Hat tip to Vanessa, Traditional Christianity
Fascism.
I want to suggest that the progressive movement, and the left, and feminists in particular, are fascist. Consider this open letter to Swedish feminists from a Dane (the controversy is there was a show in Denmark with a nude woman on it)
Dear Swedish women, you’ve won and today it is you who are the oppressors. You have managed to define men’s sexuality as dangerous, poorer and more primitive than women by reducing men to the prehistoric Neanderthal – and to the point that you yourself believe in it.
…
By doing all this, you have begun a bitter, vicious and unjust war against the other sex. Aside from the fact that you have nothing to gain from it, then it will also lead to a total setback. For sooner or later, the men will no longer want to be part of a so-called gender war, which means that they are a priori doomed. They are now being ridiculed, and their values ??and sexuality is being dumped down. Therefore, they will eventually turn against you – and all will lose. The pendulum will just swing back again.
We are not part of a collective. Although we are equal — in our moral agency, in our essential dignity, we are not the same. And the implication that we are interchangeable is moronic. It is as if one suggests that any man would be an appropriate representative and substitute for her husband to a faithful wife. She will be disgusted. And rightly so.
The notion of sexual quotas is so obviously an expression of sexism that no lengthy discussion is necessary. If a young man is barred from a school or a job because the quota for his particular sex has been filled, he is barred by reason of his sex. Telling him that those admitted are his “representatives,” is adding insult to injury. To demand such quotas in the name of fighting sexual discrimination, is an obscene mockery…
The quota doctrine assumes that all members of a given physiological group are identical and interchangeable—not merely in the eyes of other people, but in their own eyes and minds. Assuming a total merging of the self with the group, the doctrine holds that it makes no difference to a woman whether she or her “representative” is admitted to a school, gets a job, or makes a decision.
This leads to one of those odd things. I often quote libertarians, alt right people — and then people from the left. The old left. Because the old left may be wrong, in multiple ways, but they are not swallowed up in the politics of identity and they are not fascist. So I’m now going to quote an anarchist, Bob Black, who back in 1983 (and before the march of the politically correct lobotomizers through our institutions) wrote a plain warning.
All hyperbole and metaphor aside, what passes for “radical feminism” is fascism. It promotes chauvinism, censorship, maternalism, pseudo-anthropology, scapegoating, mystical identification with nature, tricked-up pseudo-pagan religiosity, enforced uniformity of thought and even appearance (in some quarters, Hera help the ectomorphic or “feminine” feminist!). Here is all of the theory and too much of the practice we should all be able to recognize by now. An ominous tactical continuity with classical fascism, also, is the complementarity between private-vigilantist and statist methods of repression. Thus Open Road, the Rolling Stone of anarchism, applauded some anti-porn actions in Vancouver (not as direct action, hence understandable even if misdirected, but rather) because they encouraged lethargic prosecutors to persecute. In post-World War I Italy (the suppression of the IWW in America followed a similar pattern), fascist gangs attacked socialist and trade-union organizations with the tacit approval of the police, who never intervened except against the left. As I once wonderingly asked: “How come these women won’t get in bed with any man except the DA?”
Not that I could care less about the porn-for-profit industry, for its “rights” of free speech or property. That is beside the point, which is: why single out this species of business? To target porn bespeaks planning and priorities, not elemental anticapitalist spontaneity. Those who carry out a calculated policy can’t complain if their reasons are asked for, and questioned.
Fascist ideology always incongruously asserts to its audience, its chosen people, that they are at one and the same time oppressed and superior. The Germans didn’t really lose the First World War — how could they? ex hypothesi they are superior — therefore, they were stabbed in the back. (But how could a superior race let such a situation arise in the first place?) Men (only), we are told in a feminist/Anti-Porn Movement (APM) diatribe in Toronto’s Kick It Over, “have created the nature-destroying and woman-hating culture.” If so, then either women have contributed absolutely nothing to culture, or there is something more or something else to this culture than destroying nature and hating women.
For their own purposes (some of which are as mundane as sexual rivalry with straight men for the women they both desire), self-styled radical feminists actually reduce women to nothing but helpless, cringing near-vegetables, passive victims of male contempt and coercion. This profoundly insults women in a way which the worst patriarchal ideologies — the Jewish notion of woman as a source of pollution, for instance, or the Christian nightmare of woman as temptress and uncontrollable sexual nature-force — fell short of. They defamed woman as evil but could hardly regard her as powerless. The new woman-as-victim stereotype is not only directly traceable to nineteenth century Victorian patriarchal attitudes reducing (bourgeois) women to inert ornaments, but by denying to women the creative power inherent in everyone, it places women’s demands on a par with those advanced for, say, baby seals.
Suppose instead what only the most demented feminists and misogynists deny, that things aren’t quite that bad, that women have been subjects as well as objects of history. Then how can women — or any other subordinated group: workers, blacks, indigenous peoples — be entirely acquitted of all complicity in the arrangements which condemn them to domination? There are reasons for these accommodations. There is no excuse for denying their existence.
This isn’t sour grapes. It has never bothered me that some women dislike men, even to the point of having nothing to do with them. I don’t like most men myself, especially the archetypal “masculine” ones. I can’t help but notice, though, that the vast majority of women feel otherwise. The radical feminists have noticed it too, and it drives them to distraction. I would be the first to agree that vast majorities can be wrong. If they weren’t we would be the fringe loonies, the impotent kooks that almost everyone thinks we are. But then I criticize majorities, I don’t pretend to speak for them. Radical feminists, in contrast, are vanguardists. As such they need to rationalize their animosities, and so they have — making a dick-determinist demonology out of their prejudices. As man-haters they can’t help but be women-haters too.
Now, there are two cures for fascism. One is non violent, the other anything but pacifistic.
The first is to mercilessly mock it. When someone says they cannot stand gendered speech, ask if humans are mammals or not. For all mammals have some form of sexual dimorphism — as a consequence of the female having to bear and nurse babes. Anyone who has ever seen a mother with a babe can see a natural miracle in places — as she lactates her concentration on the newborn is beautiful to behold. (And frustrating for her spouse, who knows he has couch duty for a season).
Mocking feminists is easy. Which is why it is more stupid and feminist-run nations call it hate speech, and ban it.
The other alternative is resistance, rebellion and revolution. So, not for the first time. we pray that the warnings will be heard, and our children will not be next.