Was Bukowski an anarchist?

#62

revol68

Offline

Joined: 23-02-04

Sep 11 2010 01:22

okay well a 200lb cop female or otherwise would probably be at a physical advantage to someone my size regardless of how different you claim the female body structure is.

also the question wasn't about a random man and a random woman, the question was about was it ever okay to smack a woman, and the answer must be yes if one isn't to be a patronising sexist prick.

this of course has little to no bearing on Bukowski hitting his wife though.

#63

mons

Offline

Joined: 6-01-10

Sep 11 2010 02:10

Quote:

nearly 100% of domestic violence occurs between profoundly unequal parties... (and consequently the power trip for the superior party, which is invariably the man)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

As for Bukowski, I love his poetry, but can imagine his politics are shit and individualistic, and that he's probably a misogynistic dick in person.

#64

AnrBjotk

Offline

Joined: 14-08-10

Sep 11 2010 15:35

mateofthebloke wrote:

Tor SR Thidesen wrote:

Because women are delicate little flowers? Like shit they are.

So tell me about your mother Tor.

She is a dominating overprotecting smotherer, if you MUST know!

Jason Cortez wrote:

No but beating up your wife on a regular basis and going on long drunken diatribes about how ALL women are whores etc etc etc probably suggests some sort of women hating tendencies don't yer think?

Why would you beat your own wife? I mean she is YOUR wife. It's like keying your own car...

mateofthebloke wrote:

Hughes wrote:

Tor SR Thidesen wrote:

So, if I kick a man for being an asshole I'm just a man, if I hit a woman for being an asshole, I'm a woman-hater??

This is a fair question I think. I don't know the answer to it.

Are you serious? Jesus fuck. Most women do not have the same body weight and physical strength as most men, ergo it is not a fair fucking fight, you dipshits.

It is also proved that women have double the amount of pain receptors in the skin, thus experiences twice the pain a man would feel from a impact of the same kind. However, the notion that a women should be treated like a dainty flower, is exactly the kind of consensus that leads to rape.

(Reply to #33)

#65

AnrBjotk

Offline

Joined: 14-08-10

Sep 11 2010 15:38

tigersiskillers wrote:

Tor SR Thidesen wrote:

So, if I kick a man for being an asshole I'm just a man, if I hit a woman for being an asshole, I'm a woman-hater?.

You'd hit people just because their basic values are arseholeishness? Surely in a utopia we should all be what we want to be? Oppressor!

I also believe in fighting for your desires. Without a large institution going against you. Read Kaczynskis "Critique of Primitivism" and you will see that in primitivist societies there were MORE fighting and war, but for the RIGHT reasons. I.E no one was forced to fiht like today by generals, but they fought by their own will and ability. And with their hands, not with bombs 500 miles away.

(Reply to #45)

#66

Boris Badenov

Offline

Joined: 25-08-08

Sep 11 2010 16:37

Tor SR Thidesen wrote:

However, the notion that a women should be treated like a dainty flower, is exactly the kind of consensus that leads to rape.

*speechless*

#67

AnrBjotk

Offline

Joined: 14-08-10

Sep 11 2010 16:41

mateofthebloke wrote:

Tor SR Thidesen wrote:

However, the notion that a women should be treated like a dainty flower, is exactly the kind of consensus that leads to rape.

*speechless*

You should read the book about rape by a swedish sociologist. Her theses is that men rape women for sadistic reasons. Powered by the fact that women are, still and wrongly, considered weaker than men.

(Reply to #66)

#68

Jason Cortez

Offline

Joined: 14-11-04

Sep 13 2010 15:16

"Why would you beat your own wife? I mean she is YOUR wife. It's like keying your own car..." I am not sure what you are going on about here, as I was clearly using "your" in the relationship sense rather than ownership. A common conventional usage which I don't see how you could misinterpret, given the context. So thanks for your oh so clever and amusing witticism.
So let me ask you.....Do you think Budowski's wife was asking for it?

#69

AnrBjotk

Offline

Joined: 14-08-10

Jul 24 2011 00:59

Jason Cortez wrote:

"Why would you beat your own wife? I mean she is YOUR wife. It's like keying your own car..." I am not sure what you are going on about here, as I was clearly using "your" in the relationship sense rather than ownership. A common conventional usage which I don't see how you could misinterpret, given the context. So thanks for your oh so clever and amusing witticism.
So let me ask you.....Do you think Budowski's wife was asking for it?

No, she didn't. Very few women do. However, Bukowski, like me, was rejected systematically by women through his entire teens, so it's natural that he had a love-hate relationship with them.
LIke me he wanted to love women, but was refused the right, this creates a lot of anger and hatred...
What does "ask for it" is the notion that women are less than men, that women are delicate, than women are more vulnerable. They are not, or if they are they are conditioned to be (i.e the feminist view). The damage is purely emotional.

#70

CRUD

Offline

Joined: 11-04-10

Jul 24 2011 08:34

mons wrote:

Quote:

nearly 100% of domestic violence occurs between profoundly unequal parties... (and consequently the power trip for the superior party, which is invariably the man)

I can imagine his politics are shit and individualistic

Pfft....

#71

CRUD

Offline

Joined: 11-04-10

Jul 24 2011 08:34

AnrBjotk wrote:

LIke me he wanted to love women, but was refused the right, this creates a lot of anger and hatred...

You should make a poem about your lack of sex as a youth. Maybe call it....."who gives a fuck"? I had an alligator bite me in the foot as a child so now I beat dogs half to death when I hear sirens....*&$#@! Say what? Ya, exactly. What does "refused the right" mean?

#72

Chilli Sauce

Offline

Joined: 5-10-07

Jul 24 2011 09:28

I don't normally agree with CRUD, but "refused the right" to "love" women, that sounds like some rapey shit to me.

Quote:

Read Kaczynskis "Critique of Primitivism" and you will see that in primitivist societies there were MORE fighting and war, but for the RIGHT reasons

The RIGHT (if you put it on caps, it's definitely true) reasons, wtf does that mean? You mean resources, land, status, power, and control. Definitely not the same reasons wars happen today.

#73

CRUD

Offline

Joined: 11-04-10

Jul 24 2011 10:08

Chilli Sauce wrote:

I don't normally agree with CRUD, but "refused the right" to "love" women, that sounds like some rapey shit to me.
Quote:

Read Kaczynskis "Critique of Primitivism" and you will see that in primitivist societies there were MORE fighting and war, but for the RIGHT reasons

The RIGHT (if you put it on caps, it's definitely true) reasons, wtf does that mean? You mean resources, land, status, power, and control. Definitely not the same reasons wars happen today.

You secretly agree with me on most everything but are compelled to go along with the crowd

The ASH Experiment actually raises some concerning questions surrounding democracy - I'm a full supporter of work place democracy/direct democracy , but, as the ASH Experiment shows peoples opinions/choices can in fact be heavily influenced by "the crowd". How could we minimize this happening in an advanced anarchist society? This is why individualism is so key to socialism in my opinion. Most of the great thinkers wrestled with this...Sartre...Jack London, Camus...Orwell etc.

#74

Steven.

Offline

Joined: 27-06-06

Jul 24 2011 10:15

AnrBjotk wrote:

Jason Cortez wrote:

"Why would you beat your own wife? I mean she is YOUR wife. It's like keying your own car..." I am not sure what you are going on about here, as I was clearly using "your" in the relationship sense rather than ownership. A common conventional usage which I don't see how you could misinterpret, given the context. So thanks for your oh so clever and amusing witticism.
So let me ask you.....Do you think Budowski's wife was asking for it?

No, she didn't. Very few women do. However, Bukowski, like me, was rejected systematically by women through his entire teens, so it's natural that he had a love-hate relationship with them.
LIke me he wanted to love women, but was refused the right, this creates a lot of anger and hatred...

Yeah, that is some massively dodgy shit. You don't have the "right" to do anything with other people's bodies.

If you were rejected systematically, there is a reason for that!

And as for you having a lot of "anger and hatred", presumably towards women as a result is totally mental. And then you wonder why they rejected you…

#75

AnrBjotk

Offline

Joined: 14-08-10

Jul 24 2011 12:22

Steven. wrote:

AnrBjotk wrote:

Jason Cortez wrote:

"Why would you beat your own wife? I mean she is YOUR wife. It's like keying your own car..." I am not sure what you are going on about here, as I was clearly using "your" in the relationship sense rather than ownership. A common conventional usage which I don't see how you could misinterpret, given the context. So thanks for your oh so clever and amusing witticism.
So let me ask you.....Do you think Budowski's wife was asking for it?

No, she didn't. Very few women do. However, Bukowski, like me, was rejected systematically by women through his entire teens, so it's natural that he had a love-hate relationship with them.
LIke me he wanted to love women, but was refused the right, this creates a lot of anger and hatred...

Yeah, that is some massively dodgy shit. You don't have the "right" to do anything with other people's bodies.

If you were rejected systematically, there is a reason for that!

And as for you having a lot of "anger and hatred", presumably towards women as a result is totally mental. And then you wonder why they rejected you…

Did they reject me because I was angry, or did I become angry because I was rejected? Which one makes more sense... Read Bukowski's and Houllebeqcs books and you will see what happens to men when they are systematically rejected for not being sexually 'good enough'... I do not condone rape, in fact I consider it the most atrocious act of mankind; But you can understand that when you want to love someone and they tell you that you are not allowed, it creates anger...

But this is besides the point. Was Buk an anarchist? He felt secure with a job, but was this under duress... Did he in fact dream of a world where he could write and be free without pressure to be a slave?

#76

Steven.

Offline

Joined: 27-06-06

Jul 24 2011 12:41

AnrBjotk wrote:

Did they reject me because I was angry, or did I become angry because I was rejected? Which one makes more sense...

I would think the fact that you seem to be emotionally disturbed would be the reason for both the rejection and the anger.

Quote:

But you can understand that when you want to love someone and they tell you that you are not allowed, it creates anger...

if you are emotionally disturbed, or a misogynist with a warped sense of entitlement maybe.

Seriously, look at your reasoning here, and the language you are using. You can love whoever the hell you want, you don't have to have someone "allow" you to do that - but that doesn't mean that you have the right to be with or fuck whoever you want.

Primitivists are weird.

#77

darren p

Offline

Joined: 5-07-06

Jul 24 2011 12:44

AnrBjotk wrote:

Did they reject me because I was angry, or did I become angry because I was rejected? Which one makes more sense... Read Bukowski's and Houllebeqcs books and you will see what happens to men when they are systematically rejected for not being sexually 'good enough'... I do not condone rape, in fact I consider it the most atrocious act of mankind; But you can understand that when you want to love someone and they tell you that you are not allowed, it creates anger...

Just because you 'want to love someone' doesn't mean they're obliged to reciprocate it, and if rejection causes you to get angry then I'd say they'd probably made the right choice.

If you're getting 'systematically rejected' it's because you're approaching women who aren't interested, you need to learn about body language or something.

#78

AnrBjotk

Offline

Joined: 14-08-10

Jul 24 2011 13:47

darren p wrote:

AnrBjotk wrote:

Did they reject me because I was angry, or did I become angry because I was rejected? Which one makes more sense... Read Bukowski's and Houllebeqcs books and you will see what happens to men when they are systematically rejected for not being sexually 'good enough'... I do not condone rape, in fact I consider it the most atrocious act of mankind; But you can understand that when you want to love someone and they tell you that you are not allowed, it creates anger...

Just because you 'want to love someone' doesn't mean they're obliged to reciprocate it, and if rejection causes you to get angry then I'd say they'd probably made the right choice.

If you're getting 'systematically rejected' it's because you're approaching women who aren't interested, you need to learn about body language or something.

They are not obliged to reciprocate anything. And please do not assume that when I talk of love I talk about sex. I have little interest in sex. It bores me.
As for there being something wrong with me, I can see that. But doesn't everyone deserve love (and I do not mean fucking)? If people tell you that you are worthless everyday, if every woman you approach tells you that, you have a few options. One, accept that and commit suicide. Two, try to change yourself (tried that, tried every "personality" possible, nice, shy, cool, angry, aggressive, relaxed, proactive,etc) and Three, come to the conclusion that you are not the one in the wrong, but that it is the worlds fault, that we live in a society where if you are not a certain type, you may as well be dead (Nr 2)

#79

revol68

Offline

Joined: 23-02-04

Jul 24 2011 14:24

you need therapy, either that or a dick enlargement.

#80

Chilli Sauce

Offline

Joined: 5-10-07

Jul 24 2011 14:29

Revol beat me to it, but you don't need politics, you need therapy.

Quote:

I have little interest in sex. It bores me.

Think how she must feel....

#81

AnrBjotk

Offline

Joined: 14-08-10

Jul 24 2011 14:40

Chilli Sauce wrote:

Revol beat me to it, but you don't need politics, you need therapy.
Quote:

I have little interest in sex. It bores me.

Think how she must feel....

Pardon?

#82

Chilli Sauce

Offline

Joined: 5-10-07

Jul 24 2011 15:20

Well if you find sex boring, I can't imagine your past partners have found much enjoyment in it...

#83

AnrBjotk

Offline

Joined: 14-08-10

Jul 24 2011 15:49

Chilli Sauce wrote:

Well if you find sex boring, I can't imagine your past partners have found much enjoyment in it...

Sex on its own bores me. I see sex as a biproduct of love, and orgasm as a biproduct of sex. You don't need to have sex to be in love, and you don't have to have an orgams to have sex. What that means is that Love is the key to all things, and that everything else is just 'gravy'. I do NOT mean that I don't care about the woman's orgasm. But it should never be the reason for sex, the reason should be to celebrate each others love.
It comes from my interest in Buddhism, cause just like in meditation you do not do it for any reason, and if you achieve some enlightenment, that is a biproduct, pay it no mind. "Our" societies is based around sex, and the definition of sex being mutual masturbation, i.e getting orgasms. You eat to get energy, to live, if it tastes good that great, but it's not, in my view, the reason I eat.

#84

Chilli Sauce

Offline

Joined: 5-10-07

Jul 24 2011 19:46

First off, sex is good in it's own right. Love may improve the sexual experience, but to claim that sex should only be "to celebrate each others love" is a pile of moralistic nonsense and is not far from the Judeo-Christian belief that sex should only occur within marriage and be a celebration of God's love.

#85

darren p

Offline

Joined: 5-07-06

Jul 24 2011 19:50

AnrBjotk wrote:

You eat to get energy, to live, if it tastes good that great, but it's not, in my view, the reason I eat.

Why do you eat then? To celebrate food?

#86

Arbeiten

Offline

Joined: 28-01-11

Jul 24 2011 20:49

jesus christ.....

#87

CRUD

Offline

Joined: 11-04-10

Jul 24 2011 21:44

AnrBjotk wrote:

I have little interest in sex. It bores me.

Sorry to hear that. I find love "boring". More like drinking liquid antifreeze. Pocahontas really did a number on me. She found sex to be exhilarating...so much so she tried it with all my friends. It's somewhat forced me to reconsider the meaning of love....to reconsider feelings of possessiveness or jealousy...to reconsider whether or not long term monogamy is possible or even desirable.

I've been leaning more towards polyamory...like Jean Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir's long term relationship. Traditional marriage/love seems to be, well, a pipe dream or fantasy. It won't even be "necessary" once women have equal access to the means of production anyhow.

#88

Ethos

Offline

Joined: 6-07-11

Jul 24 2011 22:27

darren p wrote:

AnrBjotk wrote:

You eat to get energy, to live, if it tastes good that great, but it's not, in my view, the reason I eat.

Why do you eat then? To celebrate food?

If we're going by what he/she wrote on love and sex, I reckon' eating will be a celebration of hunger(?). Primitivist "philosophy" is entertaining.

#89

CRUD

Offline

Joined: 11-04-10

Jul 27 2011 22:20

Chilli Sauce wrote:

First off, sex is good in it's own right. Love may improve the sexual experience, but to claim that sex should only be "to celebrate each others love" is a pile of moralistic nonsense and is not far from the Judeo-Christian belief that sex should only occur within marriage and be a celebration of God's love.

He/she is a follower of god according to a post in the primitivist thread.

#90

allabouttactics

Offline

Joined: 26-07-11

Jul 27 2011 23:11

Charles Bukowski was a poet and he told the truth

The reason he is still famous is because he actually did manage to tell the truth. If he tried to write about his experiences through a lens of politics or anything he would have just been a hack.

The conclusion is up to us, the appeal of bukowski is that he had no preconceptions.

And I agree with the people who say he was probably a prick, he comes across as a really horrible guy from his stories but the reason that he is a good poet and writer is because he doesn't have an angle, it's egalitarian.

he didn't interpret anything he just wrote it down, he wrote the truth but the truth isn't political it just is

#91

allabouttactics

Offline

Joined: 26-07-11

Jul 27 2011 23:41

AnrBjotk wrote:

revol68 wrote:

I actually can't believe I even bothered typed that response, you're obviously some idiot art muppet.
Stick to titillating art tards at shitty hipster galleries, I could even get you an exhibit in Belfast.

I'm glad you did. And as for the exhibit, please do!

Hieronymous wrote:

Tor SR Thidesen wrote:

As for his views on women (god, why does this ALWAYS happen, once again I will be the only one defending him) he wasn't a mysogonist. His wife clearly states this. He had a fucked-up childhood, rejected by women, and simply "made up for lost time" later on. And in his books the man is always the biggest loser.

Bullshit. In one of the documentaries about him, you can see him kicking Linda, throwing his wine glass at her, and verbally abusing her. He repeatedly calls her a "whore" and makes preposterous claims that all women are whores. I can't think of a better definition of misogynist. He was a total pig towards women.

If you read any biography of him, there are countless examples of him abusing women, nearly always while drunk, both physically and emotionally.

And his fascism and anti-Semitism has been documented as well. I personally think he did it to get a rise out of people, but it's still disgusting. He should be condemned for all of this; none of it should be defended.

So, if I kick a man for being an asshole I'm just a man, if I hit a woman for being an asshole, I'm a woman-hater?? Because women are delicate little flowers? Like shit they are.

noone said it's ok to beat men up either

Was Bukowski an anarchist?

Featured

Featured threads

Posting guidelines

Log in for more features

blog

news

library

history

libcom.org