We have met the enemy....

Happy International Women's Day. Some background:

1917
On the last Sunday of February, Russian women began a strike for "bread and peace" in response to the death over 2 million Russian soldiers in war. Opposed by political leaders the women continued to strike until four days later the Czar was forced to abdicate and the provisional Government granted women the right to vote. The date the women's strike commenced was Sunday 23 February on the Julian calendar then in use in Russia. This day on the Gregorian calendar in use elsewhere was 8 March.

1918 - 1999
Since its birth in the socialist movement, International Women's Day has grown to become a global day of recognition and celebration across developed and developing countries alike. For decades, IWD has grown from strength to strength annually. For many years the United Nations has held an annual IWD conference to coordinate international efforts for women's rights and participation in social, political and economic processes.(Source: http://www.internationalwomensday.com/about.asp)

In commemoration of International Women's Day, it could be fun to see how far the feminist movement has come since its noble and laudable beginnings. It started with a battle for equal rights, equal opportunities. It started with women questioning some accepted norms, asking awkward questions, breaking taboos (and quite a few window panes) in a quest for the same legal and social status as men. The fact that they didn't enjoy the same status is frequently blamed on 'men', as if 'men' throughout history had been a homogenous group or class whose members enjoyed the same rights and status as each other. They weren't and they didn't. Not by any means.

In western democracies, men had the vote before women (with certain exceptions), but not long before that and throughout most of the history of civilisation, very few men had any rights either. Before democracy, and in its infancy, power was concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite. Rulers were often - though not exclusively - men, but the real power structures were families whose wealth and power were hereditary. Inequality was - and still is - far more a distinction between haves and have-nots than between males and females. Inequality - whatever the basis for groupings and comparisons - is a social phenomenon. If someone is more privileged than you, it's likely to have more to do with wealth and social connections than gender. Otherwise men as a subset would be wealthier and more influential than women as a subset, which is not the case. Gender is simply not a realistic basis for a class distinction.

We have met the enemy, and he is....

Back then, there was something at stake. Back then, feminism had a legitimate claim and it kicked ass, winning the equal rights and equal opportunities that women had coming to them as citizens of society. For a while afterwards - it can be argued - social attitudes lagged behind, resulting in de facto inequality, despite de jure equality. And now? Do women not have the same opportunities as men? Do they take them? Do they have to? If the situation today is still de facto inequality - at least on certain fronts - and still as a result of social attitudes, whose attitudes are at fault here? Is it the men, wondering where all the female applicants and candidates have got to? The same men who've mastered all the domestic chores as well as their own traditional areas of expertise? Have we got a shitty, archaic attitude, keeping women down? It doesn't really appear to be the case, does it? If you're looking for a non progressive, unproductive attitude to blame, try focussing on women, still never really venturing into anything unladylike as long as they can get a man to do it.

What's modern feminism fighting for? Preferential treatment. Enforced political correctness. Quotas. I wonder what the hunger striking, window breaking Pankhursts would have made of that.

EMMELINE PANKHURST: (turning in grave) I didn't break windows and go on hunger strike for these whiny dingbats. What the fuck went wrong?

PROFESSOR RON: They discovered a genie called 'socialism.' They'll rub that lamp till they've worn the fucker out.

EMMELINE PANKHURST: The lamp or the genie?

PROFESSOR RON: Does it matter? It's fucked up either way.

Perhaps feminism still has a role to play. It just doesn't have anything to do with men anymore. We've done our bit, held up our end. Now it's up to you. Sure there's a problem, if you've got a problem with things as they are. So deal with it. Grasp the nettle. Make your move. Stop trying to make your problem society's problem. The solution to a lack of independence is independent action, not the same old whining, until a man takes pity on you and once more comes riding to the rescue. That can't solve the problem, because that is the problem. But only if you've got a problem with it.

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

There is no 'we'

I once had a friend who used to say that there were no problems, only situations. I used to think it was some positive thinking bullshit he'd picked up at one of those conferences where people walk on hot cinders and chant mantras. Being the sort of guy who went to those sort of conferences, he needed all the positive thinking bullshit he could lay his hands on. After all, walking on hot cinders is quite an achievement. I'm not sure what you use it for, but my hat's off to mind over matter.

The statement in question is a misappropriation, an oversimplification of a more complex idea. People tramping over hot cinders and chanting positivity mantras will often do that. Of course there are problems. Problems exist. If you find yourself on an upper floor of a burning building, there's a problem. Or more accurately, you've got a problem which no amount of denial can negate. The point is that problems are only problems from someone's point of view. Problems are subjective. A problem is a deviation from some standard of normality or desirability. Without someone to expect the norm or desire the object of desire, there is no standard and therefore no problem.

Now when a movement like feminism seems to be inventing problems where there weren't any, I'll gladly give it the benefit of the doubt. Sure it's a problem that women are underrepresented on the boards of companies. If you have a problem with it. Sure it's a problem that men and women trade with each other for sexual favours. If you have a problem with it. Sure it's a problem that male and female behaviour differ from each other and express themselves as gender roles in society. If you have a problem with it. Sure it's a problem that men piss standing up, or that women don't. But only if you have a problem with it. It just doesn't follow that it's society's problem, or for that matter, anyone's problem but your own. It doesn't follow that I have to take your problem on board or solve it for you, no matter how sympathetic I may be. And 'sympathetic' is practically my middle name.

FEMINISTS: We must.... We should.... We have to.... We need to....

PROFESSOR SYMPATHETIC PLANET: There is no 'we.'

FEMINISTS: But we....!

PROFESSOR SYMPATHETIC PLANET: There is no 'we.' There are no 'but's either.

FEMINISTS: But the problem is real. The problem is...

PROFESSOR NO LONGER VERY SYMPATHETIC PLANET: The problem is yours. There is no 'we.' Watch my fucking lips: There is no 'we.'

The following is an example from the little kingdom of Denmark. You might have heard of it. Shakespeare mentioned it once. You might have inadvertently covered it with a fat finger while pointing to Germany or Sweden on a globe. For whilst Sweden is a world power in terms of political correctness and feminism run wild (that blog post is coming soon, I promise!), Denmark is still hanging on to some liberal sanity, as long as stocks last. Anyway, in Denmark...

FEMINIST DINGBATS: Aha! The concept of sanity is also dependent on a standard of normality or desirability! Gotcha!

PROFESSOR PLANET: I neither expect nor desire you to question your own sanity. Apart from anything else, it would take all the fun out of our conversations. I'm not wanting or expecting society to certify you insane or curtail your rights. Now if I could just continue...

Anyway, that battle is still raging in little Denmark, making it noteworthy for that at least.

A recent conference at a music conservatory in Copenhagen weighed up the shocking revelation of a recent report (hold on to your hat) that popular music is dominated by the male sex. The discussion didn't touch on whether or not this indeed is a problem or (as I would put it) whose problem the problem is. It seems to be a foregone conclusion - supported by music unions, the Ministry of Culture and assorted dingbats in that country - that it's society's problem and that society therefore needs to do something collectively to solve it.

Now it would appear that women choose other activities than playing music. The report by Niras cites that only 2 out of 10 people in the Danish music bizz are women. The report also documents that gender roles differ in music. Women like to squeal into microphones, whilst guys prefer drumming and strumming. Girls and boys make different noise. Real breaking news.

The lack of female participation is not that surprising when you consider how many gadgets are involved in music. Girls don't seem to want to tune drum heads or change bass strings any more than they want to connect pipes together or shin up and down pylons. They seem just as uninterested in carrying and connecting amplification as they are in carrying and connecting air compressors. Microphones they can just about handle, especially if there's a guy around to stick the lead in, adjust the stand and mix the sound. Problem? Sure, if it's a problem for you. But if it's not a problem for the people involved, the ones actually making the choices, why should we care, as long as all of the jobs get done? I see a certain desirability in female participation and the challenging of gender roles, but not enough to make it society's problem. Is it society's fault that women choose as they do?

What's interesting in the dicussion is that it shows two camps of feminists. The first accepts the above phenomenon as society's problem on the basis of desirability. The challenging and negation of gender roles is so nice to have that it's seen as a worthy project for all. For this camp, there's a 'we' that ought to do something. Ergo, let's call in the big guns.

But the real dingbats are the other camp. Their argument is so irrational that I almost can't get my head around it. But I'll try. Here, the argument is that that males and females choose differently because they don't really have a choice. Yes, you read correctly. Let's just mull that one over.

How is a choice not a choice? When it's..... What the fuck? (I know, I know, but bear with me. Even the woolliest thinking has a kind of rationale).

If the sexes were the same, you'd expect them to choose equally. They don't, so maybe they're not the same. But they are the same, says radical feminism (regardless of any evidence to the contrary), so any difference in gender roles and choices is imposed by society. Ergo, choice is an illusion. There is no free will. Even if we chose according to the norms and desires of feminism, it would still be an illusion and would simply indicate that society had programmed us better (i.e. more in keeping with a feminist agenda).

For this camp, there's a 'we' consisting of automotons. There is no individuality, no individual will and no individual responsibility for actions, choices, successes or fuck ups. This 'we' apparently needs to act to reprogramme itself into making better (i.e. more gender neutral, feminist compatible) choices at individual level. That is, if words like 'choice' and 'individual' are at all relevant here. Confused? I don't blame you. Apart from anything else, it's hard to see where such thoughts originate, if not from a thinking mind with a free will, unless God put them there, and....

FEMINIST: I don't think you want to go there.

PROFESSOR PLANET: That's one thing we agree on.

Anyway, the dingbats whose arguments imply the above scenario don't seem to be lumping themselves in with the brainwashed masses they want to reprogramme. Women are slaves because there's no free will, only unconscious compliance with society's conditioning. But feminists are aware of this, so it can't apply to them. So the reason they're making the same sort of choices as the unconscious herd is.....no, wait a minute.....  Is this doublethink?

You can be a poor victim in need of preferential treatment, or you can be a strong woman, frightening all the poor little men into submission. It's hard to be both at once, but only if you let reason stand in your way. Perhaps these identities are like hats. You just choose the one that best suits the occasion. You could even have the other one ready to switch to in case the weather suddenly changes.

As for problems, they're real enough. Some of them are yours. Some are mine. Some are theirs. But none are automatically ours. Because there is no 'we.'

Watch my lips. There is no 'we.'

A moral patent

I've been doing my best to engange feminists in discussion. OK, I swear a bit and say 'cunt' when I mean 'vagina', but I hope this preference for Germanic straight talk over Latin prudishness isn't a stumbling block to constructive dialogue.

OK, I'm being ironic. But only a bit.

Feminists are obliging me by confirming what I'm saying about them. It's nice of them, but boring. They change the subject. They don't want to argue, but only want to preach to the converted. They don't debate the issue in question but revert to shaming tactics and ad hominem arguments. One of them is based on the idea that I don't know enough about feminism to be able to discuss it. I should study it in detail before I'm qualified to give opinions and present arguments about it. I say:

PROFESSOR PLANET: Fair enough. Where am I going wrong? Enlighten me.

FEMINIST: I wouldn't waste my time.

I fed this argument into Planet Translate and it came out as "I'm scared of getting my ignorant ass kicked in an argument."

Fair enough.

Feminists seem to entertain the notion that a knowledge of their ideology means agreement with it, as if they're walking around with some sort of a moral patent. This reminds me of something. Check out the the dingbat in this video:

DINGBAT IN VIDEO: If you're not a feminist, you're a bigot.

PROFESSOR PLANET: But what if feminism isn't what it claims to be? What if it isn't doing what it says it's doing? What if its concept of equality isn't equality according to the democratic principles I understand? I'm a bigot? Who's a fucking bigot?

Try this for size:

Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men. (The Declaration of Feminism , November 1971)

If you'd been waiting since 1971 for feminism to take up this agenda, you'd be pretty impatient by now. You could have turned to stone. You'd certainly be wondering why feminism in fact seems to be doing the opposite, upholding an institution that undermines women's liberation. Radical feminism argues for example for outlawing prostitution on the basis of a power imbalance between sex worker and john, contending that the correct framework for sex should be an equal relationship (with love as the basis and monogamy as an unstated condition). That's essentially marriage with a few feminist conditions imposed, e.g. the man and the woman taking turns to be on top, to change nappies, to defrost the ice box etc. Add to this the fact that very many radical feminists are middle class, married women who expect and demand fidelity (i.e. for whom monogamy is an unstated condition) and therefore actually oppose the actions of promiscuous men and women who are undermining marriage and sexually liberating themselves. 

I have a suggestion as to why. Marriage isn't specifically for the benefit of men. That's simply....not to put too fine a point on it.....WRONG! Marriage has suited a female agenda just fine and continues to do so. Feminists know that real liberation doesn't come free, that it costs something at a personal level. They know that it means accepting some things and exploring some sides of themselves that they don't like and would rather not delve into. It must be much easier to hide behind the protective shell of monogamous marriage and campaign for all the dividends of liberation without the hardships. 
  

It could be interesting to engange some real feminists in a discussion about this, but they only seem to want to change the subject.

FEMINIST: You're a misogynistic troll.

PROFESSOR PLANET: So tell me something I don't fucking know. But if we could just turn back to the point in question....

No, apparently not.

That's a bit of a cop out, isn't it?