Talk:Anarcha-feminism

anarcha-feminism shouldn't be redirected to anarcho-feminism

Hmmm, I disagree that anarcha-feminism should be redirected to anarcho-feminism. As far as I know, ending things in "a" is the feminine version of the masculine Greek way of ending things in "o", and hence, if *anything* should be "anarcha", it should be anarcha-feminism. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, if I'm right, i think this page should be moved to anarcha-feminism, with anarcho-feminism being a redirect (but who even uses that term? I've never heard of it). -- Clockwork

Anarcha-feminism gets a lot more Google hits that anarcho-feminism, so I've moved it there. Angela. 01:08, Jan 28, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think that that is a valid reason for moving anarcho-feminism under anarcha-feminism. First of all, there is no grammatical gender in the English language. Second, Goggle hits mean nothing. Just because something is popular doesn't mean it's right. And finally, gendering anarchist feminism is antithetical to anarchism and feminism. Why would we want to make anti-sexism (even if we could in English) feminine? This only perpetuates the painful stereotype that feminism concerns women only.

As such, I do not support your move.

Furthermore, I disagree that "many advocate anarchistic forms of matriarchy" (how can you do that, anyway?). Perhaps I should rewrite this page... -- Clockwork

Redirect to anarchism

I saw no discussion about that whatsoever, did it take place somewhere else. I think that it should have been a reverse move (i.e. move content from Anarchism here, especially seeing how Anarchism article is so huge anyways. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)

Category:Women anarchists

Hey, I was thinking that there should be a list/category of women anarchists in history (as distinct from theorists calling themselves "anarcha-feminist" because that term is quite new). Any comments? An An 02:34, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

A list would be nice, but I don't like the idea of categorizing people by sex (as it overemphasizes gender differences). I'm also not sure if we could justify having a "List of anarchist women" when we already have a "List of anarchists", since we'd be repeating ourselves unless we completely cut the "List of anarchists" in half by gender, which isn't an idea I much like. Sarge Baldy 04:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Stuff from main anarchist article

This is more developed and in-depth than the Anarcha-fem page is. I'm dumping it here for reference. It'd be good to keep the articles in line. An An 02:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

===Anarcha-feminism=== Anarcha-feminism is a kind of radical feminism that espouses the belief that patriarchy is a fundamental problem in some societies. Feminist anarchism, or anarcha-feminism (a term allegedly created during the 1960s' second-wave feminism), views patriarchy as the first manifestation of hierarchy in human history; thus, the first form of oppression occurred in the dominance of male over female. Anarcha-feminists then conclude that if feminists are against patriarchy, they must also be against all forms of hierarchy, and therefore must reject the authoritarian nature of the state and capitalism.

Anarcho-primitivists see the creation of gender roles and patriarchy a creation of the start of civilization, and therefore consider primitivism to also be a anarchist school of thought which addresses feminist concerns. Eco-feminism is often considered a feminist variant of green anarchist feminist thought.

Anarcha-feminism is most often associated with early 20th-century authors and theorists such as Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre, although even early first-wave feminist Mary Wollstonecraft held proto-anarchist views. In the Spanish Civil War, an anarcha-feminist group, "Free Women", organized to defend both anarchist and feminist ideas.

In the modern day anarchist movement, most anarchists, male or female, consider themselves feminists, and anarcha-feminist ideas are growing. The publishing of Quiet Rumors, an anarcha-feminist reader has helped to spread various kinds of anti-authoritarian and anarchist feminist ideas to the broader movement.

---

Anarchist feminism

It seems there's a slight distinction between anarcha-feminism, which stresses anarchism, and anarchist feminism, which usually (but not always) stresses feminism. The terms overlap quite a lot, but I could also see keeping a separate article for the two topics. As it is, this article tends to overlook feminists using anarchism as their basis of criticism. What makes sense to other people? Sarge Baldy 04:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarcha-feminism

MrVoluntarist seems quite adament that this sentence "While anarchist feminists have existed since the late 19th century, the term "anarcha-feminism" was not coined until second-wave feminism in the 1960s." Implies that the early 19th century anarchist feminists were anarcha-feminists. Given that the sentence explicitly states that anarchist feminists predated the term anarcha-feminism, and that the term was not coined until much later, how could the sentence possibly have this implication? Blahblahblahblahblahblah 19:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It just needs to make clear right up front, right off the bat, that there was no anarcha-feminism until the 1960's. It's an important issue because of the previous handling of e.g., Molinari's anarcho-capitalism. A lot of people are trying to edit the article to give subtle implications that e.g., Goldman was an anarcha-feminist, when that's just not true. MrVoluntarist 19:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be comparing two different things. Molinari was a capitalist who Rothbard himself (the first explicit anarcho-capitalist to my knowledge) said would have rejected the label anarchist. Thus, there are solid reasons for not declaring Molinari an anarcho-capitalist (i.e. that he himself did not consider himself and according to Rothbard would not have considered himself an anarchist). So Molinari only meets one of the criteria for objectively declaring him an anarcho-capitalist, he was a capitalist. Contrary to this, Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre both explicitly stated that they were feminists, and that they were anarchists. Furthermore, no anarcha-feminist (or anyone else) has ever, to my knowledge, indicated that Goldman or de Cleyre would have rejected the title anarcha-feminists, unlike what Rothbard did in regards to Molinari. Thus these cases are strikingly different, yet you seem to be expressing a desire to treat them exactly the same.

Even given this difference, this page does not directly state that the late 19th century anarchist feminist were "anarcha-feminists" as such, because in fact they were not. However, this ultra-thin "possible interepretation" of believing that they might have been anarcha-feminists because the article does not explicitly state otherwise is not problematic to me because there is no reason to believe that they would have rejected the title, and because they explicitly endorsed both its constituent parts. In other words, there are no basic problems of definition here, no one is using these words differently. In fact, the primary reason I'm rejecting this "originated" claim is because it would be so hard to demonstrate exactly when the term, much less the philosophy, originated. I don't think wikipedia is the place for making this determination, so I think it is best left up to the reader, rather than the editor.

I don't know what your beef with the Molinari pages is, but if you think they need to be changed, please do so. If those pages explicitly state that he is not an anarcho-capitalist, then I think that should be changed as well, because again, wikipedia should let the reader decide these things for themselves when the case is open. We provide the evidence (like the Rothbard quote for example), and the reader can assimilate it. But this is something we should work on over at Molinari, not here. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 21:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It really, really, really doesn't matter which interpretation is more reasonable, Kevehs. If they didn't call themselves anarcha-feminists, Wikipedia cannot insert the interpretation. Period. End of story. Game over. Call it a day.

Molinari did call himself a liberal, and he did explicitly call for private defense. Together, that makes him an anarcho-capitalist.

That is exactly the same ultra-thin interpretation involved in placing Goldman in this article. You cannot say a philosophy existed until it was called that specific name.

That is the standard used in denying any lineage of anarcho-capitalism before Rothbard. I'm not going to let you violate that on this article. MrVoluntarist 21:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody is denying any lineage here, I'm certainly not. But as to the specific title of anarcho-capitalist for Molinari, since Rothbard himself claimed that Molinari woud deny it, I don't know why you are obsessing over it. But again, your problem is clearly with the Molinari article, not this one. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Blah, I don't appreciate you rudely breaking up my post. You better fix that up before someone decides to remove it. MrVoluntarist 22:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, not my intention to be rude. I will refrain from breaking up your comments in the future. I'm relying on communication here, not chest-beating, so now that you've read it I have no problems with you deleting it if the format bothers you to the point of ignoring the content. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't read it and I'm not going to read it. What you did was rude, and I can't tell who said what. Might get deleted if you don't fix it. Just a warning. MrVoluntarist 16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh huh. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 22:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well what do you know, the mysterious "someone" turned out to be you. Big surprise there. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 03:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Make sense. MrVoluntarist 04:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I find it curious and a bit ironic you would accuse this user of being Kevehs, who left Wikipedia before you even joined. Who were you in a past life? Sarge Baldy 05:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: Mr V removed a bit of text on the pretense that I broke up his comments, as can be seen above I apologised and refrained from doing it again, but he still felt the need to remove the discussion, perhaps because he didn't like what it might reveal. Here is the text he removed transplanted, with the above text still in tact so that his reason for removing it no longer stands: Blahblahblahblahblahblah 18:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If I'm Kevehs who would that make you... Hogeye? Oh wait, that would mean you were using a sock puppet to avoid a ban, opps! Anyway, no such interpretation is being inserted. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Then why did Rothbard say Molinari would have objected to the title? Right right, because Molinari thought anarchism implied socialism. In other words, you want to use your definition of anarchism to call Molinari an anarchist, rather than using his. But that means there is a conflict over definition, right? So... show me a similar dispute over the definition that applies to the anarcha-feminists. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 05:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Kevehs, for fixing the breakup of my posts. Let see if we can get you to fix rude defacement of my posts in less than a week, next time.

In response to the non-rude posting of your comments:

First comment: from the fact that you are Kevehs (and Revkat), it does not follow that I am Hogeye. What kind of logic is that anyway?

Second comment: I'll avoid the rudeness again. This distinction is arbitrary. It doesn't matter what definitions they used for what. Molinari believed in what is now called anarcho-capitalism. That is not disputed. But since he didn't use that term, we can't call him one. Goldman and Cleyre believed what is now called anarcha-feminism. That is not disputed. But since they didn't use the term, we can't call them one. All you've done is hunt from some difference that has nothing to do with your original standard. MrVoluntarist 18:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just say that although de Cleyre and Goldman weren't anarcha-feminists due to the lack of the term during their period, that they are often considered anarcha-feminists in retrospect (with a cite that says this of course)? Or if we can't find that, say they were both avowed feminists and anarchists, and use cites to show how they influenced the idea of anarcha-feminism? It would be like how we say Godwin is considered by many to be a proto-anarchist, even though he never claimed the title. Say they are proto-anarcha-feminists or something like that. The Ungovernable Force 06:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC) I just found a quote from the UK encarta that says "it also inspired an anarcho-feminist, the Russian-American Emma Goldman, who advocated the social and sexual liberation of women," in reference to Stirner's ideas. [1] Ironic since I wasn't looking for anything about anarcha-feminism at the time. The Ungovernable Force 06:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcha-feminism is the same thing as anarchist feminism, in the same way anarcho-communism is the same thing as anarchist communism. It gets a bit silly to say you can't call Peter Kropotkin an anarcho-communist because the term used in his day was anarchist communist. Sarge Baldy 07:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Blahblahblahblahblahblah and MrVoluntarist, please stop!

Or: regarding the philopsophy/term anarcha-feminism and when it originated/was coined.

Hello fellow Wikipedians!

I think what we're seeing here is some sort of low-intensity revert war.

And it's really really really annoying. Especially because the edit summaries say hardly anything about what the problem actually is - although I have come to understand that it's a problem with these sentences:

While anarchists who were also feminists have existed since the late 19th century, the philosophy of "anarcha-feminism" did not originate until second-wave feminism in the 1960s. (User:MrVoluntarist's personal favorite)

and

While anarchist feminists have existed since the late 19th century, the term "anarcha-feminism" was not coined until second-wave feminism in the 1960s. (User:Blahblahblahblahblahblah's personal favorite)

While I can see where the problem lies, the way to solve it hardly lies in bickering like five-year-olds in a sandbox. Will you PLEASE stop and discuss what it shall say here instead? I'll take part in that discussion. For now; I'll just remove the damned sentence.

Sincerely, Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 14:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I've already discussed this with Mr. V, both on this talk page and others. A long time ago someone edited the Molinari and anarchism pages to suggest that anarcho-capitalism originated during Molinari's time. I objected to these edits based on the fact that Molinari never considered himself an anarchist (in fact explicitly rejected the term), and I argued that anarcho-capitalism could not have existed "as such" before the term existed. Consequently, for a short time I simply removed the claims, but as they were continually reinserted I eventually added another sentence after them indicating that the philosophy had not originated until later when Rothbard coined the term. This is what apparently drove Mr. V crazy. Eventually, someone simply removed the claims on those pages concerning when anarcho-capitalism originated, problem solved. But Mr. V did not like this situation and soon went to the anarcha-feminism article to insert these claims of origination. Note that he is not sourcing his claim at all, simply repeating the false assertion that "this is the standard Kevehs (myself) applied".

He leaves out the fact that the Molinari and anarchism articles no longer make ANY claim to date of origination, like the one he insists on adding here in obvious retaliation. He also leaves out the fact that while the early anarchist feminists like de Cleyre and Goldman both considered themselves "anarchists" AND "feminists", thus making the application of the term "anarcha-feminist" to them somewhat natural, Molinari did NOT accept the term anarchist and according to Rothbard himself would not have accepted it. In other words, there is no reason to think that Goldman or de Cleyre would have objected to being called anarcha-feminists, while we know as a fact that Molinari rejected the term anarchist and even the man who first coined it insisted that Molinari would have rejected anarcho-capitalist.

Then, of course, there is the minor fact that even without Mr. Vs edit the article DOES NOT make the claim that the early anarchist feminists were "anarcha-feminists", in fact it explicitly states that they were not, but rather that the term did not originate until later. But this isn't good enough for V, he is sure that somehow I'm trying to trick the readers and insists on applying this misplaced standard, which has no source or credibility, as some kind of strange vendetta against a position he insists is identical to the (now long since resloved) Molinari case. That is all there is to it, he has added no new info to our discussions since he started doing this many months ago. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 14:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I am delighted at least one part is able to explain him/herself in a civil manner. I have notified User:MrVoluntarist on his talk page and I expect him to do the same. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take the time to explain my side. Kevehs (a.k.a. Blah...) is not comfortable with the idea that there were people with the same anarcho-capitalist philosophy as Rothbard, before Rothbard. He wants to believe that the idea of anarcho-capitalist was a 20th-century invention. And that's okay. That's his opinion. But the fact that he is uncomfortable with it does not suffice as reasons to suggest that Molinari did not hold anarcho-capitalist views. Kevehs has tried at every corner to remove the implication that Molinari was anarcho-capitalist, merely because he didn't use that term and, "Wikipedia cannot insert the interpretation". Applying this exact same standard, one cannot say that Goldman or Cleyre were "anarcha-feminists". They never ever once used that term.

What is the difference? Kevehs holds the personal belief that Goldman and Cleyre would have gladly accepted the "anarcha-feminist" label. Being dead of course, they can't resist his anachronisms. The fact is, we don't know. Kevehs thinks it's "obvious" because of the verbal similarity. Unfortunately, that simply will not do. If Wikipedia can't retroactively apply clear-as-day terminology for Molinary, it can't do it for anyone, no matter how trivial. In addition, I do happen to find it objectionable that Goldman and Cleyre would have accepted the label -- "anarcha" rather than "anarcho" just seems like the kind of pettiness they wouldn't tolerate, especially since they wanted equality.

This principle extends to delineating the historical appearance of "anarcha-feminism". If there was no anarcho-capitalism until someone called it that, there was no "anarcha-feminism" until someone called it that. To imply that anyone before the coining of the term was an "anarcha-feminist" is to retroactively shove an anachronism on them we don't know if they would have accepted. And of course, Kevehs wants to circumvent this problem and just leave implications that this philosophy was around before the 60's. It wasn't. That's why we specifically have to say that it (anarcha-feminism) originated in the 60's. Did it have influences from philosophers before them? Sure, just like anarcho-capitalism had influences before Rothbard.

As long as Kevehs wants to continue his crusade of deleting any implication anarcho-capitalist beliefs existed before Rothbard, then to be consistent, we must remind readers that anarcha-feminism did not exist before the 60's rather than try to subtly circumvent the standards. MrVoluntarist 16:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, MrVoluntarist, you claim that "Kevehs [[[User:Blahblahblahblahblahblah|Blahblahblahblahblahblah]]] holds the personal belief that Goldman and Cleyre would have gladly accepted the "anarcha-feminist" label." While this may or may not be true, I fail to see where this belief is manifested in his/her favorite sentence "While anarchist feminists have existed since the late 19th century, the term "anarcha-feminism" was not coined until second-wave feminism in the 1960s". To me, it seems that this sentence states:

1. that anarchists who were also feminists have existed since the late 19th century, and
2. that the term "anarcha-feminism" was not coined until second-wave feminism in the 1960s.

As thus, wherein lies the problem? How does it label Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre as anarcha-feminists? Or, even, how does it label either of them as anarchist feminists, as they are not even mentioned in that paragraph?

Eh, and further: Blahblahblahblahblahblah, what is the problem with MrV's sentence "While anarchists who were also feminists have existed since the late 19th century, the philosophy of "anarcha-feminism" did not originate until second-wave feminism in the 1960s"? Does the problem lie within the usage of the words term and philosophy?

Could you both accept the following proposal?

While anarchist feminists have existed since the late 19th century, "anarcha-feminism" didn't arise until second-wave feminism in the 1960s.

Sincerely, Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 16:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Jobjorn: You are correct that the statement "While anarchist feminists have existed since the late 19th century, the term "anarcha-feminism" was not coined until second-wave feminism in the 1960s." does not specifically call out Goldman and Cleyre, but the problem is that it still implies that the philosophy of "anarcha-feminism" existed before 1960, and as per Kevehs's standard, Wikipedia cannot say this, because "a philosophy called X does not exist until people call it X." (The current article does call out the two women later and imply they were anarcha-feminists, and this needs to be corrected.)

I like your proposal, and if supplemented with further clarification that Goldman and Cleyre inspired rather than themselves were anarcha-feminists, would remove the anachronisms and be consistent with Kevehs's standard. MrVoluntarist 17:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see the implication that Mr V claims, that the article subtlely hints that these two women were anarcha-feminists. In fact I think the article as written clearly implies that they were not. My problem with the claim to origination is that they are not sourced. Mr V is simply using this standard because he thinks its the standard I used on the Molinari article, he isn't actually using any legitimate source to back the claim that it originated in the 1960s. So your compromise sentence does not work for me either. I would have no problem with "While anarchist feminists have existed since the late 19th century, "anarcha-feminism" did not arise as such until..." Because I believe that is a weaker claim that would not scream out for a source. I also have no problem, and have not had any problem, with indicating that Goldman and de Cleyre inspired anarcha-feminism rather than were anarcha-feminists, because that is true.

And Mr V, you know already that my dealings on the Molinari article and others were merely to suggest that anarcho-capitalism did not arrive "as such" until Rothbard. Which is a fact, btw. There may have been instances of other attempts at a compromise during your previous revert sprees, but those were just such, attempts at compromise. My proposals have been outlined on the relevant talk pages to be totally consistent with the standards I'm applying for this page. There is no double standard here, except the one you keep pulling from your imagination.

Finally, I think you have proven beyond any doubt that you are merely editing this page to prove a point, which is a violation of wikipedia policy. I'll be quite happy with any compromise Jobjorn can produce, but I would be amiss not to warn you against such behavior V. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 17:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Kevehs, how can you say that the article doesn't imply Goldman and Cleyre were anarcha-feminists? Look at this:

An important aspect of anarcha-feminism is its opposition to traditional conceptions of family, education, and gender roles. The institution of marriage is one of the most widely attacked. De Cleyre argued that it stifled individual growth, and Goldman argued that it condemns women "to life-long dependency, to parasitism, to complete uselessness, individual as well as social." Anarcha-feminists have also argued ...

It mentions the two right along with statements about "anarcha-feminism". No mentions about earlier inspiration, etc. It's just "Anarcha feminists believe this and attacked this. De Cleyre argued ..."

Your statements about your position on Molinari are false. I advise that Jobjorn read Talk:Gustave de Molinari. There you quite clearly did argue for some kind of double standard to keep people from finding out that the substance of anarcho-capitalist philosophy was around before Rothbard. At one point, of course, you lost it and made your postings impossible to follow and refused to correct them, and then left Wikipedia. So, I'm not sure what your statements there are supposed to prove.

Next, I agree that, at some point, someone should find a source for the term "anarcha-feminism" arising in the 1960's, although I wouldn't use the lack of a citation as the basis for deletion since that's pretty common knowledge. However, that's a far weaker claim than the one that Goldman and Cleyre "inspired" anarcha-feminism, which by the way isn't source at all. So, first things first, please.

Lastly, I don't understand why you keep arguing that I'm "editing to make a point". I'm editing to keep consistency, and if that appears to you to look ridiculous, what does that say about your standard? I'll ask that in the future, you stop trying to bring us down these irrelevant tangents, such as your presistent attempts to say that I'm Hogeye. MrVoluntarist 17:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You wanna see if my standard is consistent? Sure, lets take the last thing I said on the subject on that very page:

There already is balance. Goldman is not refered to as an anarcha-feminist, and if she is then she should not be. Molinari is not refered to as an anarcho-capitalist, nor should he be. That is the same standard applied to both cases. Kev 21:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

I still have no idea where you are coming from on this one Hogeye. (btw, if you don't want me to assume you are Hogeye, its kinda hard not to given your behavior, have the decency to admit who you are, I've been upfront about it from the begining- you've weaseled around the matter)

If you want to call for a cite claim that de Cleyre and Goldman inspired anarcha-feminism, go ahead. Its just more evidence of the ridiculous extremes you will go to, but all it requires on your part is a "fact" tag. Its not an excuse for you to push this origination claim.

And yes, you are trying to make a point, please keep denying it, I find it funny. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 18:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Jobjorn, please note Kevehs's insistence in calling me Hogeye, which is completely inappropriate. He's made the accusation before, now it's up to admins to handle. I'm not Hogeye, so that's not a problem.

I'm glad you agree that any implication that anyone before the use of the term "anarcha-feminism" can be called an anarcha-feminist, and that we shouldn't insert any such implications. Such a policy supports my edits. Of course, it is extreme to demand a citation for "Goldman influenced modern anarcha-feminists", but it's precisely as extreme as demanding a citation for the claim that Philosophy X didn't exist until people called it Philosophy X, or that anarcha-feminism was coined in the 60's! MrVoluntarist 18:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not calling for evidence that the term was not coined until the 60s. However, a call for the claim concerning the origination of the philosophy seems entirely reasonable to me. It is different to say that a term originated at such and such a date and that a philosophy originated at such and such a date, and that is precisely why the Molinari article that you are so obsessed about currently has no origination claims in it.

And you don't think its a bit odd for someone to reveal that they know you but insist on remaining anonymous? Why bother telling me that you know me from outside wikipedia in the first place, if you don't want to reveal who you are? Given the choice of taking you at your word and therefore some kind of creepy stalker, or assuming that you are just Hogeye trying to sound like someone else, I'll prefer the latter. Anytime you would like to clear up this little mystery you've worked to create, please feel free. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 18:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The philosophy could not have originated before it was under that name, remember? (i.e., your standard)

As for my identity, sorry, I'm not going to let your browbeat me into giving up privileges I was guaranteed as a condition of signing up for Wikipedia. In any case, from the fact that I recognize you from before, it does not follow that I'm stalking you -- I could have been (actually, was) following anarchism-related talk pages for some months before signing up, and recognized your posting style. There are only a few pseudo-intellectual sarcastic strawman-lovers it could have been, so it wasn't hard to guess it was you. If you honestly believe I'm Hogeye, again, this is something for you to handle through the appropriate channels, not here. All that matters here is getting the appropriate content in the article. MrVoluntarist 19:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Gee, here I am "browbeating" you into revealing your identity, when all you did was say "I know you from outside wikipedia, but I refuse to tell you who I am". You want all the advantages of being anonymous, without the cost. You want to insist that you know me, that you have had dealings with me before, but remain anonymous. It doesn't work like that. If you want me to stop refering to you as Hogeye, you can take it to the proper channels yourself. I have this funny feeling you aren't going to do that, because eventually there will be a checkuser, and you won't like the results.

BTW - you did not "recongise" my "posting style". My name on flag was Kev and Kevehs. My name here when you first began to post as an anonymous IP was Kev and Kevehs. Your brilliance at pattern recognition begins and ends at the fact that I carried the same name over. Nice try to get a low blow in there, but as the talk page on Molinari indicates, it was I who recognised you by your behavior, not the other way around. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 19:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

When did I say I knew you from outside Wikipedia? I said I knew you from your posts on Wikipedia anarchism-related talk pages. I posted anon here a small number of times, noticed certain characteristics of your posts, and when you came back as Revkat and, now, Blah... I figured you were the same person. The only "advantage" I get from this is ability to predict the kind of posts you'll make, and I don't need anonymity for that. If you really, really seriously believe that I am a banned user, it is incumbent on you to go through the proper channels. I welcome such a move, because I have precisely nothing to be afraid of. I'm not Hogeye. Give up your obsession. MrVoluntarist 22:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

When did you say you knew me from outside wikipedia? Gee, I guess this should sound familiar, "I say your "usual" hobby because this isn't the first place or time I've encountered you. That would be December 2002 on the Flag forums." [2] But please, go on about your ability to predict my posts, we will just ignore that I had the same damned user name. Or better, keep trying to deny that you admitted to knowing me outside wikipedia. Telling me that you have had past dealings with me and then refusing to say who you are is plain enough indication to me that you are a creep, I have no intention of wasting anymore time in talk pages with you until you can be upfront about the oh-so-damned-obvious axe you have to grind against me. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 08:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I was just clarifying whether you were basing the Flag thing on a statement by MrVoluntarist, or by a different user name you believe to be MrVoluntarist. If you don't get to learn who I am, that's just too damn bad. My name isn't important. Flag "Kev" and Wikipedia "Kev" can only be assumed to be the same person when they act the same way. And you don't have to know the name of some enlightened soul capable of that deduction -- it's something anyone could have noticed. Let's focus on more substantive matters in the future. MrVoluntarist 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's focus on more substantive matters in the future. MrVoluntarist 14:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Great idea, lets start by having you say that instead of going on about the issue first rather than saying that in addition to wasting time with it. And again, I give you the utmost respect for having noticed what anyone could have noticed, that a person with identical user name and philosophy is in fact the same person. Bravo. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 16:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

<-- both of you could have thought of that earlier.

My God, why didn't you just say you were Silas instead of playing this whole game? What a joke. My apologies for thinking you were Hogeye, sorry if you compromised your own attempts at remaining anonymous and harassing me at the same time. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 16:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And now, back to what we were really discussing!

And now, back to what we were really discussing! That wasn't, in case you would care, not about Blahblahblahblahblahblah's former aliases, MrVoluntarist's possible former aliases, or whether said MrV knows Blah from real life or not. The topic of our discussion was, and should be, anarcha-feminism.

So, what I can gather from your long, mainly off topic, posts is that

1. You're both good at using a lot of words without ever actually getting to the point.
2. You're both good at subtly insulting each other.
3. Gustave de Molinari explicitly rejected the term "anarchist" (as it carried socialist connotations)
4. Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre are, due to a case of bad wording, implied to be anarcha-feminists
5. Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre are, undeniably, anarchist feminists
6. MrVoluntarist does not want Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre to be referred to as anarcha-feminists
7. Blahblahblahblahblahblah does not want Emma Goldman and Voltairine de Cleyre to be referred to as anarcha-feminists

Is this all correct? Oh, and when replying, please refrain from referring to each other with now un-used usernames. If Blahblahblahblahblahblah's signature and userpage header says his alias is "Blahblahblahblahblahblah", then it is, no matter the names of past incarnations of his account. Likewise for MrVoluntarist's possible former aliases. This as per the Wikipedia standard that I should not be called 83.233.5.170 just because I once edited under that "alias".

Sincerely, Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 21:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that all seems correct. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 22:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, then we can work on removing the implications that Cleyre and Goldman were anarcha-feminists so as to have a standard that allows you to satisfy your worldview which requires you to believe no one held the philosophy now known as anarcho-capitalism before Rothbard. MrVoluntarist 22:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You really don't know when to quit Mr V. Blahblahblahblahblahblah 22:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear sir (MrVoluntarist), I must agree with Blahblahblahblahblahblah here - can we agree on leaving Rothbard out of anarcha-feminism? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In order to appease all parts, I've made some edits to the article. However, the problem now lies within this paragraph:

An important aspect of anarcha-feminism is its opposition to traditional conceptions of family, education, and gender roles. The institution of marriage is one of the most widely attacked, not only by anarcha-feminists but also anarchist feminists in general. De Cleyre argued that it stifled individual growth, and Goldman argued that it condemns women "to life-long dependency, to parasitism, to complete uselessness, individual as well as social." Anarcha-feminists have also argued for non-hierarchical family and educational structures, and had a prominent role in the creation of the Modern School in New York City, based on the ideas of Francesc Ferrer i Guàrdia.

It cites three anarchists, of which two were also feminists (at least judging by their articles here on Wikipedia). No anarcha-feminist is however cited. Unfortunately (for us, in this case), it doesn't exactly lie within the nature of the anarchist ideologies to produce official ideologicians and thinkers, unlike communism has (or had) a tradition of doing. Perhaps, however, we could dig up some other sources for this? Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 02:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)