(Response to: To Extremist Feminist Emma Goldwoman: 20 *Real* Interview Questions to Answer... and Emma Goldwoman's Femenazi Rants: Data Showing Her Unpopularity on Portland IMC. See also: Compost Bin 11/27.) |
I do not agree with whoever made the decision to compost the original post. I am a free speech extremist. We must allow into public discourse precisely those opinions we personally find the most abhorrent, otherwise freedom of speech is meaningless. I do not think the original post constitutes spam. The person who posted it is, in my opinion, not trying to prevent the functioning of indymedia.
About the term 'feminazi':
The term 'feminazi' is first and foremost a word used to try and shut people up, specifically feminists and their supporters.
As anyone who takes the time to read my essays can discover, I consistently advocate a resolution of conflict through communication, which is precisely what the Nazis were most afraid of, because their power rested on terror, pure and simple.
The term 'feminazi' became current (as far as I know, perhaps someone can do some research on the word and help me out) in reaction to the women's movement of the late '60's and '70's. Rush Limbaugh is quite fond of this word.
Women can challenge this word directly, by refusing to be cowed by the people who throw it at them. We can calmly break the word down and expose the assumptions buried within it.
The word is made by combining 'feminist' with 'Nazi'.
Feminists, women who have organized and struggled to promote the rights of women, have never held political power. Far from it. They are considered dangerous, however, just as Palestinians are considered dangerous for Zionists, just as wage slaves are considered dangerous for owners, just as critics of American foreign policy are considered dangerous by the men (mostly) implementing that policy. Feminists are considered dangerous because they challenge the right of male violence (individual, legal, war) to rule the world.
The other word, 'Nazi', refers to an actual political movement which taught that some people are slaves, others are masters. The Nazis, naturally, considered themselves to be masters, and thus anything, ANYTHING, they did was justified, in their eyes, because THEY did it.
The people who use this word, 'feminazi', thus combine two words which, logically, cannot be combined. The word is meant to frighten, to condemn, and to intimidate. A man who uses this word is nothing but a coward, afraid of talking sensibly about human society. Women have to put up with this type of male intellect, this bullshit, day in or day out, this male intellect which assumes it is oh so logical, oh so intelligent, when in fact it has the mental age of an eight year old moaning that his pretty toy has been taken away. His pretty toy, in this case, is his own image of himself as the rightful ruler of our world.
The word 'feminazi' is interesting though, because the Nazis were an example of what I have been talking about in my essays.
We often hear that Hitler was a 'failed art student'. We rarely hear, though, that he was a 'successful soldier'. He was. He was a war hero, just like Timothy McVeigh. Just like Ariel Sharon. Just like ... ... . you fill in the blank.
The Nazi party was started by young men, soldiers, who had been through the sadist training school called war. The sensitivity necessary for healthy human life had been destroyed. They became killing machines, and after the war they remained killing machines, looking for a killing ideology and a killing leader to follow.
The Nazi party was the modern expression of undiluted male violence: efficient, cold, filled with the false coin of maudlin sentimentality and patriotism, racist, arrogant, self-satisfied, cruel, and completely unable to allow the sensitivity of direct emotion and relationship to affect their mentally constructed self-image.
The Nazi party is blustering George Bush calmly contemplating the violent deaths of thousands and thousands of innocent Iraqi people in order for the white boys from Texas to take control of the world's oil supplies. That oil belongs to Bush because he has the power to take it. Because he has the power, he is superior. That is the Nazi ideology, in a nutshell.
Ask yourself why the word 'masculinazi', or some such tortured coinage, doesn't exist. The reason is that 'Nazi' equals male violence. And any woman who challenges the right of male violence to order and rule the world must be condemned as the imagined shadow of male violence.
Men, you men who call feminists feminazis, take a deep breath, relax, and ADMIT THAT YOU HAVE THE MATURITY OF AN EIGHT YEAR OLD. (I do eight-year-olds an injustice by using them as my point of comparison) Women do not want to hurt you; you hurt yourself by holding on so tightly to your image of yourself. Women want peace. We want to walk the streets in peace. We want to live in peace. We are sick of men running the world like it is a video game, where you win if you kill enough people. I say it again: TEN THOUSAND YEARS IS ENOUGH!
Mr. Anonymous, here are my responses to your questions:
Mr. Anonymous: Your first posting was entitled "A Modest Proposal", was this in reference to Mr. Swift's "A Modest Proposal"? If so, why did you use a satirical title?
My first posting was intended to be serious, to point out what I saw as a problem on the left, but to do so in a humorous way. I meant the title literally. I borrowed the title from Swift, which caused some confusion. I hope everything is clear now.
That problem I saw on the left was the incredible male dominance of the left, where men will talk for hours about class relationships, and completely ignore the fact that ONLY MEN ARE ON THE STAGE TALKING. If men on the left were 1/100th as concerned about 'feminist issues' as they claim to be they would SHUT UP AND LET SOME WOMEN TALK.
Mr. Anonymous: One woman who commented on your article said, "I am doing a petition drive to get in the Green Party primary for Governor. Oh, well, it's a start!" Why do you feel it is neccessary [sic] for men to step down first in order for women to step up second? Can women like her step up first and succeed?
From my first essay my focus has been what is best for humanity, not what is best for women. The current male domination of our human institutions, including the groups who resist the status quo (the so-called 'left' we can say, for want of a better word) is, in my view, a major factor leading humanity to possible species extinction though destruction of the environment, and nuclear and biological warfare. Humanity must change its way of resolving conflict, otherwise we may all perish, or live in a vast police state. The way we currently resolve conflict is through the three forms of male violence (individual, legal, and war). The fastest way to change male domination is for a sizable percentage of men to realize it is a major problem, and for them to VOLUNTARILY allow women to step forward, to VOLUNTARILY support women who do step forward, and for men to VOLUNTARILY do their best to end male domination. The obvious place for this to start is with left organizations.
Certainly women can certainly 'step up' and succeed now, and find a place in the overwhelmingly male hierarchy. To do so they must support the traditional male way of resolving conflict through violence. My suggestion is that women refuse to join this hierarchy based on male violence, and instead should take the lead in creating new ways of resolving conflict, or utilizing old ways. Men who join the Movement for Male Restraint would VOLUNTARILY support the women who do this, and participate with them in creating these alternatives to male violence.
Mr. Anonymous: Though about equal in population, men have more power than women in the world. You propose the party with majority power give that power to the minority. On what logic do you choose gender as the qualifier? Why only gender? Why not other dimensions like age (old should give power to young) or race (whites should give power to minorities) or country (U.S. should give power to minority countries)?
This is a cocktail of questions, which makes it difficult to answer. First, the power you speak of is based upon the power of male violence. I'm not asking men to 'give' women that power. I'm asking men to allow women to create new ways to resolve conflict that is not based upon male violence (individual, legal, and war). I choose gender as the qualifier because I think it is easy to demonstrate, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that for the last ten thousand years men have dominated what we call 'civilization' (that is, humanity living in large groups instead of small bands of hunter-gatherers) through the use of physical violence (individual, legal, and war).
Mr. Anonymous: Would a proposal to have the United States (pop. 300 mil.) give its power (nuclear, military, financial, and otherwise) to the minority countries of Pakistan and Russia (combined pop.300 mil.) be any different than what you propose? Why?
Yes, obviously very different, because I am not proposing to give women the power of violence (nuclear, military, financial, and otherwise), but for men, through the Movement for Male Restraint, to allow women to create new ways of resolving conflict.
Mr. Anonymous: You can use the word patriarchy to describe a type of domination, but you cannot use the word domination to describe a type of patriarchy. Patriarchy is a property or quality of domination. Which do you see to be the real problem, the root domination problem or the patriarchy symptom? Or both? If both, which is more important and why?
Domination occurs through male violence. Male violence is what makes domination possible. All domination that is NOT based upon male violence, if challenged, can be ended relatively easily. Without violent coercion how can we dominate each other for any length of time? Psychological manipulation? Yes, it is very powerful. But without an enforcer (usually male) to back it up, how long can people be manipulated? Patriarchy, a way of organizing human society based on male violence, makes all the other forms of domination possible.
Mr. Anonymous: Do you feel your proposal is inclusionary [sic] or exclusionary and why? When you divide people into dual conceptual categories of any kind, white/not-white, attractive/not-attractive, USA/not-USA, male/not-male, how does the emphasis and reinforcing of that division promote an inclusionary [sic], peaceful relationship between the two? Is not the act of cutting or dividing a type of "conceptual violence", to separate that which is not ultimately separate?
Another cocktail, but nevertheless a good question. First, I think my proposal is inclusive, for this reason: I have proposed that men, through the Movement for Male Restraint, JOIN women in promoting a new way of resolving conflict which is not based upon male violence (individual, legal, and war). I'm proposing that the men in this movement VOLUNTARILY allow women to step forward and find this new way. I'm not dividing people based upon conceptual categories, but upon perceivable fact. Men and women are biologically different: that is a biological fact. Men control our society through male violence: that is an observable fact, and a historical fact. By pointing out these facts I hope to create a more peaceful relationship between all human beings. If men gave up male violence (individual, legal, and war) we would obviously have a much more peaceful world.
I'm not conceptually dividing anything. What if I said 'Human beings control each other through human violence'? That is simply untrue. Human beings control each other through male violence (individual, legal, and war). That is a statement which corresponds to reality, otherwise known as a FACT.
Mr. Anonymous: How do you respond to women who do not want any leaders, even female ones, even interim ones?
I responded to this in my previous interview: http://www.portland.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=35304&group=webcast
People may not want leaders, but leadership is inevitable for social animals. In any group of human beings, the first one to do anything, that others subsequently do, is a leader. The problem, as I have said before, is not leadership, but coercive leadership based upon male violence (individual, legal, and war).
Mr. Anonymous: In your first piece you wrote, "In one month, if men allow it to happen, the entire progressive movement can be led and dominated by women. If any organization refuses to do this, then clearly they will be resisting social change..." Converting people to Christianity is one example of a type of social change. Would you describe anyone who refuses to convert to Christianity as "resisting social change"? Isn't that facism [sic], albiet [sic] feminist facism [sic]?
In my third essay, THE MOVEMENT FOR MALE RESTRAINT, I stated:
"I was rightfully criticized for my use of the word 'domination' and I regret that my impassioned fingers hammered this word into my keyboard. I realized later, meditating on the responses to my article in a quieter moment, that 'domination' does not express the meaning I wish to convey. 'Domination' implies coercion through violence, which I DO NOT advocate."
Fascism, if the word has any meaning, means a political system based upon various forms of coercion, the basic one being male violence (individual, legal, and war). I HAVE REPEATEDLY SAID I DO NOT ADVOCATE COERCION.
Mr. Anonymous: Sociologists, including noted female researchers, have studied well-publicized reports showing how, historically, men's and women's roles had once been equal, but with the advent of farming technologies that child-rearing women were physically unable to participate in, the power shifted, not from greater or lesser, but from exterior to interior. While men had more power in the external world (war, work) women had more power in the internal world (family, home). This has very real consequences for men -- mortality by gunfire, alcoholism or homelessness, loss of parental rights in event of a divorce, a 15% shorter lifespan. The technological age we live in has eliminated the reason why this imbalance began, but it takes time for the balance to be restored. Do you feel your proposal is simple impatience on your part for the natural cycle to regain its equlibrium [sic]?
Natural cycle my ass. There is nothing natural about men oppressing women. Your 'natural' is only the status quo. The status quo is always defined as 'natural' or 'God's will'.
First, you are wrong: women have always participated in farming technologies. Show me one single case where they did not. Second: there is no such thing as an 'external world' or an 'internal world' in human society (a perfect example, by the way, of a false conceptual division). By controlling what you term the 'external world' men controlled what you call the 'internal world'. You've created a false picture of human society, where there are two equal spheres of 'female power' and 'male power'. But women do not prevent men from helping to raise the children. And women do not prevent men from washing the dishes, or cooking. Instead, men force women into this 'housewife' role using male violence (individual, legal, and war), and then have the nerve to call it women's choice. If there is so much power in being a domestic slave, then why do women refuse this role whenever they have an opportunity? Why have women fought and organized (and suffered) for hundreds of years if they derive so much power from cooking meals and changing diapers? This type of vapid argument has been used for years to justify male oppression.
Mr. Anonymous: You can describe a glass as being half-empty of water of being half-empty of air. Either way you get the same thing. Similarly, you can describe the world in terms of the problem of male domination or you can describe the world in terms of its opposite, female submission. Either way you get the same thing. Why do you choose to target male domination while largely ignoring the other side of the coin, female submission?
Was the submission of slaves the opposite of slaveholder domination? Hmm, I think not. Slavery was the RESULT of white domination through male violence. Female submission is not the opposite of male domination. Female submission is the RESULT of male domination. I am obviously not ignoring female submission, I'm trying to encourage men to VOLUNTARILY join the Movement for Male Restraint, and for women to VOLUNTARILY resist their oppression.
Mr. Anonymous: Dividing the problem into binary "male/not-male" thinking is one level of resolution. But you can go one resolution higher, i.e. "white males" are the problem. And even further dimensions, further detailed resolutions: rich white males, rich white Western males, rich white American males, old rich white American males, and so on and so forth, until you get a resolution with such breadth, with such detail that there is nothing that is not, to even the smallest extent, a part of the problem. The question is, why do you select the level of resolution that you do, that is simple "male/not-male"? Why not higher or lower resolutions?
I'm not sure what you mean by the word 'resolution'. It is a very unclear metaphor. What in the world does 'One resolution higher' mean? Are you saying that you can 'zoom in' and 'zoom out' on a map called humanity? I think you need to search your limited vocabulary for a more accurate word. However, guessing, I think you mean there is a hierarchy of dominators, if you will, and at the top of this hierarchy of dominators are 'old rich white American males'.
I've chosen to focus my analysis on male violence (individual, legal, and war) because, as I said in my previous interview, I think it is the Achilles heel of the network of coercion we live in. We have around half of the human population (most women) who do not participate in human violence (individual, legal, and war), and who are, generally, not conditioned to do so culturally. (This is changing. The James Bond sidekick wears a bikini AND shoots to kill.) We also have around half the human population, men, who are conditioned to participate in human violence, and to justify it. A sizeable percentage of these men actually are involved directly in this human violence, enough for me to define human violence as male violence. (My article A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF VIOLENT MALE DOMINATION provides the statistics for this.)
Mr. Anonymous: Concerning the above question, the larger the group you target ("male") the more resistence [sic] will be encountered. Thus, targeting smaller groups right on down to individual people (or even an individual person's single opinion, or single thought) is easier and easier. What importance do you place on individual personal change versus mass political change?
I'm not targeting a group. I'm pointing out the facts of violent male domination. I'm not out to get men. Far from it. If men join the Movement for Male Restraint and help women find new ways of resolving conflict the vast majority of men will have a better life. Your second question is a good question. Non-coercive mass political change must occur one person at a time, otherwise it is based upon forcing people to change. So, I place great importance on individual change. When I write my essays I am speaking to the individual.
Mr. Anonymous: Which is more important, to identify and analyze which spouse is beating which spouse, or to stop the beating altogeather [sic]?
This is a question with a false choice. In order to 'stop the beating altogether' you must first know who is being beaten, and start there. Women are usually the ones being beaten. Women have made domestic violence an issue, not men. And they made it an issue by hard work and activism. In fact, I think that the recognition that sometimes women physically abuse men in domestic settings is due to women's activism. You rarely heard about it before women made domestic violence an issue.
Mr. Anonymous: Of the 100 richest people on the planet, over one third (35) are women. The number of women in this top 100 list has been increasing, as are women in positions of all types of power. How is it that all these women were able to succeed without men giving up their power first, as your proposal requires? Or would you suppose that most of these women are on the list because men did give up their power first, and if so, doesn't that suggest that they were not strong enough on their own to achieve it, which paints a rather bleak picture of a woman's abilities and potentials in general?
Another cocktail question. It is obvious that you have either completely misunderstood my essays, or you have not read them very carefully. I'm not calling for women to join the male hierarchy. Far from it. The male hierarchy is based upon male violence (individual, legal, and war). In what way have these women 'succeeded'? Because they are rich? I don't call that success. I call that conformity and theft. Most of the women on that list inherited their wealth. None of them (and none of the men) created that wealth. They stole it, using the systems of male violence. None of the people were 'strong enough to achieve' that wealth on their own! What planet are you living on? Do you really think those rich folks have special abilities, and that is why they are rich?
Those 100 people are simply the beneficiaries of a society based upon male violence (individual, legal, and war); they are the World Mafia who take their wealth by pointing a gun at someone's head and saying 'your money (resources, labor power, land) or your life'. Where would Bill Gates be without the violent power of the U.S. legal system, which allowed him to force thousands of computer developers to transfer all their creativity and hard work into his pockets? He could not do this without legal violence. From what I know about it (not much), Bill Gates never wrote a line of code in his life. He bought DOS and kept the rights to it, and then it was just a matter of finding wage slaves. The key to Bill Gates is this: his father was/is a corporate lawyer, a specialist in the world of legal violence.
Mr. Anonymous: Organized or semi-organized warfare is a trait of primates (humans and chimpanzees) that crosses gender distinctions. A very brief rundown of just a few matriarchs who actively, and eagerly, participated in and initiated "mass murder called war": Queen Isabelle of England, Queen Isabella II of Castile, Princess Graine Ni Maille of Ireland, Catherine the Great of Russia, Queen Aahhotep I of Egypt, Queen Mavia of Syria, Queen Zenoba of Palmyria, Warrior Queen Zabibi of Arabia, Queen Tomyris of the Massagetai, Queen Cartimandua of the Brigantes, Queen Bouddicca of the Iceni, Queen Urraca of Aragon, Countess Isobel of Buchan, Queen Phillipa of Hainault... and more, as virtually all matriarchs throughout history have been just as bloodthirsty, power hungry and greedy as the patriarchs.
Scythian women were notorious warrioresses [sic], as were the Celtic women of ancient times, and Roman gladiators were of both genders. In addition, human sacrifice to "mother" earth was present in nearly all of all the pre-history matriarchs.
How do you explain these well documented, widespread accounts of violence perpetrated by women, from primates onward all throughout history?
I've never said women were not violent. Read my essays. I've said that the vast majority of human violence (individual, legal, and war), currently and historically, is/was directed and committed by men. All the Queens you mentioned were in power because of an ideology of inherited superiority through blood. They were the symbolic tiptop of a pyramid, and below them were men who directed male killers.
I've never heard of a single culture that sacrificed people to Mother Earth. But there have been many cultures, including our own, that have sacrificed people to Father War.
There has never been a culture based on matriarchy. You are confusing kinship determined according to the mother with a political system. There has never been a matriarchal culture in the way you mean it, with women holding political power through female violence. Never. Don't believe me, look it up.
Mr. Anonymous: Do you regret the decisions of inaction that women in the past made which have created the situtation [sic] of "gender oppression" you now live in today? If you do regret their inactions, how is that different from being ashamed of them, and is that not the opposite of female empowerment? Similarly, is looking only to a future female-run utopia a type of regret, a regret for the present, for what is here now currently? If you regret the present moment, and yet are tied inextricably to the present moment, is that not a type of deeply covered up self-shame?
Hey cowboy, you call that a question? That's a corral full of questions. I regret nothing about women in the past. I'm proud of women. Women have endured every imaginable form of oppression the male world has to offer, and yet they have never given birth to the kind of hatred that men spew out without a second thought. Women have never created hateful religions, hateful ideologies, hateful forms of killing. Read a history of the nuclear bomb, by a man named Rhodes, and count the number of women's names in the index. I'm not looking for a utopia, I'm trying to prevent the hell-on-earth that our male dominated political system is cooking up for us. Your lame attempt at psychoanalyzing my motivations is not worth a response. Yeah, I'm ashamed. I'm ashamed I'm taking the time to answer your flatulent questions. But now that I've started... ...
Mr. Anonymous: If a man breaks into your home, beats you and rapes you, is that an example of male domination? If a woman breaks into your home, beats you and rapes you, is that an example of female domination? Or are those examples simply examples of domination? Is the problem in both scenerios [sic] then not one of gender but of domination?
I wonder, how many women in the past one hundred years have broken into somebody's home in the United States and raped somebody? How many? One? Two? I refer you once again to my article A STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF VIOLENT MALE DOMINATION Look at the statistics for rape. This is one of your more disgusting questions. The problem IS one of gender. Men rape women. Women do not rape men. Do a little research!
Mr. Anonymous: Racism, sexism, classism, and all the other dimensions and ways of dividing people into dual categories are problems which are interwoven; no one problem lives in a vacuum tube apart from the others. Why do you suggest taking a compartmental gender-only approach rather than a more holistic big-picture approach, which includes both genders not just as parts of the solution but as parts of the problem?
I open my eyes and I see. I report what I see. As I have said a million times, the incredible prevalence of male violence (individual, legal, and war) in comparison to female violence, is a fact, a contemporary fact and a historical fact. That's why I talk about it. Do some research dude, prove me wrong. Or, a better approach, take those rosy male-tinted sunglasses off and look at the world you are living in, and tell me honestly, who is doing the killing, who is directing the killing?
Mr. Anonymous: The 2000 FBI statistics you posted in "A Statistical Analysis of Violent Male Domination" showed that crime is mostly committed by men. This is true. However, it is only one angle. That exact same report which shows 90% of homicides committed by men also shows that 91% of homicides are by persons 18 or older, 70% by those 17-34, and 51% of homicides committed are by black people.
If it holds that the group committing the crimes is the group that needs to be targeted for reform, how is targeting males any wiser than targeting black people or young people? How is it any less a form of discrimination?
As I said in my essay, the least serious form of violence is individual violence. That is why I included the other forms of violence in my list of statistics. The most deadly form of violence is war, most of which is currently directed by a few white (mostly) guys (mostly) in Washington, DC. As I said before, I'm not targeting anybody. I'm stating the facts as I see them. I'm encouraging men to join the Movement for Male Restraint, and for women to step forward and resist male domination.
Mr. Anonymous: Have you ever been hurt by a man in the past?
Mr. Anonymous: Have you ever been truely [sic] loved by a man?
I don't answer personal questions. I enjoy, however, the way you so clearly reveal your basic assumptions. A lot of men, like yourself, think that feminists are feminists because of some deep dark motivation: they have been hurt by a man, or they haven't been loved (uh, 'scuse me, 'truly loved' ) by a man.
Believe it or not, feminists are feminists because they have the honesty and courage to look at the world and to tell the truth about what they see. That is all it takes. Talk to some feminists sometime Mr. Anonymous, and you will find every story in the book. There is no magic path to the recognition of reality.
On the other hand, as I said in the beginning about the Nazis, a lot of times the men who promote male domination and who are most threatened by disobedient women are men who have had their sensitivity, intellectual sensitivity , moral sensitivity, and emotional sensitivity, completely destroyed by the blunt instrument of male violence. I hope that is NOT the case with you. I hope, Mr. Anonymous, that you still retain enough sense to realize, at some point in the future, the utter ridiculousness of most of your above questions.