Blog Archives

Every Minute of Every Day: Patriarchy & Being Male

A vast and beautiful body of work concerning patriarchy and its insidious and traumatic effects on women already exists. In my experience, however, literature concerning how patriarchy infiltrates and destroys male interactions and the psychological and emotional health of males is somewhat rare. bell hooks discusses the subject in several of her works, and calls for more literature directly focused on patriarchal enculturation and how it distorts and harms male people.

In my interactions with other males recently, I’ve noticed extreme and regular behavioral trends, and I’ve devoted a lot of mental energy to processing these behaviors. It is my intention herein to discuss the effects of patriarchy on males in the interest of 1. eliminating patriarchy as a global force; 2. eradicating patriarchy within my own heart, mind, and interpersonal interactions; 3. to continue moving toward healthy and loving relationships with my friends, lovers, and partners; and 4. to help other males do all of the above.

To be clear about my intentions, this piece is NOT meant to play oppression Olympics or detract from the myriad ways in which patriarchy harms and destroys women. This is not some veiled men’s rights bullshit. Rather, it is meant to be another weapon in this war against dichotomous gender roles, male domination, and the oppression of all human animals by patriarchy. Also, for the duration of this piece, I’ll be using the terms “male” and “man/men” as synonyms; so too with “female” and “woman/women”. Let me clarify now, to dispel any gender-policing trolls who might read this, that I’m talking purely about biological sex herein. None of the terms I’m using refer to people who identify with or are identified as a particular gender.

That being said…..

Patriarchy assaults me every minute of every day. Every interaction I have with another human being is informed by patriarchy, girded by patriarchy, and underscored by patriarchy. It poisons every aspect of my social life, every facet of my internal dialogue, taints my sexuality, and undermines my self-confidence, self-respect, and self-care. Patriarchy’s toxicity is ubiquitous and hegemonic – it poisons my entire life and every other human life.

Every time I interact with another male, patriarchy dictates and defines the limits of our interactions. Every time I subtly or not-so-subtly tear down, criticize, or ridicule another male to boost myself up in social scenes, patriarchy destroys me, destroys my victim, and perpetuates itself. Every time I’m the victim of forced male competition and verbal violence, patriarchy takes the day.

Patriarchy severs any hope I have of having tender, loving relationships with other men. Even now, when I’ve gotten to the point where I’m comfortable with affection in my non-sexual relationships with other males, few of the other men in my life are in a similar place. I’m surrounded by machismo, chest-pounding, brusqueness, and an overall lack of emotional expression. Competition and one-upsmanship beat down intimacy, affection, and love. And, at times, I’m just as guilty of being a bro and allowing the artificial construct of masculinity to prescribe my actions.

Likewise, patriarchy has invaded and will invade the sexual interactions I share with other men. It constantly reminds all queer men that the only point of having an intimate relationship with another man is to fuck, and that the only way to love and to be loved is to fuck. And patriarchy certainly never lets us forget that all sex must be hierarchic and built upon power dynamics. There’s no place for emotional connection or love in sex; sex is only fun if someone’s dominating or being dominated, if there’s an authority figure and someone submitting to it. And perhaps worst of all, patriarchy forces the notion down my throat that this is the only real sex, and that it’s liberatory.

Patriarchy has attempted to teach me a number of pervasive, harmful narratives about relationships with women. These are the myths and stories collectively known as rape culture and porn culture, the stories that inform male sexuality within patriarchal society. These myths teach men that women should only be interacted with if they’re relatives or if they’re the object of sexual lust. And in these sexual relationships that patriarchy insists are the only permissible male-female interactions, abuse and violence are the norm.. Men are taught that love means physically and emotionally hurting the women in their lives, that sex is about dominating women and getting off, usually on them. And this culture of violence and abuse is everywhere, on the internet, television, movies, magazines, music, and manifest in the hetero-normative couples I see abusing each other every day. Every moment of my life, this swill bombards my senses in a non-stop barrage of pornographic ultra-violence. It makes me sick, and it makes me sad. It is exhausting to fight against it, and still see women and girls so viciously abused and killed. And this rape culture and porn culture conquers the hearts and minds of my male friends, making otherwise decent human animals into gross facsimiles of idealized masculinity.

Patriarchy has taught me (and every other male) that to be charismatic, to be heard, is to talk louder than everyone else. It means interrupting others, cutting others short, and talking over them. Patriarchal communication means listening to respond and to refute and to invalidate, not listening to hear and to truly feel what others are saying. Patriarchy tells me that I should be a leader, should tell others (namely women and less “virile” men) what to do (or not do) and how to do it. This heinous form of communication is the death of cooperation and consensus, of respect and empathy. And every fucking external force that tries to hammer its influence into me reinforces this patriarchal rubbish.

Patriarchy reminds me every day that I, as a person whose body has a penis, am entitled to anything and everything I want. My desires are the most important thing in the world, and are certainly more valid than the desires of females and weaker or less skilled men. I really struggle with this one, with entitlement. Even when my actions seem innocuous and unlikely to hurt others, I still sometimes take what is not mine and afterwards wonder why. Patriarchal socialization, and my failure to fully confront it, is the answer.

Furthermore, and related to the previous two points, patriarchy has tried to teach me (and all other males) that the only acceptable emotion to communicate is anger. Patriarchy insists that as a male I am entitled to rage at others, to intimidate and coerce others to fulfill my desires with anger, threatening behavior, and violence. This society’s brutal acculturation stifles, silences, and eliminates male emotional expression. Sadness, empathy, love, and the expression of pain are all seen as weakness, as “feminine”, unfit for the male creature. Likewise, vulnerability and emotional honesty, expressing one’s feelings and desires openly, these are also viewed as unacceptable by the forces of patriarchy, and are therefore punished accordingly.

Patriarchy tried to instill in me as a child that the only pursuits worth doing for a male are those involving competition and hierarchy. Sports as a kid, academia in my formative years up through college, and of course the working world in adulthood. The majority of the skills I value in adulthood I learned in spite of patriarchy, and most of them are considered “feminine”. I’ve given a lot of emotional energy in coming to terms with the fact that I prefer these things to traditionally “masculine” behaviors, and in reconciling these behaviors with my more “masculine” ones. I love sewing, cooking, and cleaning, keeping house, making my own clothes, weaving, and emotionally nurturing others. How many other males feel similarly I cannot say, but I’m sure patriarchal upbringing has stymied and inhibited these behaviors in many men.

It’s taken me the better part of 30 years to undo these bits of conditioning, to be honest and open and real about my emotions, to shut up and learn to listen, and to communicate in healthier ways, to embrace all my interests and skills and to reject the bullshit notions of masculinity and femininity. And now, when I feel I’ve worked toward becoming a whole animal, when I’m finally capable of real emotional connection with others and with the world, even now I’m assaulted by patriarchy every minute of every day. Other males shame me, many of the women in my life are themselves too poisoned by patriarchy to know how to handle an open and honest male, and every single snippet and blurb of civilized media screams in my face that men should not act as I do. One the rare occasion I develop a connection with another male, I find that they are often too constrained by patriarchy for real emotional bonding. Our relationships are relegated to drinking together, playing games, talking about politics and ethics (including passionate conversations about feminism), but rarely, oh so rarely, is there any kind of physical and/or emotional intimacy beyond simple hugging.

This is by no means a complete list of the ways in which patriarchy distorts and destroys male children and men, just some thoughts and experiences I’ve had lately. In working toward abolishing civilization, we must also root out all of its loathsome creations and institutions. Patriarchy and the cultures of rape, abuse, violence, and extreme oppression that come with it must likewise be destroyed. And part of fighting to destroy these fucked up institutions means looking within ourselves, watching and learning from our interpersonal interactions, questioning our behaviors and their motivations, and learning to be honest with ourselves about where we’re at in this war against patriarchy.

I’ve come a long way, and I know I’ve got a long way yet. This war we’re fighting must be won, for our own health, the health of our interactions and our communities, and for the health of the planet itself. I’m exhausted and beaten down by patriarchy (and by the deeper problem of civilized society underlying it), and still I fight. Here’s hoping that all the other radical men in the world get passionate and serious about this problem.

This is one part among many of the work of dismantling civilization. If we’re going to tear down this Leviathan, we must avoid the pitfall of propagating its institutions and methods of control. We must actively un-civilize our hearts and minds, or we’ll forever be restrained in our attempts to create healthy communities.

Let’s recognize all the ways patriarchy has wounded and broken us, heal the wounds, strive to become healthy animals. Let’s be honest with ourselves about our behaviors, and honest with others about theirs. Let’s not call each other out and in so doing replicate the dominant culture’s justice system, but instead call each other in, realize that being real about our patriarchal behaviors and exterminating them is in our collective self-interest. Let’s be stoked about the work we’re doing. Let’s build an alternative culture wherein males are encouraged to express their emotions, wherein men talk with each other openly and honestly, give each other loving and meaningful affection, and wherein men aren’t afraid to be vulnerable with other men and with the women in their lives. And obviously, let’s stop all this feel-good liberal babble about “allyship” and actually fight the fucking war against these poisonous forces. Let’s be real about this, let’s fight, and, crazy though it might seem, let’s actually strive to win!

Toward a Stronger Primitivism: Logical & Linguistic Failures in the Primitivist Critique and the Effort to Remedy Them


Before I jump into this piece, I want to establish concretely, for the sake of those who don’t know me or my work, that I am an ardent primitivist. I’m not some disgruntled outsider, some snarky critic bent on discrediting or dismissing the primitivist critique. I despise the hydra called Civilization, and while I stab at the heart of the Beast, so too do I seek to hack off each of its insidious heads: Patriarchy, Capitalism, Statism, Institutionalized Hierarchy, Mediation, Ecocide, and so on.

The anthropology underlying primitivism is solid, and the majority of arguments within the primitivist critique are coherent and hard to dispute. Even so, within the contemporary anti-civ milieu, there remain some glaring errors, oversights, and sketchy logic. The purpose of this piece is to address these mistakes and move toward remedying them. I offer these criticisms and suggestions as a means of honing the primitivist edge that it might better cut through the lies, delusions, and bullshit of civilization. I offer this piece as a gift and a labor of love, NOT as an attack against any person or their work, nor as an indictment against anarcho-primitivism itself. With that in mind, let’s continue.


The first topic I’d like to discuss, and one that irks me to no end, is the near-ubiquitous presence of the naturalistic fallacy in just about all the anti-civ literature I’ve read and many of the in-person dialogues I’ve had with other primitivists. The naturalistic fallacy, for folks who don’t know, is this line of reasoning: ”nature” is good, therefore that which is “natural” is good; anything that is against nature or is “unnatural” is bad. Almost every essay, book, blog post, lecture, podcast (ad nauseam) I’ve read or heard from an AP perspective suffers from this fallacy.

So much of the language we primitivists use – and I’m even guilty of this myself, when I slip up from time to time – further embeds this fallacy in our hearts, minds, and arguments. Just take a brief look at some of the words anti-civ arguments employ on the regs: we’ve already visited “Nature” and “natural”, but there’s also “wild”, “wilderness” and “wildness”, “rewilding”, “feral”, and a score of other nebulous words that fall into the naturalistic fallacy.

Worse yet, in my opinion, is the tacit underlying moral dualism in this fallacy that so regularly rears its head in political discussions. That is, even in trying to “re-wild” and un-domesticate themselves, primitivists still subscribe to the good-vs-evil, right-and-wrong morality that is a cornerstone of Civilized religion and jurisprudence. Civilization is EVIL and we anarcho-primitivists are the warriors of all that is righteous and good!

Yeah right.

Now, I’m not making some nihilist argument here that all morality and/or ethics are undesirable. I’m simply saying that to fall into the cesspool of moral dualism, of good-vs-evil thinking, is to remain dichotomous, to remain mired in Civilized patterns of thinking, and, ultimately, to remain alienated from our desires via moral justification for our philosophy and actions.

Fuck that!

Rather than hold fast to dichotomous, alienating morality, I maintain that we should argue against Civilization and all its horrors from our own experiences, desires, thoughts, and feelings. I don’t need “Nature” and what is “natural” to justify the slurry of raw horror, compassion, and rage I feel when I witness a clear cut. Nor do I need to look at “wild” human communities and their relationships to validate the visceral disgust I experience when I witness the misogyny toward and oppression of women on a daily basis.

It is enough for me, and should be enough for others, that we desire a healthy, functioning biosphere, that we want to nurture maximum biodiversity, that I love trees and non-human animals and value their lives. It should be sufficient that I respect female people and want a world in which they are not battered, raped, and killed for their sex, that I value their animal existence, and that I desire healthy interactions and communities in which women are equally valued. I cherish the Oak Savannahs of Northern California, and devoted years of my life to developing a relationship with the rainforests, valleys, and mountains of Cascadia; I love these landbases, want them to thrive, and would kill to defend them because we mutually enrich one another. I don’t need to vindicate these relationships by arguing that ecocide is “unnatural” and therefore “bad”.

To be clear, in pushing for an embrace of individual and collective desires rather than referral to fallacious moral dichotomies, I’m definitely NOT arguing against coherent language. Quite the opposite, really. In addition to re-framing AP arguments in terms of desires and relationships, I also think there are improvements to be made in regards to the actual words we utilize.

For example, when we say we want to protect the “wilderness” or return to a “wild” or “feral” way of life, what do these terms actually mean? In practice, the term “wilderness” is turbid and abstract. So too is the word “Nature”. These words describe lofty concepts, complex symbols that are deeply anchored in the Civilized psyche. How about “technology”? What symbols and imagery does that word evoke in your mind? Again, a relatively meaningless and highly symbolic word, but a word upon which many primitivists and their arguments rely.

Just so, I feel it’s crucial to rethink and re-imagine these terms such that we strengthen and reinforce the primitivist position. Let us not appeal to “nature”, that tired and dried out husk of abstraction. Instead, let us speak of the biosphere, of the intricate interconnectedness, the web of relationships that is all life – this is a concrete, physical, and tangible thing, to which we belong and of which we are a part. Let us not argue that ecocide and urbanization are “bad” because they are “unnatural”. Let us rather exult in our love of healthy, functioning landbases and egalitarian communities, and of our desire to see what we love thrive!


I witness this obnoxious tendency all the time, and the dishonesty and subtle racism embedded in this practice annoy me to no end. Usually this comes in the form of sweeping generalizations. “Native Americans were blah blah blah,” “all hunter-gatherers lived in egalitarian bands”, “no division of labor and very little sexism exist in hunter-gatherer cultures”, etc. Even among those primitivists I meet who don’t generalize, and who use particular cultures and peoples as examples in their arguments, there is a tendency to fetishize gatherer-hunters, to portray them as virtuous, as immaculate, as “good”.

This is simply dishonest, and it is untrue. Few generalizations can be made about pre-contact “Native Americans”, as there were thousands of distinct peoples, languages, cultures, customs, traditions, stories, technologies, and lifeways. Some indigenous Americans were indeed primarily hunter-gatherers, some pastoralists, some agriculturalists, some a mix of all of these. Some groups were matrilineal, and some patrilineal. Some peaceful, and some warlike. Some, like the Coast Salish and Haida peoples of Cascadia, were downright civilized – they were stationary, domesticated dogs, engaged in protracted and brutal warfare, had slaves, had centralized, hierarchic leadership, and so on.

Likewise, even among those peoples who primitivists love to reference, there’s sometimes “trouble in paradise”. The Hadza, for example, who are and have been hunter-gatherers in Tanzania since the dawn of humanity, are a favorite idol of many contemporary primitivists. They are roughly egalitarian, subsist on gathering and hunting, and live in an ecologically responsible and respectful way, much as they have forever. And yet, as Frank Marlowe describes in The Hadza: Hunter-Gatherers of Tanzania, these primal peoples practice female genital mutilation in the form of clitorectomy. This is not only a grave manifestation of misogyny and patriarchy among an otherwise “ideal” hunter-gatherer people, but it also represents a significant form of specialization in a society that is broadly anarchic and egalitarian.

These very brief and wholly incomplete examples concerning indigenous Turtle Islanders and the Hadza people serve to demonstrate the folly in tokenizing, fetishizing, and making generalizations about gatherer-hunters. In my experience, this happens quite regularly among anarcho-primitivists. I would like it to be my future experience that it stops happening, and that those with a critique of civilization speak honestly and factually about such peoples.

In fact, I’d really rather primmies speak from their own experiences and desires rather than allude to hunter-gatherers at all. Whatever the Hadza do, however various indigenous Turtle Island groups lived, whatever the behaviors of the !Kung happen to be, ultimately these things are useful to consider but are irrelevant. I want to live as a hunter-gatherer, I want to abolish the civilized death machine, I want a vibrant and fecund biosphere. That’s valid, and it’s enough. I don’t need the Hadza or Pirahã to corroborate my desires.


In recent years, as green anarchism and anarcho-primitivism have gained acceptance in radical undercurrents, I have noticed an increasingly popular and bothersome trend. As a growing number of anarchists adopt the critique of civilization, so too do they begin to look to the past for guidance and methodologies for decolonizing and rewilding (i.e.: un-domestication). This, in itself, is a praiseworthy pursuit.

However, the destination at which many anarchists arrive on this ideological journey is, unfortunately, still civilization. I’m talking about the Iron Age. The Celts. The Vikings. The Gauls, Goths, Vandals, and other Iron Age “barbarians”. European paganism, witchcraft, Scandinavian runes, and proto-Germanic polytheism. You name the Iron Age European culture, and I’ll wager there’s some well-intentioned but ignorant primitivist who’s trying to resurrect and relive it.

To a certain extent this is understandable. The hunter-gatherer peoples and cultures of Europe are eradicated – their languages are destroyed, they kept no records, and they’ve all been conquered or enslaved or raped out of existence by civilized shitbags. With little to no information remaining regarding European hunter-gatherers, and an overwhelming abundance of information about the Iron Age, it is unsurprising that many primitivists end their historical search a tad shy of the Stone Age.

Don’t get me wrong: I love viking metal and folk metal just as much as the next person. I just don’t think that’s the trajectory or end point of primitivism. I don’t want to be a Celt, I spit on my Viking heritage, I don’t want to practice European agriculture or pastoralism or insane religions full of dude-bro gods who rape and pillage. And I sure as hell don’t want to be a part of a culture that routinely and as an integral means of its existence raids, pilfers from, conquers, and rapes its neighbors. Fuck that. Fuck the Iron Age, and fuck replicating it!

For those well-intentioned and historically ignorant primitivists I mentioned (and I know there are many, because I’ve had this conversation a thousand times), please!, if you want to discover more about your European heritage, don’t stop at the Iron Age! Look into the Paleo peoples of Europa. Watch Ray Mears’ fantastic Bushcraft series, the first episode of which is entitled Aboriginal Britain. Read Tacitus’s ancient and propagandistic accounts of the Sami people of Northern Europe in his Germania. Hell, read about the Sami today, and about their forced transition between hunting-gathering and reindeer pastoralism; read about how said transition and their forced Christianization has caused the cancerous blight of patriarchy and sexist abuse to spring up in their society. There’s so much to be gleaned, so much that affirms the primitivist stance in that people’s ancient and recent history. Study the Ahrensburg culture of Paleolithic Scandinavia, the Aurignacian, then Solutrean, then later Magdalenian cultures that spanned much of mainland Europe and southwest Asboudicaia.

To be fair here, I’m not suggesting that there’s nothing to be garnished from Iron Age European cultures. As far as symbols go, I think the Germanic runic futhark (alphabet) and its associated symbolism is intriguing, fun, and cool. I think Celtic metalworking and knotwork is beautiful. I like re-purposing civilized detritus to cobble together piecemeal post-apocalyptic renditions of Iron Age armors. I like swords and scalemail, longships and fire arrows. I LOVE mead, wine, and beer! And I especially like historical accounts of “barbarians” resisting and defeating the forces of empire. Vercingetorix, the Gallic warrior-king, and Boudica, the Celtic warrior-queen who avenged the rape of her two daughters, both led their people into fierce open rebellion against Rome. I hella respect that and it inspires me, even if these were bloodthirsty, land-destroying, slave-taking civilized grain-munchers.


That’s about it for now. I have other criticisms I’d like to level at contemporary anarcho-primitivism at some point, but these are the most bothersome among them. In the hopes that this piece doesn’t spark some factious flame-war on the internet or drive ideological wedges between myself and others, I want to stress again that this is meant to be constructive criticism. Some of it is even a reminder to myself to avoid certain pitfalls of logic and discourse.

So yeah, don’t take this personally, take it proactively. With love and rage, let’s tear this monolithic shitheap down!

The Work of Opposing (and Dismantling) Civilization – Part 1: Introduction

In a recent post on his blog Uncivilized Animals, the author, Ian, quotes from John Zerzan’s piece in the current Fifth Estate. He writes:

There is an understandable, if misplaced, desire that civilization will cooperate with us and deconstruct itself. This mind set seems especially prevalent among those who shy away from resistance, from doing the work of opposing civilization.” [emphasis added]

Like Ian, I too was struck when I first read this phrase. So many times in countless discussions and debates, I’ve heard people agree with the primitivist stance against civilization, but resign themselves to inaction and despair. Yes, civilization sucks and all that, but what can be done? What can WE do?! Even among those close friends and allies whose vitriolic hatred of civilization rivals my own, this resignation is often deeply rooted.

This isn’t a new question, nor a particularly difficult task to analyze. And yet, as the anti-Civilized critique grows broader, fuller, and stronger with every passing day, the question remains unacknowledged and unaddressed. If we, as primitivists, accept that Civilization and its toxic lifeway are destroying the biosphere and immiserating all life, if we accept that Civilization and its systems of oppression are the greatest obstacle to self-actualization, autonomy, and healthy community, is this not, then, the most important question ever asked?

I hold that it is.

What does it mean to oppose Civilization? How can we set about dismantling and destroying Civilization?

This essay is concerned with these questions, with beginning to address them and to initiate dialogue about them. I by no means think that I have all the knowledge, all the answers, or that my path is singular or the “correct” way. However, being true to my animal self, I do feel that I’ve made significant inroads in answering this question and in radically transforming myself toward healthy animal being and away from the shackles of civilized life. Just so, by sharing my thoughts, feelings, and experiences regarding this question, I hope to inspire others to tackle this most daunting and pivotal of questions.

In order to properly answer this question, we must first look at Civilization itself, at its structures and methods of domination, hierarchy, and control, at its myths and narratives. The second part of this essay will do just that. Then, in each of the subsequent parts, we’ll take the information discussed in Part 2 – the structures and methods of Civilized power, i.e., the shit that makes Civ function- and explore how best to oppose, destroy, and supplant those structures.