Sunday, December 10, 2006

New, Improved Fascism Lite. Now Available in Lesbian Flavour.

Someone drew my attention to this gem today.

Poorly written, hysterical, inconsistently referenced, full of anecdotal evidence, as a piece of academic writing it is juvenile in the extreme. It is as though a freshman Women’s Studies assignment has somehow found its way on to the internet, and in fact we should be grateful for the opportunity to capture one alive.

However, let's not get involved in ad hominem attacks. Let us instead begin to unpack some of the unsubstantiated assertions, spurious statistics, myths and distortions it contains. Unfortunately, I simply don’t have the space to give this essay the treatment it deserves. It is indeed a fascinating specimen of contemporary feminist scholarship.

Ms. Bold clearly states, “Women, who outnumber men, are the single largest group of oppressed humans on the planet. Men have oppressed women nonstop for the longest length of time of any oppressed group, more than 5,000 years”

In order to understand why anyone, particularly a privileged middle-class girl in the world’s most powerful nation, would choose to view her own life as analogous to slavery (apart from her own tendency towards self-pitying narcissism), let me provide some basic intellectual context.

Karl Marx described society in terms of economic classes, and the political relations between these classes. The most significant political relation was the relation between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and this relation was characterized as being essentially antagonistic in nature.

Radical feminists have cherry-picked some aspects of this theory. In feminist theory, society is again described in terms of classes, but these are defined sexually (i.e. biologically), rather than economically. The political relation between men and women is, again, characterized as essentially antagonistic. Feminism has moved the political Left from ‘class war’ to ‘gender war’.

In both cases, the favoured political relation is given almost metaphysical significance. Just as Marx claimed that ‘All history is the history of class struggle’, radical feminists claim that male violence against women, and rape in particular, is the single defining feature of human social life almost from the earliest times. We are informed:

“Even when men rape males, contempt for women is the underlying issue” It's all about Me. Me. Me.

Any such analysis of society in terms of class struggle tacitly assumes that classes are monolithic; the classes are easy to define, all members of a class share the same political interests, and members of different classes always have divergent or conflicting political interests.

That, approximately, is the conceptual framework underpinning this article.

M Bold takes as her subject matter violence committed by men against women. It is clear from the beginning that violence committed by women, and violence committed against men, are simply not going to be considered. Given the simple-minded quasi-Marxist structure of the theory, combined with her own over-riding self-regard, it should be easy enough to see why these issues don't matter to her.

The author begins by asserting that all men are responsible for violence against women, even men who have never committed violence against women - which is almost all of us. This is purely a political decision of hers, which she obviously thinks is some kind of fundamental truth. We are all to be held collectively responsible for crime, simply because we happen to belong to a biologically-defined group selected by the author herself.

This is like saying, following a news story about a black criminal, that all black people are collectively responsible for all crime. In fact, this is exactly the kind of tactic used by the British National Party and other extreme Right groups in order to stir up racial hatred. Radical feminists are doing exactly the same thing with regard to sex. Articles such as this one serve no function other than to promote fear and hatred of men by women. The entire text is an exercise in neo-fascist propaganda, and a poorly written one at that.

There is the curious feminist obsession with the notion of ‘breaking the silence’. The claim is that women have been ‘silenced’ and need to speak out. Recent scientific evidence has shown that women speak, on average, three times as much as men.

She quotes someone called Sonia Johnson: “If women steadfastly and courageously began to tell the truth and would not stop, would not be co-opted, would not become afraid, the truth of our enslavement would be undeniable”. There is a whole universe of complexity to unpack just from this one statement. I find it risible that someone could write an entire book full of lies, distortion and misrepresentation, and call it ‘Telling the Truth’.

Ms Bold seems to believe that merely by repeating something often enough, it will eventually become accepted as the truth. This was also the view of Adolf Hitler: “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”

The next section of the article is designed to enumerate possible responses to her bizarre claims. She is attempting to forestall any criticism. It is ironic that she talks about 'breaking the silence', when most of her article is designed to suppress debate and create silence.

When making her case that men are evil and women are good, she condemns war as one of the evils that men do. She then goes on to stress the importance of confronting one’s enemies directly, and cites as an example Allied action in WWII, without which the Nazis 'would now run the world'. Is she against war or not? The poor girl is confused.

She goes on to put forward a model of human history which I believe is often known as ‘ecofeminism’. Its most celebrated proponent is the man-hating genocidal psychotic, Mary Daly, whom in fact Ms Bold quotes in obvious fawning admiration. It is roughly the following. At the beginning of human history, society was an Eden-like paradise free from conflict. The reason for this is that women were in control, and everyone worshipped goddesses. Then, the Fall from Grace occurred. Men gained control, and everyone began to worship male gods instead. Men subjugated women, and violence, war and mayhem followed. The solution to this is to revert to the Old Religion. We must all go back to worshipping the goddess, and everything will be as it should be. This absurd and childish theory is completely unsupported by any evidence, archaeological, historical or scientific. That does not stop feminists such as Ms Bold from citing spurious pseudo-scientific evidence in support of her case. Ms Bold offers us as supposed scientific evidence, quotations from the kind of book one would find in the New Age section of one’s local bookshop. I find it surprising that goddess worshippers should even feel it necessary to attempt to justify their beliefs in terms of the hated phallocentric science. Feminists have shown time and time again that they are prepared to steal the clothes of science when it suits them, and condemn science as evil when that suits them better.

Deconstructing this mythology would require an entire paper in itself. However, it can basically be seen as a lesbians-only resurgence of the Romantic Movement. For more information on this particular outer reach of lesbian feminism – which, incidentally, seems to have become mainstream in many Women’s Studies departments in the USA – refer to “The New Victorians” by Rene Denfeld, and “Higher Superstition”, by Gross and Levitt.

Perhaps Utopia Bold believes that she has discovered the key to unlock the universe. In fact, she is simply a devotee of a strange, new and deeply unsavoury religious cult. I hope that she will grow out of it.

This essay is valuable evidence of the appalling state of contemporary academic culture in the Western world. Students in China, India and the Far East get on with the serious business of learning science, mathematics, engineering, economics, music and art, and building a brighter future for themselves. This essay, on the other hand, a product of the Womynz Studeez industry, is what passes for higher education or journalism in the Anglosphere. This situation, this undeniable decline in intellectual culture in the West, is a direct result of Feminism and the legacy of the 1960s Left.

Like broken families, the anti-intellectual, pseudo-academic culture prevailing in our universities, and our media, is another symptom of the social and cultural breakdown afflicting the Western world. We need to learn to take back the campus. We need to re-impose the values of traditional Liberal education on to academic life before any more harm is done to it. We are staring into the abyss.

New, Improved Fascism Lite. Now Available in Lesbian Flavour. Because You're Worth It. Reaches the Parts that Other Fascisms Don’t Reach. Doesn’t Do What it Says On the Tin. Reassuringly Nonsensical.


gwallan said...

Thanks squire. They wont publish my reply even though it was quite measured.

Anonymous said...

Well dissected H !
If I see one like this on the cross the road..quick ;-)