Abstract

In my encounters with people interested in the manifesto, from scholars of philosophy and politicians to crypto-inclined artists and post-witchcraft feminists frustrated with the commodification of their once-revolutionary pursuits, it became apparent that it was a versatile beast. It produced widely incompatible interpretations. Some admired its disavowal of redemptive identity politics and of transphobia, some were interested in the aesthetics of accelerationism, others in cyberfeminist legacy. All, however, were drawn to xenofeminism’s explicit alliance with reason, artifice, technology, and science: “our lot is cast with technoscience, where nothing is so sacred that it cannot be re-engineered.” For mainstream feminist theory, dominated by postmodern and poststructural philosophy, statements such as “emancipatory tactics can be scaled up for universal implementation” or “science is not an expression but a suspension of gender” are heresies. More so, against feminist luddites, xenofeminism embraces the artificial and desires to drive a stake through the heart of ecofeminist affirmations of women as caring parental and environmental protectors.