Saturday, October 22, 2011

Gender Feminism and White Nationalism

(In this essay, I am not trying to use a particularly narrow definition of "white nationalists" or "paleoconservatives".  I chose those words for convenience.  I could just as easily have used terms like "reactionaries" or "race realists" or "alt-rightists".)

One of the things that struck me many times reading Who Stole Feminism? was the number of times something a gender feminist would write something that sounded embarrassingly similar to something a white nationalist said, or could have said.  The form of many GF dictums is identical to the form of many WN dictums, only with "whites" replaced by "women" and "blacks" replaced by "men".

Could a white nationalist (or paleoconservative) have written the following paragraph?
As long as some blacks use physical force to subjugate whites, all blacks need not.  The knowledge that some blacks do suffices to threaten all whites.  Beyond that, it is not necessary to beat up a white to beat her or him down.  An organization complying with recent interpretation of civil rights law can simply refuse to hire whites in well-paid jobs, extract as much or more work from whites than blacks but pay them less, or treat whites disrespectfully.  A black can fail to support a child he has engendered....  He can beat or kill the whites he claims to love; he can rape women, whether mate, acquaintance, or stranger.
I think so.  Of course, this quote is from Marilyn French, with "women" replaced with "whites" and "men" replaced with "blacks" and, in one case, "an organization complying with recent interpretation of civil rights law".  (This latter point is important.  In one notable way, WN form departs from GF form: WNs have black criminals and anti-white institutions as twin enemies; GFs have men, alone, for their enemy.)

It is natural that this should cause some dismay, since of course the GFs are wrong.  Woman-beating males do serious time for their crimes, partly because they deserve the punishment and partly because there are no nationwide "civil rights" organizations putting pressure on law enforcement to go easy on them.  Businesses that discriminate against women on pay grounds face serious legal action, which is why you need to ignore differing career paths in order to create the illusion of pay discrimination against women.  (Industries in which pay is higher for women face no such legal threat, which is why female investment bankers and dieticians earn so much more than their male counterparts, and why women who have never had a child earn 113 percent of what men earn.)  GFs have also made numerous false claims about rape, self-esteem, and even Super Bowl Sunday (I really recommend the book to learn about some eye-popping GF lies, and really shameful credulity on the part of the media.)

The dismay recedes when you remember that form isn't everything.  Content, true content, matters more, and that is what the WNs have.  Because of course what the WN/paleocon says is based on fact rather than emotion, which is why Jared Taylor and Pat Buchanan remind you of the host of a dinner party while Susan Brownmiller and Andrea Dworkin come off like hissing snakes.  GFs have had to inflate pretty much every claim they make about male-on-female violence and discrimination, something Sommers documents in admirable detail in her book.  In contrast, WNs only have to undo the suppression of facts about black-on-white violence (and discrimination by the government against white proles) to make their point.

Still, there is something fascinating about an utterly-wrong leftist ideology that gets the form exactly right but mistakes race & statism for gender.  What could the connection possibly be?  Sommers may provide the clues, even if she doesn't make the connection herself (since she has nothing to do with paleocon or WN ideologies):
[Katie] Roiphe sees the campus rape crisis as a phenomenon of privilege: these young women have had it all, and when they find out the world can be dangerous and unpredictable, they are outraged.
She quotes Roiphe as saying:
Many of these girls [in rape marches] came to Princeton from Milton and Exeter.  Many of their lives have been full of summers in Nantucket and horseback-riding lessons.  These are women who have grown up expecting fairness, consideration, and politeness.
Stripped of leftist-sounding talk about "privilege" this almost sounds like a paleocon praising traditional civilization for protecting women and families the old-fashioned way.  The loss of traditional communities and the rise of education-driven career paths put thousands of young women in the paths of strange males in unfamiliar settings.

In a monoethnic, highly-religious society where anonymity was treated like a troublesome but short-lived "teething stage" in a human relationship, a bright girl could be put on a train, greeted at the station at the other end of the line by a firm but indulgent woman whom she had never met, and given an excellent education at a single-sex institution.  At school, far from being treated like a galley slave or an imbecile (as the antihistorical GF propagandists would have us believe), she would be introduced to Shakespeare, Ovid, and Socrates.  Nobody worried that Anne of Green Gables would get drunk or be raped when she went off to college. (And yet, with a combination of excruciatingly high educational standards and almost unbelievably low crime rates, the modern person can't quite put a finger on whether Anne was coddled or thrown into a sort of lace-curtain dungeon.)

Nowadays, anonymity is considered, of all things, one of the main benefits of urban living.  Furthermore, "anti-racism" has stripped the victims of leftist propaganda of their ability to notice that black-on-white stranger rape is hardly a "myth", but is, in fact, a very real phenomenon.  The expectations that women of northern European descent have, that a man will treat them with respect (or at least not rape them), have recently become quite unrealistic.  "Anti-racism" blinds us to an important reason for the change.  (The other major reason for the change, binge drinking, has been examined better, but hardly anyone forthrightly advises young females against heavy drinking around males.)

It was perfectly sensible for America to become collectively outraged at the loss of safety for women.  The combination of GF and anti-racism saw to it that this outrage became grist for its favorite mill: hatred of white men.  Equally important, ubiquitous leftist propaganda saw to it that the outrage was channeled safely away from the realization that racial diversity, bureaucratization, and urban anonymity are bad things.  As evidence supporting WN and paleoconservative assertions has mounted, the left has gotten stronger.  Only time will tell if modern internet technology will allow the record to be set straight.

18 comments:

Ilkka said...

Heh. This post reminded me of how about a decade ago, I realized that lesbian separatism and white separatism are really the same ideology, as they differ only on what particular group they designate as subhuman brutes with which a peaceful coexistence is no longer possible.

Olave d'Estienne said...

Well now. To clarify: I deem enough blacks to be human brutes that peaceful coexistence with intergenerational groups of blacks to be unlikely.

So I guess I'm a weak lesbian. Err, weak WN.

Anonymous said...

SO MANY otherwise confusing social phenomenon boil down to "how do we keep black people away from this party so the girls will keep getting drunk enough to take off their clothes"

Jehu said...

Gender feminism and white nationalism are both particularist movements. The difference is that white nationalism doesn't even make a nod at pretending to be a universalist movement and generally doesn't attempt to claim a 'moral high ground' in its rhetoric. This transparency totally horrifies anyone who has been indoctrinated to pay lip service to universalism.

HINDU Nationalist said...

You said at Mangan's regarding Zakaria;

"I'm glad you found this; I'm glad you commented; I have little to add because you nailed it so much. I've heard rafts of crap about what it means to be an American from recent immigrants, usually leftist. (The few rightist immigrants I've known haven't pontificated on that particular subject.) Zakaria reminds me of Feminist X who told everyone, not kidding, that strict immigration policies could not ever be conservative. I wondered if she meant they couldn't be (neo)libertarian? No, she meant conservative. Border controls were always big government and conservatives always want small government. This from a leftist from a country that has never had a Conservative party. "

1. Fareed Zakaria is NOT a leftist, he's a right-winger who previously dated the GOP's darling Ann coulter

2. Don't know what country Fem X is from but Zakria is from India.

India has had several more conservative parties than the United States will ever have.

Olave d'Estienne said...

Very odd and off-topic. I'll wager India has had several orders of magnitude more parties than the entire English-speaking world combined. If one of them were conservative, you could have pointed out which one, I suppose. The BJP is fairly close, probably about as close as the GOP which apparently you also consider conservative.

But Zakaria? Associated with Harvard, calls himself a centrist, and he supported the 2003 invasion of Iraq? The one that aimed at bringing democracy and equality through force of arms, using big globalist money and lots of feel-good liberal rhetoric?

Called Trump a "racist" (meaning, white people have no right to speak)?

Has Zakaria ever even paid lip service to the right of whites to continue to exist on this planet?

He has not. He is not a conservative.

HINDU Nationalist said...

"Has Zakaria ever even paid lip service to the right of whites to continue to exist on this planet?"

He paid "lip service" to Ann Coulter. LOL. That's got to count for sumthin!



"If one of them were conservative, you could have pointed out which one, I suppose."

That's what google is for, hon.

Have fun!

Olave d'Estienne said...

Oh, sorry, I thought your post was serious.

Hindu said...

My original post was indeed serious. I doubt Ann Coulter would date and get her freak on with a "lefty liberal" would she? Who knows?

Which leads me to my next serious point: what Americans consider "conservative" in my culturally and socially conservative view is just downright skanky and slutty. I often say, "Americans wouldn't know conservative if it bit them in the ass".

Which leads me to my next serious point...

"Has Zakaria ever even paid lip service to the right of whites to continue to exist on this planet?

He has not. He is not a conservative."

I'm conservative and I do not pay lip service to whites' right to exist. That is YOUR department. I've already experienced first hand that no amount of telling you people to get married, stay married and breed children within the context of a stable home is going to make you do it.

You people are far to dedicated to your "ideal" of "rugged individualism" to care for anything like getting married and staying married solely for the sake of the children. Nope. Y'all are all about "freedom" and "happiness" and the creme de la creme of western values: "self expression".

If your race no longer exists in a few or so decades you have absolutely NOBODY else to blame but yourselves.

I mean, primitive people all over the world have figured it - marriage, family, babies.

This isn't rocket science folks.

Hindu Conservative vs The Global Christian Agenda said...

Just wondering, are you Christian? I only ask because you wrote elsewhere about Christianity, seemingly in a positive light.

With that in mind, and if indeed it is the case that you are Christian, wrt to your statement about Zakaria;

"Has Zakaria ever even paid lip service to the right of whites to continue to exist on this planet?
He has not. He is not a conservative"

What would you Has Zakaria ever even paid lip service to the right of whites to continue to exist on this planet?

He has not. What would you say about the plethora of Christians in my country (India) who claim to be "conservative" but never pay lip service to the right for Hindus and Hinduism to exist in the lands of their origin?

If they don't pay lip service to that would you say they are "not conservative"?





science

Olave d'Estienne said...

Which leads me to my next serious point: what Americans consider "conservative" in my culturally and socially conservative view is just downright skanky and slutty.

Oh, well, I never paid much attention to Ann Coulter. Maybe she is a skank or something. Isn't she a TV personality? I seem to remember her supporting George W. "I hire mainly Trotskyites to tell my foreign policy" Bush, but my memory is pretty fuzzy. Also her comment about forcing people to convert to Christianity was pretty annoying.

I often say, "Americans wouldn't know conservative if it bit them in the ass".

I don't think Robert Taft or Robert Welch are the type to bite someone anywhere, let alone on the behind.

I'm conservative and I do not pay lip service to whites' right to exist.

Yeah, I'm beginning to get that idea.

That is YOUR department.

Meaning the responsibility of white people only, or of all people who voluntarily choose to live among white people in a country whose political institutions are 100% the product of white people?

I didn't particularly care about the tax thing; the reason I came to dislike Zakaria so much was that he wants to expand legal immigration. I.e., he is okay with foreigners pushing my people out of one of the few countries left where there are some areas where we can be safe. You're asking me to accept as a political ally someone who doesn't recognize the right of my people to exist, and who has come to my country to help convince us to accept our own destruction?

I've already experienced first hand that no amount of telling you people to get married, stay married and breed children within the context of a stable home is going to make you do it.

Right, it would have to be accompanied by safe streets, an end to anti-white pogroms a la Peoria, Philadelphia, Summer 2011, a simplified tax code, an end to anti-white propaganda in public schools, an end to affirmative action, etc. Just telling people to do it is not worth much.

You people are far to dedicated to your "ideal" of "rugged individualism" to care for anything like getting married and staying married solely for the sake of the children. Nope. Y'all are all about "freedom" and "happiness" and the creme de la creme of western values: "self expression".

Do Americans commonly tell you what your values are?

If your race no longer exists in a few or so decades you have absolutely NOBODY else to blame but yourselves.

Because blacks beating us to death in the streets is a non-issue? Latino gangs killing Anglos doesn't matter? The President of Mexico denying America's moral right to regulate our borders, while directing his people to cross illegally? For you, of course these are non-issues - because you don't recognize that my people have a right to exist.

This isn't rocket science folks.

Do Americans commonly tell you that your people lack an understanding of basic biology?

Doesn't our relationship seem a little asymmetrical?

Olave d'Estienne said...

Just wondering, are you Christian? I only ask because you wrote elsewhere about Christianity, seemingly in a positive light.

I'm not a Christian. I appreciate some Christian values and I recognize that they played a huge role in the development of European civilization. Some Christian values, like universalism, globalism, etc., clash directly with my ethnopluralism. I have no religious beliefs per se and I would say I admire Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Paganism about equally. (I am neutral on most other world religions as I have not studied them in depth, but I am steadfastly opposed to Islam and Scientology.)

What would you say about the plethora of Christians in my country (India) who claim to be "conservative" but never pay lip service to the right for Hindus and Hinduism to exist in the lands of their origin?

I know nothing about them. If they really aren't willing to openly recognize the right of Hindus to practice their religion in India, they sound like a pack of louts. If they are trying to convert tons of Hindus (or Sikhs, Jains, anyone) to modern-style Christianity, I hope for the sake of India that they fail. Modern Christianity has not mounted an effective response to aggressive Islamization, Hinduism has. (Actually, I'd say Christianity is a major problem, in that it prevents an effective response to mass immigration / Islamization. Some non-mainline Protestants are against immigration, but I generally can't abide their theology even if I vote for someone like Chuck Baldwin.)

If they don't pay lip service to that would you say they are "not conservative"?

Race and religion can't be compared one to one, because a religion could go away tomorrow without anyone dying; a race could not. (Though I still think if India lost Hinduism its people would eventually become either Muslims or slaves of Muslims; Europe and the USA have no real analog to Hinduism so I fear for them.) A modern conservative must be a pluralist because there is no western-led world civilization to protect any more; pluralism demands respect for the rights of the people next door to be themselves. Seems simple to me.

Converting people to Christianity (if that's what you're referring to) is not inherently conservative and is often anti-conservative. Inviting people from another culture into your religion can be just as problematic as inviting them into your home. Missionary Christianity did some good in terms of improving health care and what have you, but in terms of enslaving the mind of Western man to a doctrine of self-sacrifice, I think the missionary spirit did a lot of harm.

But again, I know little of Christianity in India. Blessed Teresa of Calcutta once said that she wanted, among other things, to help a Hindu become a better Hindu. It seems pretty amiable to me; I don't know if I'd call her a conservative or not.

Olave d'Estienne said...

Gender feminism and white nationalism are both particularist movements. The difference is that white nationalism doesn't even make a nod at pretending to be a universalist movement and generally doesn't attempt to claim a 'moral high ground' in its rhetoric. This transparency totally horrifies anyone who has been indoctrinated to pay lip service to universalism. - Jehu

This is a very important distinction and I'm glad you made it plain. Gender feminism pretty much claims to be the best for everyone; WN makes no such claims.

chris said...

I've often wondered how do you classify those who may be conventially allied with you politically yet nonetheless still promote the destruction of your people.

I just call them subverters now, whether they belong to the right or left, that word, subverter, pretty much sums them up.

Zakaria is a subverter.

"If your race no longer exists in a few or so decades you have absolutely NOBODY else to blame but yourselves."

I blame the promulgation of victim/slave morality by the left through the west. (Christianity might also have something to answer for here as well.)

When Europeans adopt a hero/master morality again, then they will be capable of taking control of their civilisation and future again.

HINDU Nationalist said...

I'm not asking anybody to "ally" with Zakaria. He's written many books, I haven't read a single one. And appearantly he has a TV show, never watched it. I'm just commenting on him in the context of the original blog and following comments written about him at David's.

I stand by what I say that white Americans will be their own undoing, not anyone else. Your increasing disinterest, for whatever "psycho-sociological" reasons, in traditional marriage and family is what will cause your people to die out. Nothing else.

You asked if Americans ever tell me what my "values" are. Yes, its happened, even in my own country!

The technique of American Christian missionaries is just that - to tell Hindus that we are "open minded" and "multi cultural" and "accepting of all belief systems" and therefore we should be "open" to hearing about Christianity or else we are "not good Hindus".

Ice Maiden said...

Good post.

I promised I'd tell you if I resurrected my blog, and now I have. Hope to see you there.

Anonymous said...

Nowadays, anonymity is considered, of all things, one of the main benefits of urban living.

This is starting to evaporate. With the advance of social media (Facebook, Twitter) and technological advance in general (government can detect and watch its citizens better, communication easier to disperse) modernity may be perhaps, ironically, far more intrusive and public than ever before and I think this will get worse in the future.

Olave d'Estienne said...

Aww crud. Last anonymous seems to have looked behind the clouds and found a cloudy lining.