Feminism3

Less Anarcho,More Misogynist.

Scott F Anarchism, Featured, feminism 3 Comments

A reply to Jay Batman’s Why I Am an Anarcho-Misogynist.

Part of me wonders whether I should even dignify a response. So manywords have been used, explaining why Feminism is important that there’s not really much I can add to explaining the basics. Simply put, Feminism is and always will be an integral part of Anarchism ,and when it’s cut out whatever it is that’s left, is not Anarchism. I’ve got no time for Paleo apologetics. We’ve all probably done this dance, and done it to death. Feminism is just woman’s liberation (though it does not and should not exclude men either).I’m honestly confused why rightly understood, anyone could oppose that. However it seems to me, you don’t understand and that’s where the problems lie. Hopefully I can at least allow you a glimpse of understanding. If not, I think there’s no hope there.

You say, “The welfare state, the nanny state, all of the major advances of the state into social concerns over the past fifty years is undeniably matriarchal in their concerns”. Let’s examine that. It seems your equating concern for others with the feminine – a stereotypically sexist gender role equation. Apparently, men can’t be caring now. It you truly looked at these issues you would see that these institutions in fact mirror the authoritarian parent or family particularly the out-dated patriarchal father of older times.

When you write “societal conventions that deny a man’s natural and innate inclinations to preach some false idea of domestication as the ideal are the creations of a matriarchal tyranny”, I think you have it round the wrong way. This applies more (though not exclusively) to women than to men. No one is( or should be) denying that gender roles oppress both men and women.

With sentences such as “Women have appropriated the state and religious institutions to systematically de-masculinize men and relegate us to a less virile, less potent existence”, you appear to be suggesting there is some sort of inherent thing called ‘masculinity’ which can be eroded or attacked whereas it is really socially constructed and defined. What is ‘masculine’ is determined by cultural norms. It can either be the stereotype of watching sports, as in the west or holding hands with friends as in Middle Eastern cultures. I think you would struggle to define that concept without implying that only men can exhibit that behaviour, that it’s inherent to men or without arbitrarily assigning someone common to all humans as distinctively male. If I were to question what is ‘masculine’, you would answer ‘manly’. I would ask, what is ‘manly’ you could give a list of traits but to claim they are inherently bound to the nature of being a man is to fall into the trap of thinking in gender roles- to say men always do(descriptive) or should( Normative sexism) act in x,y,z ways. I’ve discussed this before in the topic of Dehumanization. Your thinking treats human beings with will and rationality as mere objects.

Essentially it seems you’ve failed to engage with the relevant literature and philosophy and instead ride the bandwagon of a minority of masculists who wrongly see men and women as inherently opposed and thus reject feminism as competition.

“The two are mutually exclusive, because the feminine paradigm of thought is largely concerned with the oppositional, either/or mutually exclusive dichotomy.” fails into the same error that some so called feminists have when they have claimed that men have an exclusive way of thinking such as rationality while women are more emotional suggesting that women should be less rational which is altogether insulting and sexist in of itself. No, it is not true there is ‘feminine’ or ‘masculine’ ways of thinking. There is merely ways of thinking, common to both. It was Aristotle who first widely propagated the idea of mutual exclusivity. Is he dominated by this way of thinking, even though Feminism as an organized movement did not exist in his time?

Furthermore the schema you are proposing of male vs. female, ‘masculine’ vs. ‘feminine’ is but itself, a false dichotomy based on gender role and out-dated gender binary.

“a life built on the idea of reproductive responsibility for men and reproductive emancipation for women, are indisputably the province and idea of women.” ignores the fact that marriage was to some extent created to allow men to reproduce and claim exclusivity over women and thus control their bodies. We can see this playing out via statism with men allowed ownership of women’s bodies and possessions and in the fact that up until quite recently, rape within marriage was considered acceptable. Marriage can be oppressive for men and women-there is no doubt about this. Anarcha-Feminists have acknowledged this fact for years. Again, ignorance leads you to overextend your points.

“The correct answer is this: a man has a choice, a free choice, and he should be allowed to choose whether or not enter into the child-rearing with a woman”, is of course absolutely true and I think no one should deny the tyranny of things such as enforced child support regardless of which parent of which gender it falls upon. Again this is an issue Anarcha-feminists do not have. The ethics of this however may be a different matter.

In writing “anarcho-misogyny is a new way of viewing antiquated arrangements like family and monogamy, neither of which can be said to be the natural state of males”, you are really making Anarcha-feminist arguments but from a masculist perspective. There is nothing wrong with that provided you understand the worth of feminism and it’s opposition to sexism, gender roles and the like.

To claim “Moreover, a woman within a monogamous relationship has a monopoly over the only asset sufficient to make any man entertain the prolonging of marriage: sex” is a thoroughly cynical reductionist view which excludes love from marriage.

The piece begins to have a personal ring to it when you say “but the simple truth is that he is a man engaged in the fullness of manhood.” I find it difficult to reconcile sleeping around with feminism. Furthermore, I see nothing which indicates that kind of behaviour is more ‘manly’ than not doing it. Again a gender role is assumed.

It’s a whole other debate whether “We are hardwired for polygyny, and our physiological realities prove as much.” but initially it seems this does not hold, current rates of divorce to the contrary. The reasoning of “Typically, human males are 10 percent taller and 20 percent heavier than females. This suggests that, throughout history, humans have been mildly polygynous.” is not immediately obvious neither does it follow from what of it you’ve presented.

“[W]hile powerful men throughout Western history have married monogamously (only one legal wife at a time), they have always mated polygynously (they had lovers, concubines, and female slaves)” speaks more to the use of women as objects of reproduction than as an inherent tendency against monogamy. Remember as biologists are found of reminding us, biology is not destiny.

It was a mistake to say “The answer is female-dominated and defined religion, specifically Catholic sexual mores, with their veneration of virginity ” since this ignores the clear understanding that the belief that women should remain ‘pure’ and virginal until marriage is clearly intended to be a means of control of women through male exclusivity. Remaining a virgin is not a ‘feminine’ value inherently.

It’s not entirely clear what you believe “equality of outcomes and results” involves, but I will say that Feminism is advocacy of equal treatment for women-i.e. that women and men be treated equally well. That’s part of opposition to Dehumanization which is involved in hierarchical relations of which sexism and larger Patriarchy, is a kind.

Unless under the influence of Paleo-libertarians or misguided anti-feminist masculinists, it’s unclear why you’d argue ” The state has been redesigned to care about health, about education, about egalitarian outcomes, and about promoting the universalization of said concerns throughout the globe through NGOs and other institutions” and lay the blame exclusively on women. These measures existed before organized feminism arose throughout globe, throughout history and were more about a political embodiment of the model of authoritarian parenting than women’s interests.

You haven’t defined you the meaning of “doubtful masculinity” and let the door open for a wide array of accusations of homophobia. In the one swipe your paragraph, in which you state “To allow socialism and other communitarian ideals to have their way is execute the Promethean impulse within men that reaches towards fire to achieve greatness on an individual level. Feminization teaches us that individual achievement, and any insistence on reaping the rewards of individual achievement as an individual, is selfish and evil. It denigrates that within ordinary men that might give them the chance to be extraordinary.” has misunderstood Socialism, implied Feminism inherently opposes self-interest with some randianesque rambling and set up Feminism as some sacrificial cult. Quite a feat!

In your mention of Warren Farrell, I would say that while he speaks much true about sexism against men, his philosophy is out of balance in excluding women or at least going on the offensive against Feminism without depth thought.

I think you’re wrong to “reject categorically the idea of sexual harassment” as if it can never occur and there are no ethical concerns involved. What you should have said is rather that it’s complex and beyond Freudian bizarreness, “dedicated to all of the women who covet what a man has ” is a pretty absurd statement.

NB: I consider this the end of the debate on my part.I don’t really have anything more to say.

When direct intervention of high office did the trick

New Straits Times April 18, 2004 | Ahmad A. Talib Ahmad A. Talib New Straits Times 04-18-2004 When direct intervention of high office did the trick Byline: Ahmad A. Talib Edition: New Sunday Times; 2* Section: Opinion Column: Pahit manis

SOMETIMES it requires the direct intervention of high office to get things moving or done. This was the case in Rembau, Negri Sembilan.

Mohd Yusof, chairman of one of the village development and security committees (JKKK) in the district, raised an issue which he had been pushing for the last two years.

He wanted a desktop computer for his committee to facilitate administrative work.

Speaking in the melodious Negri Sembilan accent, Mohd Yusof said: “Den dah banyak kali cubo mintak komputer. Payah bonar nak dapek. Kalau payah sangat, bagi ajo den liptop (I’ve been asking for a computer many times. But it’s so difficult to get one. Then just get me a laptop).”

It took everyone in the community hall quite a while to understand what he was trying to convey. Not only because he was using strange-sounding words but the public address sound system wasn’t exactly the best. here bilo weekly ad

It was only when someone clarified that Mohd Yusof was asking for a laptop that everyone laughed and understood what he meant.

He argued that he has been using a typewriter for six years but it had broken down and rendered obsolete by time. A personal computer would make his committee more efficient and effective, he said.

Another village head, Abdul Aziz Md Don, had another complaint. He lamented that his kampung had a nice community hall but cattle, fowl and goats use it as shelter.

Also in the Negri accent, Abdul Aziz said: “Balai rayo tu ponuh dengan binatang. Sebolah dopan balai tu berpagar tapi takek tu ajo. Bahagian topi, kiri, kanan dan belakang tak dipagar. Itu yang membuek kambing dan lombu sonang ajo keluar masuk (The hall is full of cattle, goats and fowl. The front part of the hall is fenced up but the rest is not. That’s why the animals walk in and out as and when they like).”

These two gentlemen were among 45 chairmen of the JKKK in the district who participated in an open dialogue with Menteri Besar Datuk Mohamad Hasan, installed as chief executive of Negri Sembilan on March 25.

The new Menteri Besar had his weekly executive council meeting in Rembau on Wednesday and plans to move from one district to another to enable him and the Exco to get nearer to the rakyat.

While this may not be a totally new exercise, his open dialogue with members of the village development and security committee was innovative and set a new norm in state administration.

“Apart from my Exco, I’m also bringing heads of department to join the dialogue. Members of Parliament are welcome too.

“I plan to rotate my Exco meeting by district as a means of bringing the Government to the rakyat.

“After the meeting, I’ll meet the chairmen of the JKKK and listen to their grievances and comments.

“This is the first time it’s being done in this format and I’m very encouraged by the response,” Mohamad Hasan said.

The Menteri Besar sought the help of the MP for Rembau, Datuk Firdaus Muhammad Rom Harun, to get Mohd Yusof and his JKKK a personal computer.

Mohd Yusof came away from the dialogue grinning from ear to ear because his plea has not only been heard but entertained as well. this web site bilo weekly ad

The state CEO has given a three-week deadline for the computer to be delivered and told the JKKK chief to make full use of the equipment.

As for Abdul Aziz, the Menteri Besar gave an on-the-spot approval for the community hall to be fully fenced once the District Officer has verified the request.

But the demands were not approved without the Menteri Besar voicing his concern (more like a warning to me though issued in a friendly manner).

A local lad himself, Mohamad Hasan, also in Negri accent, said: “Den raso den buleh buekkan pagar. Elok jugo kalau ado pagar. Tapi den risau sikit. Nanti, bilo pagar dah naik, orang kampung tak jugo gunokan balai tu dongan ponuh. Kalau cam tu, lobih baik tak payah buek balai rayo. Kerajaan bagi macam-macam kemudahan, tapi kadangkadang kito tak pandai nak menggunokan (I think I can approve the fences being put up. It’s good to have the hall fenced up. But I don’t want to see the kampung people not using the hall even after it has been properly fenced up).”

There was a chorus of “yes, you are right” from the attendance. If they had thought that they could raise any issue and get away with their requests without any hint of reprimand for their possible misuse of government help, the MB’s warning, issued in a soft and friendly tone, they were mistaken.

The JKKK chairmen were quick to give their word of honour that they would keep their side of the bargain.

Sitting and listening to the questions raised and answers given, I realised that the MB was setting a new benchmark in state administration. By going directly to the JKKK, he is able to get direct and uncoached feedback from the people.

The JKKK is an important grassroots machinery and serves as a platform for the kampung people to voice their views to Government, and vice versa.

Hence, the MB’s dialogue with the committee chairmen serves more than just an open dialogue but also as a recognition of their contribution to nation-building.

The manner in which Mohamad Hasan interacted with the village leaders also won any detractors to his side, if any.

It was obvious that he is quite used to settling problems by confronting them directly and fairly.

I learnt that when he was head honcho of Cycle and Carriage, the lean and spritely corporate CEO-turned-state CEO used to meet his departmental heads and senior executives most Wednesdays during a round of golf in Subang.

For about four hours, he and his exec-utives would “try” to play golf while discussing work.

“I used to get a lot of work done. A lot of problems are brought up for discussions and we make decisions too. Sometimes, we play good golf,” he said, adding that he has not touched his golf set for quite a while already.

Mohamad Hasan agrees that it should not take the Menteri Besar a long time to settle small and very local problems, such as requests for personal computers and fencing for community halls.

One JKKK chief said the street lighting in his kampung has not worked for some time and his complaints fell on deaf ears. Yet another lamented that the cemetery in his kampung is not fenced and left untended.

At Wednesday’s inaugural dialogue, departmental heads were made to give on- the-spot answers or solutions to the people’s problems. Even Tenaga Nasional sent a senior executive to answer complaints raised against it.

The State Assemblymen should take heed of the Menteri Besar’s serious push to get the political leadership more involved in day- to-day issues facing the rakyat and to get the bureaucracy to be more pro-active in problem solving.

The kampung people do not want to hear excuses. Neither do they understand the lengthy explanations why the procurement of spare parts is delaying the repair and upgrading of some public amenities.

“Spare us the explanation and excuses. Just give us what was promised,” an elderly village head said after the dialogue.

I’m sure that the wakil rakyat would have taken serious note of the implications of the dialogue.

The MB was merely taking the direct, simple and most transparent route to tackle problems affecting the rakyat.

The dialogue serves also as a check and balance exercise for everyone – the wakil rakyat must work and serve their constituencies; the people must make sure that the amenities provided are fully utilised; and the state CEO get a first-hand report card on his Exco and fellow state assemblymen.

If Mohamad Hasan continues with this approach, I’m sure he’ll be able to have time for his golf and take his car for a spin.

In three weeks’ time, I’ll check if Mohd Yusof has already received his desktop computer. And a week after that, I’ll know for sure if he knows how to use it.

And who knows, some of us may even get invited to the doa selamat when the balai raya in Sri Gadong is fully fenced up.

Ahmad A. Talib

Scott FLess Anarcho,More Misogynist.

Comments 3

  1. Anonymous

    Scott,

    The root of your pro-feminism arguments (on this and other threads) is based on the premise that feminism helps everyone. Or “should” to be exact. How long are you going to keep proclaiming, in the face of colossal evidence to the contrary, that feminism is for everyone?

    Several commenters have cited numerous REAL examples of how feminism has actively worked to discriminate against men and worked for female supremacy.

    This comment gives a brief overview of female supremacy in the US.
    1. http://www.gonzotimes.com/2011/03/what-is-feminism/#comment-164758327

    This comment cites more female privilege, and factually dispels some myths about the “oppressive patriarchy.”
    2. http://www.gonzotimes.com/2011/03/what-is-feminism/#comment-168034555

    Josh and Jay Batman cited many examples of female supremacy, female violence, and female hypocrisy in their articles as well.

    If you don’t want to listen to us about the harms of Feminism, you don’t have to. Google “Erin Pizzey” “Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers” and “Phyllis Schlafly” Three incredibly accomplished women who are highly critical of Feminism, and factually cite its numerous harms and supremacist agenda. I do not agree with all their views, but I respect their work and willingness to speak the truth on these issues.

    For the record, we can agree that most of the men in charge of society are evil assholes. However, Feminism has used male bad actors to pathologize masculinity, and demand absolute supremacy for women as the solution. Of course, this only helps the evil assholes at the top who apparently now have more women among their ranks. “You go grrrl!” I guess. But it harms the vast multitudes of men getting crushed under the jackboots of Feminism and Statism.

    It’s hard for me to fathom how an intelligent person such as yourself (and Punk Johnny Cash) just keeps going with the propaganda “feminism is for everyone” without acknowledging this pink elephant in the room.

  2. Vicki Moore

    Thank you for this. Seriously, I’m at the point where you can’t expect me to have a 101 discussion that leaves my brain intact (which is a flaw that I think many of us are suffering from on this issue).

Leave a Reply