Feminism as Fascism -- Article from 1983
Here is an old article by Bob Black, from 1983, titled Feminism as Fascism. Good stuff, even if you don't agree with Bob Black about everything. It is on the Anarchist Library website, and you can also get a PDF version from there:
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-feminism-as-fascism
Here's a teaser-snippet to get you intrigued:
By the way, I am informed that there is a quite vocal and growing anti-feminist tendency in the anarchist community nowadays. That's good news, I would say.
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-feminism-as-fascism
Here's a teaser-snippet to get you intrigued:
"Male leftists, for instance, are easy and often willing yes-men to feminist aggrandizement. They combine guilt at past improprieties (by and large, those who feel guilty — toward women, blacks, foreigners, whatever — usually are) with a present ambition to get into the leftist-feminists’ pants. . . . These ulterior ambitions obviously don’t, in themselves, discredit the ideologies to which they are appended — one can come to the right conclusion for the worst of reasons. But insofar as the opinions at issue certainly seem to be idiotic to anyone without extraneous interest in embracing them, otherwise inexplicable paroxysms by male intellectuals seem to be most plausibly explainable as self-interested insincere rationalizations."You will no doubt enjoy reading the article in its entirety.
By the way, I am informed that there is a quite vocal and growing anti-feminist tendency in the anarchist community nowadays. That's good news, I would say.
posted by Fidelbogen at 7:38 PM
11 Comments:
"with a present ambition to get into the leftist-feminists’ pants".
Of course, that is all that motivates men - its not like any of the men supporting feminism were actually stupid enough to believe the bogus rape/dv statistics - NAWWWWW.
I would wager a guess it makes no mention of GAY men also siding with feminists in those days of old.
Heterosexual male bashing at it's best.
Not going to waste my time reading it.
I have read too much literature from that era.
It's all crap.
Too bad that Jew-hating nut case Hitler screwed up book burning for the rest of us.
Scarecrow, I seriously, seriously don't get what you are on about.
I think Scarecrow's point is that the best explanation for men supporting feminism is that they genuinely believe that women have been disadvantaged and they have an interest in equality.
This is plausible (and in fact is my story) because society's received wisdom is that women have been disadvantaged. Further, there are some pieces of evidence that suggest this to be true. (eg. women getting the vote later than men, leaders tending to be men, certain jobs that did bar women). Further in the days before the internet, it was hard to find out that DV statistics were misleading.
Now of course, if you look at the big picture feminism is fraudulent. But it's not shocking that people fall into line for no other reason than a desire to be a good, fair person.
So anyways, I don't think it's true or even helpful to assume that male feminists are only interested in being pro-feminist to get sex. When you don't understand the motivations of another person, it is too easy to assume the other person is evil or stupid.
Just wanted to add that I felt most of the article was good.
It did an excellent job of pointing out the contradictions of feminism. And it did so in 1983.
I just don't agree that male feminists primary motivation is to get laid.
Another thought occurred to me. Perhaps the desire to get laid was a big part of male feminists desire back in the 60s and 70s and early 80s.
Male feminists that didn't grow up under feminism might have had ulterior motives. Male feminists who grew up in the 80s 90s and 00s were more likely indoctrinated from a young age and came to see feminism as an important part of being good.
@Greg:
I, too, think that the "getting laid" explanation of collaborationist psychology is far too facile.
I think that classism and tribalism (of various forms) enters into it as well. Along with good old fashioned misandry.
The "getting laid" motivation is something feminists approve of and cultivate in their male suckers - I've heard a woman on the BBC say something about how it's better to date a feminist because "you might get laid" real smugly they way they do on BBC (seriously femibefuddled bunch by the way, the BBC) - also this was in an article about reasons to date a feminist or something like that not too long ago. This works for young guys, not only do they want to get laid, they think it's cool, and of course feminists like that it reduces the male to something stupid and predictable. Young guys need to be informed that's a dumb way to get laid, and probably has higher risk of false rape allegations, std's, or just being turned into a stupid puppet for some ass. They need to hold out for the good stuff - non feminist women who were raised with real character. A good sign imo would be a woman who from the get go does not seem to any payment for attention, and listens respectfully as much as she talks. Or is that putting the bar too high.
Fidelbogen:
Regarding Scarecrow's comment: if getting into leftist-feminist pants were a motivation, it certainly would fail. To be bluntly honest, it's the same reason PUAs fail. Feminism has atrophied the female sex drive. How could anyone feel sexually attracted to someone they consider a subhuman?
@Eric and Greg - THANK YOU!
-sccrow
Interesting blog you've got here, mister. Congratulations.
You wrote: "By the way, I am informed that there is a quite vocal and growing anti-feminist tendency in the anarchist community nowadays. That's good news, I would say."
As an European Anarchist, one of the most baffling aspects of dealing with North American intellectuals is their dogmatic (and persistent) belief that anarchists are nothing more than egalitarians by any other name. EVEN NORTH AMERICAN "ANARCHISTS" TEND TO BELIEVE THIS. Specially the rats of Academia.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Anarchism is, by default (but not by necessity), anti-feminist in its nature. Feminism demands the existence of a state to assure that the rights of women are "respected". In an anarchist society, the woman is relegated to her natural role as child-bearer, sexual companion and housewife. Just like the man is relegated to his role as family-head.
It is startling that some American intellectuals have the audacity to call themselves anarcho-feminists when no other political movement in recent history is as distinctively anti-anarchist as feminism is.
Even social conservatives (a la Burke or Buckley) are closer to anarchists than feminists ever were (or communists, for that matter).
If you're interested in expanding your knowledge regarding this incompatibility, read about the active anti-feminist (perhaps even misogynistic) stance of Proudhon, the father of anarchism. Read his thoughts on Women and the Women's liberation movement.
You'll read your "there's a growing anti-feminist sentiment in the anarchist community" with other eyes. Trust me on this. If anything, it is anarchism returning to its roots.
However, let me assure you that this is mainly a North American phenomena. I love America but your academic institution is putrid.
You should watch (you probably already did) the documentary "Indoctrinate U" on YouTube. Google the channel ANTIRACISM. Leftists are a bigger threat to the intellectual discourse than the Religious Right. I have no doubt in my mind about this.
Thank you for seconding my opinion that the Left is a bigger threat to the intellectual discourse than the Religious Right. Thank you also for seconding my opinion of American academia.
As for Anarchism, I really had no such preconceptions about it, but was passing along information which came to me through American sources (presumably re the American "anarchist" scene).
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home