'White Male'

MRA activists have historically been subjected to violence from feminists and their allies. And the reasoning behind this is evident; for the celebration of men as such, men as functioning in lockstep with abusive men, violating womyn, etc., ought to be shameful. Similarly, the celebration of being white is ridiculous if it is not distanced from lynching and violence carried out against APOC folks. Unqualified celebration of whiteness, then, leaves open the criticism of association with white supremacists; qualified whiteness or maleness that unequivocally makes the association with violence impossible should be sufficient for getting on with the celebration--if celebration were even to be a thing that anyone should care about. The problem is that no one would have ever thought of celebrating whiteness if it were't for the fact that folks have been attacking whites for simply being white. That is, everyday white people don't like being told there is something wrong with them; for there isn't; there would only be something wrong with them if they were actual white supremacists, and being white (in skin colour) is obviously not sufficient.

I've written before that being white and male in the intended sense is a matter of performance; being white male means living at the peak of privilege, which is ugly/repulsive in itself. Being white in this sense is a matter of not necessarily being white; thus one that is black can become white, while remaining black; for Obama was performatively white even though he was black. Accordingly, white people, if they are white in the performance sense, pass easily; Black people might perform very well but may have difficulty passing in every context. The question for bio-political beings is a question of passing; if anyone can perform whiteness, anyone can fail to pass. The advantage of being white in the sense of having a white body is therefore that one might be 1] perceived to pass, when in fact they are complete privilege-failures, and 2], that if they want to perform, such can come "naturally". Being an anarchist makes 1] the only possibility for white people, to say nothing of the easy simplicity assumed by the conditional at 2]: There is nothing natural about being a capitalist, whether white or APOC; thus, it is not easier for white people to get the hang of capitalism because privilege, now, in late capitalism, is more than likely simply a matter of earning it. That is, anarchists shouldn't want privilege. Hence, 2 seems to be a non-starter. We no longer live in a world that assumes only APOC folks are revolutionary subjects. Performing white is all it takes to avoid the marker; for anyone can be captured and rendered "bare life".

People know there is nothing wrong with being white. Anarchists should affirm that there is something wrong with being performatively white. Without making a qualification about what we mean by saying there is something wrong with being white, we allow for trolls like Milo whatever the fuck his name is to affirm there is nothing wrong with being white. When will anarchists agree? When their APOC friends authoritatively permit them to do so? Fuck that.