But patriarchy can only exist so long as it is performed - that is, so long as the role of the man is fulfilled. What we want, quite simply – as for with any other determinate role imposed by and in the service of capital – is for it to be destroyed.
The term “human strike” was forged to name a revolt against what is reactionary even – and above all – inside the revolt. It defines a type of strike that involves the whole life and not only its professional side, that acknowledges exploitation in all the domains and not only at work. Even the notion of work comes out modified if seen from the ethical prism of human strike: activities that seem to be innocent services and loving obligations to keep the family or the couple together reveal themselves as vulgar exploitation. The human strike is a movement that could potentially contaminate any- one and that attacks the foundations of life in common; its subject isn’t the proletarian or the factory worker but the whatever singularity that everyone is. This movement isn’t there to reveal the exceptionality or the superiority of a group on another but to unmask the whateverness of everybody as the open secret that social classes hide.
Marx’s analysis of commodities as the elementary form of capitalist wealth can thus be understood as an interpretation of the status of woman in so-called partriarchal societies. The organization of such societies, and the operation of the symbolic system on which this organization is based—a symbolic system whose instrument and representative is the proper name: the name of the father, the name of God—contain in a nuclear form the developments that Marx defines as characteristic of a capitalist regime: the submission of “nature” to a “labor” on the part of men who thus constitute “nature” as use value and exchange value; the division of labor among private producer- owners who exchange their women-commodities among themselves, but also among producers and exploiters or exploitees of the social order; the standardization of women according to proper names that determine their equivalences; a tendency to accumulate wealth, that is, a tendency for the representatives of the most “proper” names—the leaders—to capitalize more women than the others; a progression of the social work of the symbolic toward greater and greater abstraction; and so forth.
- L. Irigaray, “Women on the Market”
The “other” homosexual relations, masculine ones, are just as subversive, so they too are forbidden. Because they openly interpret the law according to which society operates, they threaten in fact to shift the horizon of that law. Besides, they challenge the nature, status, and “exogamic” necessity of the product of exchange. By short-circuiting the mechanisms of commerce, might they also expose what is really at stake? Furthermore, they might lower the sublime value of the standard, the yard  stick. Once the penis itself becomes merely a means to pleasure, pleasure among men, the phallus loses its power. Sexual pleasure, we are told, is best left to those creatures who are ill-suited for the seriousness of symbolic rules, namely, women.
Exchanges and relationships, always among men, would thus be both required and forbidden by law. There is a price to pay for being the agents ofexchange: male subjects have to give up the possibility of serving as commodities themselves.
Thus all economic organization is homosexual. That of desire as well, even the desire for women. Woman exists only as an occasion for mediation, transaction, transition, transference, between man and his fellow man, indeed between man and himself.
Everyone knows the terrible communities, having spent time in them or being within them still because they are always stronger than the others. And because of that one always stays, in part – and parts at the same time. Family, school, work, and prison are the classic faces of this form of contemporary hell. But they are less interesting as they belong to an old form of market evolution and only presently survive. On the contrary, there are the terrible communities which struggle against the existing state of things that are at one and the same time attractive and better than “this world.” And at the same time their way of being closer to the truth - and therefore to joy – moves them away from freedom more than anything else.
The question we must answer in a final manner is of a more ethical than political nature because the classic political forms and their categories fit us like our childhood clothing. The question is to know if we prefer the possibility of an unknown danger to the certainty of a present pain. That is to say if we want to continue to live and speak in agreement (dissident perhaps, but always in agreement) with what has been done so far – and thus with the terrible communities – or, if we want to question that small portion of our desire that the culture has not already infested in its mess, to try – in the name of an original happiness – a different path.
This text was conceived as a contribution to that other voyage.
The most ridiculous question a black person can ask a cop is, ‘why did  you shoot me?’ How does one account for the gratuitous? The cop is at a  disadvantage: ‘I shot you because you are black; you are black because I  shot you.’ Here is the tautology at the heart of the colonial  experience.
Writing is pre-eminently the technology of cyborgs, etched surfaces of  the late twentieth century. Cyborg politics is the struggle for language  and the struggle against perfect communication, against the one code  that translates all meaning perfectly, the central dogma of  phallogocentrism. That is why cyborg politics insist on noise and  advocate pollution, rejoicing in the illegitimate fusions of animal and  machine. These are the couplings which make Man and Woman so  problematic, subverting the structure of desire, the force imagined to  generate language and gender, and so subverting the structure and modes  of reproduction of ‘Western’ identity, of nature and culture, of mirror  and eye, slave and master, body and mind. ‘We’ did not originally choose  to be cyborgs, but choice grounds a liberal politics and epistemology  that imagines the reproduction of individuals before the wider  replications of ‘texts’.
The social relation of the waged to the unwaged – the family – is integral to the social relation which is capital itself – the wage relation. If these two are integral to the structure of capital, then the struggle against one is interdependent with the struggle against the other.
We must discover forms of struggle which immediately break the whole structure of domestic work, rejecting it absolutely, rejecting our role as housewives and the home as the ghetto of our existence, since the problem is not only to stop doing this work, but to smash the entire role of housewife.
“When the “repressed” of their culture and their society returns, it’s  an explosive, utterly destructive, staggering return, with a force never  yet unleashed and equal to the most forbidding of suppressions. For  when the Phallic period comes to an end, women will have been either  annihilated or borne up to the highest and most violent incandescence.  Muffled throughout their history, they have lived in dreams, in bodies  (though muted), in silences, in aphonic revolts.”