![]() |
| Gormless Wimp or Jessica Valenti's Bitch.. |
Needless to say that this topic is at the very heart of gender feminists outcomes that is well beyond their control regardless of how hard they try..
By Cobus FourieInteresting range of topics and issues that feminists preferably hoped didn't exist and they try to manipulate all and sundry with their gender reconstruction outcomes..
In 1993, the 4 Non Blondes had a huge international hit with their song titled ‘What’s up?’ Linda Perry, the vocalist and songwriter, sings in the first phrase: ‘I realised quickly when I knew I should that the world was made up of this brotherhood of man for whatever that means…” The song’s chorus furthers asks the pivotal question: what’s going on? The question is obviously rhetorical but moreover a statement of discontent.
Linda Perry became a songwriter mostly after her band split up and she was the person behind Christina Aguilera’s hit song ‘Beautiful’ which in its music video had the theme of self-acceptance and portrayed a gay couple kissing and a transvestite. The conclusion is obvious – acceptance of the fringe, acceptance of the ‘other’.
I fear that in terms of acceptance we are starting to take one giant leap backwards. And by ‘we’ I mean the so-called men’s movement.
There seems to be a phenomenon rearing its evil head. All around the world men lead by other self-appointed preachers and moral leaders are revolting against feminism and claiming back their god ordained place in society as head of the house et cetera all under the auspices of religious dogma. They call this the so-called men’s movement.
This resurgence and revolt against feminism is proliferating at a rapid speed and I fear that in terms of human rights we will be back in the dark Middle Ages.
The patriarchy thinks in terms of binary oppositions or dichotomies depending on which nomenclature you prefer: Male versus female or the ‘one’ versus the ‘other’.
I was always flabbergasted when heterosexual people always wanted to know the butch and femme in homosexual relationships. It is just a manifestation of the obsession with dichotomies and the patriarchy’s utter disregard for equality and the notion of the subservience of the female. Certain heterosexuals and of course the patriarchy, par excellence, continue to impose these constructs upon everyone else to simplify their lives. This is also known as good old-fashioned stereotyping.
As James Dobson was quoted in the New York Times: “tolerance and its first cousin diversity is almost always code for homosexual advocacy.” It seems the patriarchy has a huge gripe with tolerance and diversity. It just doesn’t quite fit into their strict dichotomies.
Now more about James Dobson: he is the founder of the Focus on the Family Foundation and has been spitting out conservative drivel since 1977. Note that James Dobson is no reverend/priest/minister or religious scholar but a psychologist with a very clear ulterior motive. Note also that the Focus on the Family Foundation produces ready-to-play radio programmes, an almost prêt-à-porter of the broadcast industry. Also note that the vast majority of South African community radio stations naively broadcast these conservative drivel much to the astonishment of the progressive community. Our nation is built on tolerance and diversity; our coat of arms says ‘unity in
diversity’ after all. Now why do these radio stations propagate division?
James Dobson also went on the most illogical tirade about the innocent and very likable cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants. He was widely quoted that said character was a product of the pink agenda (inferring gay mafia connotations) and maintains that SpongeBob SquarePants will pollute the minds of the young and feed them pro-homosexual messages.
The feminists and the LGBT community have a common enemy in the patriarchy and its utter disregard for the rights of the ‘other’, this ‘other’ being everyone except the heterosexual, cisgender male. I did a simple Google search on ‘the evils of the patriarchy’ and to my astonishment most results lead to websites that proclaim the evil of feminism and the foundation of their dislike is ‘the bible tells us so’. Ever since the advent of the modern constitutional democracy, there has been the vital and clear separation between church and state. Otherwise, politically we would be back in the Middle Ages.
The problem with the patriarchy is that it is the basis of many cultures and it is sanctioned by religious texts hence it still being in practice today. The patriarchy imposes its strict dichotomies on everyone else thus subverting the rights of everyone but the heterosexual, cisgender male. The patriarchy also has no tolerance for equality and firmly believes in the subservience of the ‘other’ (historically the female). The patriarchy regards women and the LGBT community as lesser persons and would not very much like to grant them equal rights.
Rosemarie Putnam Tong, author of Feminist Thought, writes the following: “Simone de Beauvoir provided an ontological-existential explanation for women’s oppression. In The Second Sex, one of the key theoretical texts of the twentieth century feminism, she argued that woman is oppressed by virtue of her otherness. Woman is the other because she is not-man.” Tong also states: “They claim woman’s otherness enables individual women to stand back and criticise the norms, values, and practices that the dominant male culture (patriarchy) seeks to impose on everyone, particularly those who live on its periphery”
Amelia Jones, author of Feminism, Incorporated. Reading “postfeminism” in an antifeminism age, has the following to say: “The recent resuscitation of this patriarchal fantasy by the right – under the guise of ‘family values’ – is a symptom of the massive anxiety of the patriarchal system, a reaction formation against the threatening incursion of women into the work force and, more recently, the political arena.” Jones continues: “With the cultural authority of anglo masculinity becoming increasingly bankrupt as gay, feminist, and non-white cultures insistently articulate counter-identities to this imaginary norm, the patriarchal commodity system urgently seeks to reinforce predictable stereotypes of femininity… The properly postfeminist woman shores up the crumbling infrastructure of conservative American ideology during a time of economic crisis and confirms the ‘rightness’ of Republicanism, with its moralizing intervention in personal relations and the destruction of the civil rights of women, lesbians, gays, blacks, and others.”
Jones then explores the heart of this topic: “The other side of the postfeminist coin is the so-called ‘men’s movement.’ Inspired by Robert Bly’s book Iron John (1990) the men’s movement appropriates and perverts the rhetoric of feminism to urge the contemporary American male to ‘find a voice of [his] own’ as a ‘Wild Man.’ Bly laments the feminization of the American male at the hands of his female caretakers, and calls for the extirpation of this spineless femininity through primitivist histrionics and rituals of male bonding. The “Wild Man” immerses himself in mother nature and beats the appropriated drums of his ‘primitive’ brothers with big sticks to prove to himself that … his ability to dominate is intact. As with the frantic declarations of the supposed death of the feminist subject, the fact that masculinity (again, aggressively heterosexual and almost exclusively anglo and upper middle-class) needs to be shored up proves again how intense is the threat the vast numbers of working women of all sexual, racial, and class identities currently pose to the patriarchal system (not to mention the threat posed by the increasingly powerful identity politics of the non-heterosexual male).”
Just as these excerpts explain the situation in the USA, so these notions have shown up here in South Africa as well. Think of those “Man Camp conferences”. It is sad, immensely frightening, and utterly detrimental to the egalitarian society we want to build here.
Lastly, now I want to ask that anthem of a question that Linda Perry asked about seventeen years ago: what’s going on?
References:
Jones, A. (Ed). 2003. The Feminism and Visual Culture Reader. Routledge
Tong, R. P. 1998. Feminist Thought. A more comprehensive introduction. Westview Press
Some responses from the more sensible thought provokers as they grapple with this..
Ragnar
The Wild Man she's talking about is exactly a man going his own way, becoming a "whole man", so to speak, instead of the "socially constructed feman". Such a man will naturally bond, be allied with men, with whom he shares his lifes interests and goals.
In other words she is talking about the civilised man, the creator of societies. The only primate who managed to escape the animal kingdom, well ... that's execpt for having to bring his biological counterpart with him.
Cloaca
The Men's Movement is a movement much like "people don't want to get cheated" is an attitude.
If you want to stop it, you have to stop men from talking and thinking.
Judging by how much women enjoy modern life and the many conveniences it brings - conveniences that were brought about by men talking and thinking (and still doing so), I might add -
you can't stop the Men's Movement.
K..
Slate, the Good Manginas Project, Alternet, Ms. Magazine, etc. The Mens movement has gained visibility we could not even have fathomed just 10 years ago. The FemBots are worried. They should be. The truth is that Men are boycotting Marriage, relationships and especially Feminized Women in record numbers. The Beta Males who the FemBots are marrying are wusses who they do not respect. The Men who are untamed and will not cave scare them.
This is more proof that they are losing the hearts and minds of Men. Our outreach to those outside our movement must grow and increase. The insular community of the Men in the Men's Rights movement must continue to grow. The Mancession is adding fuel to the fire. That the newest DNC ChairWoman who is a Rabid Feminist. Is proof that the Dems are in bed with and married to the gender Feminists who practice Grievance or Victim Feminism. Most are clearly mentally unbalanced like Amanduh Marcotte. This was in fact a delight to read.
Also the word misandry in search on Twitter brings up a growing list of angry FemiFascists who want to silence Men who promote our legal standing. The truth is that the Men's movement is not about male dominance. As much as many would like it to be. Instead it is about us having any reasonable legal standing in our Republic, again.

3 comments:
There seems to be a phenomenon rearing its evil head. All around the world men lead by other self-appointed preachers and moral leaders are revolting against feminism and claiming back their god ordained place in society as head of the house et cetera all under the auspices of religious dogma. They call this the so-called men’s movement.
This resurgence and revolt against feminism is proliferating at a rapid speed and I fear that in terms of human rights we will be back in the dark Middle Ages.
well golly
"he fears" :O)
it seems many of these wimpy thugs are getting a bit nervous about your men's movement
you people must be doing something right
go Middle Ages!
ray
The picture shows an effeminate, wimpy looking man who has lost all sense of his masculinity. His natural, healthy, virile masculinity has been destroyed and replaced with a feminine submissiveness. A European looking man, of course. If ethnic European men want to know why so many of their women date men from other ethnic groups, just look at men like this author. Just how brainwashed do men have to be to write articles like this? This man is promoting an ideology which hates him. It's Stockhom Syndrome on steriods.
Again with the Spongebob Squarepants? It's a cartoon, for God's sake. I can't stand the show, but then again I am fifty years old; somehow I don't think I'm the target audience. What is wrong with child-like silliness, when talking to a child?
As to the dark middle ages, of course that is just hyperbole, the last refuge of an illiterate pretending to scholarship. I don't particularly see a return to the fifties as anything I desire. Men were calling the shots, to be sure...but they paid a huge price for it: Mindless consumerism, nut-busting work hours where the only gain was for the wife and kids, idiotic slavishness to the television, ulcers, dyspeptic stomache, and a sunday nap as the solitary joy in his life.
It has been said that feminism liberated men far more than it did women. In a way, I agree with this. Men of the coming age do not want to be enslaved by a fat, nagging, ungrateful spouse and snivelling spoiled children, all in the name of societal expectation. Nor do they want to be pair-bonded with a hideous shrew who has seen more cock than a rooster farm, and who spends her waking moments listening to Orca Winfrey tell them how horrible their men are.
Screw that.
My life, my way. Hardly a unifying battle call, but one that is being heard none the less.
Post a Comment