org, a popular anarchist website. He touts himself constantly as the know-all hierarch of anarchy on the web. Yet when you read Chuck’s blog (http://chuck.mahost.org/weblog), you see disturbing trends towards women appearing. Just as Seinfeld’s Kramer character blurting out his heartfelt racism was important, not just some random thing that did not matter, I feel the sexist woman-hating things that men in anarchy say, in public no less, needs the same sort of public examination and scrutiny. Sexism is as unacceptable as racism and this article details both being protected by anarchist men. Let’s look at Chuck0’s description of who he likes to date on his blog: “I’m picky about some things too. If I date somebody, I want to be able to have an intellectual conversation with them. I’m also turned off by “earth mother” hippie women and most activist women. There just aren’t any “lipstick anarchists” out there that would match my interests and desires. This may seem a bit shallow, but the few people who know about my sexuality will understand why this is a requirement for me.”

Apply Emma please. Chuck has icons of Emma all over his website. Alongside diatribes like the one above. Chuck publishes “earth mother” hippie women like Starhawk to his own advantage on his site. Chuck says he is “turned off” by *most* activist women. And he wants his women in chemical face, like black face, but the patriarchal version. He wants women to be smart, but not activists. So this is the face of anarchy and revolution for women HOW again? Isn’t this the same old shit we were fighting in the 1960’s and 1970’s? The exact same shit I was taught to avoid by my mom and the women of the 1970’s who taught women like me to AVOID men who were obsessed on trophies, men who are obsessed with women as sex objects, men who felt threatened by activist women? I was taught to use *ugly* as a defense against men like this, to be honest. As a repellent, of sorts. If not wearing lipstick will keep sexist pigs off me, then that works out perfectly. The idea of smearing toxic corporate chemicals on my lips for some old man’s sex fantasy seems ludicrous to me! And anything *but* liberating.

Apparently Chuck wants a “lipstick anarchist” woman, a “cute” and “young” woman to sit by him in the revolution! Better watch out, boys! While you are out chasing the young “cute” girls, you better be worrying what all the smart older activist (lesbian at this point!) women who look like you do are doing while you create sexual fantasies out of women! We may be working and moving right on past you, past looksism, past classism, past racism, past ageism, past patriarchy and sexism. We may even be plotting to leave men OUT of the revolution while you are chasing our daughters!! I remember the gross old men sexually chasing me as a younger woman. I remember how utterly REPULSIVE they were to me. I felt like they wanted to use me like a blow up doll. It was my SHELL they were after and I knew that.

And the stark examples of sexism in the men of anarchy continues on...Let’s take Joe Bageant. This man is well-published by male anarchists at sites like Infoshop.org and DissidentVoice.org, two places I used to publish with but stopped after this Joe Bageant article was headlined by those two sites against my objections. In Joe’s article, “Poor, White and Pissed,” the *first* sentence of his article says, “If you are reading this it is very likely that you are a liberal, maybe even an outright screaming burn down the goddam country commie --in which case I say, “Come sit by me comrade! (Especially if you are a blonde.)” (http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20050221163002850).

When I saw that sentence, immediately red flags went off for me. I immediately complained about this to the anarchist community and people said I was jumping to conclusions that the comment was racist and sexist. So I wrote Joe and asked him what that sentence meant. And his emailed answer to me was, “It means I like blonde pussy. Regards, Joe Bageant.” He followed that with several sexually harassing emails that used the word “pussy,” a body part he does not own, quite liberally. I have problems with Joe’s statement on several levels. First of all, he is relegating women in the revolution to “blonde pussy.” That is enough right there. But I also see implications of him wanting WHITE pussy, with the blonde comment. I also see him implying women should be made up for men, as very few women are actually blondes, and he is most realistically saying, I want some *dyed* blonde white pussy...that is how it comes off to me. It sounds to me like he has reduced women activists to merely pussy beside the male anarchist warriors. What would Emma say about Joe Bageant and the headlining of this article all over the anarchist press? Would she say nothing? I doubt it. Again, these men tout Emma as a hero, but Emma would be kicking them where it hurts for this nonsense.

So these older men want “cute” blonde “pussy” DOLLS, and I was that in their *minds* when I was a younger woman too. But I am not here for old men to sexually exploit, thank you. And young women now are no less savvy than I was at that age. They know what these older men want or more accurately, they know what these old men OFFER, and they are usually not stupid enough to be lured into that middle aged male sexual fantasy as an unpaid whore, while the men try to sell it as “sexual liberation.”

I really do wonder why it is that men who consider themselves alternative cannot disengage from the old sexist models when sex is involved. And no, I do not believe it has to do with some inherent wiring that old men want to conquer young women naturally. This is a cultural thing. In many other cultures, for instance, the men are the ones who must get made up for the women. In many other cultures, older women are respected and younger women, likewise, are not sexualized for old men. In nature, more often than not it is the male who has the colorful plumage, not the female. Since women give birth, it has long been that women are coveted in a way men are not. Separatist lesbians have made it clear that we only need a *few* men around for population purposes and other than that, it is not clear why we need men, to be frank! The old feminist adage, that a woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle is as appropriate now as ever. And when I hear anarchist men talk, I realize we have gotten nowhere since the 1950’s and I also realize that Emma Goldman is being exploited by anarchist males that she would have nothing to do with!

I see the way older males in anarchy speak of women and it is certainly alarming. Chuck says on his blog, "...I’ve concluded that my best dating years are long behind me, so dating is just not a priority for me. The women my age are either married, mired in long term relationships, or crazy." Chuck also says on his blog, “I’ve known lots of cute, smart younger women, but they just can’t relate to a guy my age other than in a big brother or avuncular fashion." And then this about his dating...”The first woman was a labor organizer and was pretty cute, but she wasn’t interested in me and I concluded that she was a closet goofball and player. I had coffee with another woman who is an artist. A friend of mine who knows her later told me that she was put off by my job situation (kind of an odd concern coming from an artist). I also found out that she had some personal issues."

Let’s analyze this with a feminist mindset, shall we? The above paragraph says some things in the subtext. 1) Chuck is saying that women his age are either partnered already or crazy. 2) He laments old men are not attractive to young smart cute women, 2) He decides two women who rejected him were a “closet goofball” and “had personal issues.” So, does Chuck have a mirror? If we applied the same set of standards to Chuck, himself, that he is applying to women generically, we see this: 1) Chuck is not partnered so he must be crazy, 2) younger smart cute women find older lecherous men gross 3) Chuck has some personal issues and may be a “goofball.”

I find it interesting the double standard women are supposed to endure in anarchy. We are supposed to look up to Emma Goldman, but not look *like* her! We are supposed to be partnered with anarchist men who hate *most* activist women, hate “earth mother” types (aka women who do not make themselves up with corporate chemicals for men), want younger women, need those women to be “cute” unlike these men, etc...How different is anarchy from patriarchy? Not much. There is a reason terms like anarcho-feminism and manarchists exist. It is appalling that men like Chuck have tried to co-opt that language, as well, claiming he, himself, is an anarcho-feminist!

Chuck is in his 40’s, overweight, looks like he has thinning hair (has that old man hairstyle), and is not what society would deem “cute,” or “handsome,” and he *lives in his mother’s basement*, yet he is obsessed on this young and “cute” requirement for the women he dates. These men who want “cute” women look like a male equivalent of Emma Goldman or Mother Jones. They are no Brad Pitts! Yet they deem themselves needy of, worthy of women who *do* meet those looks requirements! If these men were women, they would be the very women they so hate and avoid sexually. A very short, small framed, red-haired, and hair thinning, middle aged (40) male friend of mine called me a while back and lamented losing his girlfriend who was 20 years old. He said to me, a 46 year old woman he has known for over 10 years, asking for deep sympathies from me...”I am afraid I will be relegated to only dating ugly old women!” Hmmm, how is it that I am supposed to take that again?

As I have watched men like Chuck, Joe, etc., I wonder why women would get involved with anarchy in its current form. I have found it to be a repulsive den of patriarchy, to be quite frank. Unless I want to pretend I am younger than the same aged men around me, unless I want to pollute myself and the earth with chemical makeup that men do not wear usually, unless I want to starve myself so small men can feel big, unless I want to quit being an activist...yuck. The requirements these men have, prior to even meeting women, is sickening, and very much does objectify women. It is more a SHELL TYPE these men are looking for, not a whole woman. And if women reject any of these men, then we are “crazy,” “goofballs,” with “personal issues...” Yicks.

Does *your* sexual liberation require putting down older women activists who are not wasting time and money on makeup and diet aids? Does *your* manhood rely on oppressing me as an older woman, who is not looks obsessed? Do you exalt Emma Goldman while simultaneously dissing any woman who is like her in real life? Chuck says, “There just aren’t any “lipstick anarchists” out there that would match my interests and desires. This may seem a bit shallow, but the few people who know about my sexuality will understand why this is a requirement for me.” He also says, “Perhaps this sounds like the same shallow attitude that many guys have about sex and commitment. I’m very capable of commitment, but after several relationships and undergoing my own process of sexual liberation...” I wonder how much longer these men expect women to be oppressed for the male’s sexual liberation? Or how much longer they intend to use us like unpaid whores, to be more exact.

Would Emma Goldman find Chuck’s “need” for “lipstick anarchist” women, who are young, cute and not activists noble? I think not. Would she allow him to continue to use her image and words on his site for his own profits? I think not. Like me, I believe after reading Chuck’s thoughts on women, she would ask, as I have, to be removed from Chuck0’s Infoshop.org site.

This is even a twist on the virgin whore fetish. It is a sexual plaything - activist fetish. Apparently “ugly” “old” anarchist women activists are good enough to provide content for Chuck’s site but repulse him in real life. We are workhorses, but nothing else. We are workhorses or we are whores. That is really what Chuck, Joe, and others have inferred. There are women who center on activism, then there are women who center on catering to the sexual needs of activist men. Two different breeds entirely, as Chuck has honed in on. If you are truly a feminist activist, you have little time to stroke the male ego, and more time to cut that male ego down. You have less time to diet and dye your hair than you do to rebel rouse and call the manarchists out. Let’s see, today I could work on my LOOKS, or I could work on smashing patriarchy and looksism...tough choice. Makeup, shaving, hair dos...or kick some patriarchal ass...Hmmm...which will I invest my time in today?! And what rewards will those two behaviors bring in? Tough choices for women, especially when the anarchist men are telling us we need first and foremost to be “cute.”

Ann Simonton is a friend of mine who was the cover swim suit model on Sports Illustrated’s Swimsuit Edition, she was a Covergirl, and had her body and face plastered all over magazines as a role model for women to aspire to. Yet, she found modeling to be incredibly hollow *for the women involved*. She began to work in the body esteem industry, outing the sick mindset of “beauty pageants.” Michelle Anderson is another woman who found the emptiness in beauty and the richness in feminism, when she went undercover in the Miss Santa Cruz pageant with Ann Simonton’s coaching and ended up being crowned Miss Santa Cruz, which culminated in her protesting onstage at the Miss California pageant that year. Michelle is now the Dean of CUNY Law School (http://www.law.cuny.edu) and Ann runs Media Watch (http://www.mediawatch.org). Michelle and Ann, both strong, smart, feminist women have been working to steer women *away* from “cute,” and towards *achievements * for decades, as have I. I think about any kind of revolution, and I think...do I want gross men like Joe Bageant who is looking for some “blonde pussy” as well as Chuck Munson who cannot understand why he cannot find a “cute” young woman to serve his sexual fantasies next to me, or do I want women like Ann and Michelle next to me? And no, they cannot coexist. In a feminist revolution, men spewing the objectifying crap these men have would be quarantined!

I have decided my role here, in the world of anarchist journalism, is to *document* the things I see, not to change these men. I did actually try to educate and change the men I have met in anarchy, but then I found that most of them were incurable sexists, and had no interest in changing. What I *can* do though, which actually has some true merit, is document the rampant sexism I run into as an anarchist journalist, in the world of anarchy press. And one of the biggest mouths on that circuit is Chuck Munson, so just as Kramer’s mouth told us a lot about his insides, perhaps more than he wanted, we see Chuck0’s blog tells us perhaps more about his insides and true desires for women’s roles in anarchy and a revolution than he realized we would see in his words. Do I want to sit next to Joe in a revolution? No. Am I an ugly old woman? I hope the hell so. No greater freedom can I imagine. Emma Goldman was an ugly old woman. So was Mother Jones. People just do not describe these women as “cute,” now, do they? And I am proud to say they will never describe Kirsten Anderberg as “cute,” either.