The poverty of feminism by Dominique Karamazov: discussion

33 posts / 0 new
Last post
Samotnaf
Offline
Joined: 9-06-09
Jun 14 2009 14:51
The poverty of feminism by Dominique Karamazov: discussion

admin: text removed from the library and moved to the forums. Here is the introduction which was given to the text when it was posted by Samotnaf. Below in the comments is the discussion with users which led us to read and remove this text.

The following text was originally published in 1977 by the French group "La Guerre Sociale" as "Misere du feminisme" by Dominique Karamazov (translated in 1998 by Elephant Editions, London). It analyses how feminism, despite its emancipatory airs, has become the guardian of traditional feminine alienation, how feminism became a falsified representation, accomplished by capital, of a real movement. Its real and positive role, like that of ecology, is that it brings problems to light, albeit in a disguised or inverted way. It is up to the revolutionary movement and to theoretical quest to discover their true dimension and resolution.

Endangered Phoenix republish the text here as it is the most intelligent discussion of feminism we have found; but obviously we do not endorse it uncritically. For example, it offers little in practical engagement with or solutions to the immediate real problems of women in this world; it is a little abstract and absolutist, too pure in its detachment. It remains the bearer of ultimate post-revolutionary solutions only. So, for instance, it rightly criticises the legalistic approach of much feminism in regard to rape, which mystifies the real root of the problem; it states its preference for the response of giving rapists a good kicking. But presumably the author would not condemn as ‘legalistic’ the legal defense of those who might be prosecuted for such an act. But the text does not really deal with these thorny contradictions of engagement with this world, or why reliance on legal methods are not a mere theoretical failure; they often seem the only practical, if partial, solution to fearful situations - although, in practice, very few rapes get taken to court, let alone successfully prosecuted, which shows the limitations of a legalistic approach even in its own terms. However, if recourse to the law seems to be the only solution, it's in part due to the fact that nowadays radical solutions are very rarely on people's minds. In the 70s, when this was written, women often thought of other ways of dealing with the problem: in Canada, for instance, there were groups of women who, if the rapist was known, would spray-paint their houses (an autonomous way of 'naming and shaming'), possibly thump them, or have the victim confront them backed by the group, often with the rapists' family and partners present. In Alexandra in South Africa in the mid-80s, community meetings would try the rapist and deal with him accordingly. One of the contradictions of the justification for imprisoning rapists not pointed out in this text is that imprisonment increases the chance of rape - on the prisoners by other prisoners, but probably most victims are understandably indifferent to such contradictions (whilst their silence about this contradiction is indicative of a moralistic hypocrisy).

The dialectic between necessary reformist demands, which appear in struggles and movements that have the potential to develop further, and ultimate revolutionary solutions remains largely unexplored. The text defines feminism in relation to capitalism, but does not deal adequately with its relation to the wider social movement of its times. The often brilliant discussion of desire and sexual relations is limited by its heterosexual angle – the gay perspective doesn’t get a look in (though obviously gay roles are determined by this society just as much as heterosexual ones). But it does deal well with many issues ignored or repressed by feminist ideology.

Karmus's picture
Karmus
Offline
Joined: 27-11-16
Nov 28 2016 08:14

So I noticed that you removed the direct access to the recent PDF-file (although you didn't delete the file from the servers) of the above text because of my previous comment, but I would like to ask what motivation the admin originally had for posting a so-called brocialist propaganda writing full of mansplaining hate-speech from the 1970's of France. The author has obviously completely misunderstood what feminism is about and goes to the extremes of defending rape as a social phenomenon among miserable men - even characterizing it as an act of perversion, though it should be clear to everyone that rape is about power - not about sex.

Yes, it is indeed a controversial text - but that's only mildly spoken. I would definitely put a disclaimer on this to warn future readers, that the presence of the text is only for historical purposes, and that the LibCom team doesn't approve of the obscure and conservative, gender normative views, this author has or once had. The only thing to praise is how intelligently he wraps up his hatred against women in preassumed phrases about the passive and imagined 'nature' (what the fuck) of women of being house-keepers. That is misogynist as fuck!

Or else do we might as well expect texts on tribal anarchism and other bizarre 'perversions' of a pure working class ideology (as well as you clearly wouldn't post texts about other examples of fascism in disguise)? Just to make a comparison to how it feels reading this as an anarchist and feminist.

Ed's picture
Ed
Offline
Joined: 1-10-03
Nov 28 2016 15:55

Hi Karmus, I'm one of the admin team.

Libcom's content is largely user generated so this particular piece was uploaded by one of them (incidently, one who now hates us with all his being!). I haven't personally read the article and as it's really long I don't think I'll have time to; would you be willing to post up bits that you think are problematic/awful? That way the admins can discuss and decide what to do about it more quickly.

Thanks for flagging this up, either way..

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 28 2016 19:56
Karmus wrote:
So I noticed that you removed the direct access to the recent PDF-file (although you didn't delete the file from the servers) of the above text because of my previous comment, but I would like to ask what motivation the admin originally had for posting a so-called brocialist propaganda writing full of mansplaining hate-speech from the 1970's of France.

hi, yes thanks for flagging this up, and on the other post. We unpublished the other one on seeing your comments but yes as Ed says, seeing how long it was we haven't had a chance to read through it yet. As for this post being here, I don't think any of us were even aware of it (if we were we would have deleted the repost as a duplicate immediately), as most of our content is user generated and we rely on other users to flag up any problematic texts in the comments or by email - so thanks again for doing this here! And yes if you could get us some key quotes or something to show the issues with it we will discuss internally and decide what to do

Thoughts from any other users who've read this would be appreciated too

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Nov 28 2016 22:26

Maybe this article can be prefaced with a disclaimer that it is written by a rapey asshat who hates women and would rather we all just stayed in the kitchen...

For one thing, there's the victim blaming -

Quote:
When the conditions that give rise to rape — the fact that it expresses (even in a barbarous way) a fundamental need and that it is a response to a certain general female attitude — are not understood, or there is no desire to understand it, the only consistent answer is repression: repress the problem.

My bold, that rape expresses a fundamental need or that it's a response to female behaviour, something echoed elsewhere in the text -

Quote:
His crime? He had refused to imprison a fifteen year old boy who had raped a sixteen year old girl at school, putting him on a year’s probation and justifying his act as something normal given the victim’s sexy clothing and the generally eroticised climate in which it took place.

Clearly this girl was asking for it.

Then there's the bit about women attracting the attention of men & being surprised about the consequences ie rape

Quote:
A whole female mode of behaviour is aimed at attracting the attention and desire of others without being able or having to openly affirm itself as need and appeal. This unconfessed and irresponsible behaviour goes as far as to be surprised by the consequences it can arouse, refusing to accept them as responses. Female seduction radiates in all directions, and only feels responsible for that which it recognises. It disdains some, but also sometimes resents those who were not aware they were being aimed at.
Quote:
To have access to a woman a man must pay the price in sentimental rubbish, or just plain rubbish, which is as much a concession to her narcissism as to her need to be taken into consideration.

To have access to a woman? Entitlement much. This man - and whoever thought this was a good piece to post needs to fuck right off, preferably to a cave all by himself.

TL: DR all this feminism getting uppity about rape is rooted in a deep and fundamental sexual repression. Women don't understand men. Boo hoo. After all, according to the author, it's on a par with getting your handbag snatched.

And then there's the anti-abortion stuff. This article is riddled with gender norms which belong in the nineteenth century. It must have been old fashioned even in the 70s.

Quote:
The problem of abortion is also the problem of the woman’s acceptance of her role as a mother. It is a problem of sadism towards herself and the foetus, of guilt and a desire for punishment linked to sexuality.

Apparently if we all had optimum living conditions we'd be happy popping out as many babies as we can.
He doesn't want to touch a theological argument but then comes up with this

Quote:
The butchery which is unbearable when a baby is involved seems normal there, it is carried out in the dark and an act of killing is transformed into an “operation”.

Sorry but I can't honestly be bothered to go through all of this and critique it. I don't want to waste my time re-reading something so awful. But it is awful and it either needs a strong disclaimer or just firing into the sun. And fwiw, I think angry, sexist men who think they have any worthy opinion to express about how women should react to rape or whether or not they have an abortion and feel the need to tone police women in any way about sexual assault or whether they should be happier and less sexually repressed fulfilling their lives according to this gender essentialist baloney, ought to take a trip to closely acquaint themselves with solar flares too.

Noah Fence
Offline
Joined: 18-12-12
Nov 28 2016 22:57

I didn't read this as I guessed it would be awful just from the title but Jesus fuck, the quotes highlighted by Fleur are just unbelievable. The dirty, sleazy yelpings of male failure to understand a single thing about misogyny. This stuff is bad enough from the knuckle headed dickwads I've had the misfortune to work on sites with over the years but to see it put in a properly written piece makes my toes curl.

Sike
Offline
Joined: 25-10-15
Nov 28 2016 23:52

Libcom is really in need of a Worst of the Left section to put shit like this in.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 29 2016 09:46
Sike wrote:
Libcom is really in need of a Worst of the Left section to put shit like this in.

one step ahead: https://libcom.org/tags/best-of-worst

this is an option we are currently discussing for this awful text

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 29 2016 12:27

Have finally had some time to read this article. Jesus it is absolutely appalling.

In addition to the terrible quotes pulled out by Fleur, this is another choice one:

Quote:
Even if the number of indictments for rape were multiplied by ten (1.589 indictments in France in 1975), it can be seen that the risk of a woman being raped is quite slight. Wouldn’t it be better to worry about grandmothers whose savings get stolen or their handbags snatched? There are countless vulnerable victims of ruthless hooligans!

Apart from the fact this is incredibly offensive, the maths are utterly stupid.

In the UK nowadays there are over 100,000 rapes every year. With life expectancy at around 80 years, you can see that over a lifetime a large number of people, overwhelmingly women, will be raped. In the US it's estimated that up to 20% of women have been raped at some point at least once. And if anything it is likely that the figures in France in the 70s would be even worse.

I do wonder why Samotnaf describes this as "the most intelligent discussion of feminism we have found"? Samotnaf still reads this site and sends people private messages so he is able to answer.

Edited to add, does anyone know who "Dominique Karamazov" really was? It's clearly a pseudonym, and doesn't seem to be credited with any other articles. I wonder if it is/was even a woman, or if a man just used a female pseudonym to cover for a misogynist article.

no1
Offline
Joined: 3-12-07
Nov 29 2016 13:04

I think the intro text has a misogynist feel to it as well, e.g. "feminism despite its emancipatory airs" - like it's about women who need to be put back in their place rather than have airs and graces. Was that written by samotnaf?

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 29 2016 13:10

I don't know who the author is, but according to Amazon it was republished in English in 2003 by Elephant Editions (not sure who they are either). It's also cited approvingly in Lies Journal, and in Abolish Restaurants. Which is unexpected, given the quotes people are pulling out. Will try and make time to read it.

bakuninja's picture
bakuninja
Offline
Joined: 27-09-13
Nov 29 2016 13:23

Apparently the supposed writer (Dominique Karamazov = Dominique Blanc = Yann Berr Tillenon) is now a new-rightist Breton-nationalist druid... (see: http://www.vice.com/fr/read/extrmement--louest & http://www.kervreizh.eu/)

Craftwork's picture
Craftwork
Offline
Joined: 26-12-15
Nov 29 2016 13:29

La Guerre Sociale included Dauve, Guillaume, and some others.

Dominique Blanc wrote some well known texts

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Nov 29 2016 13:28

Dominique is a male name in French, so I'm guessing it's a man.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 29 2016 14:36
Joseph Kay wrote:
I don't know who the author is, but according to Amazon it was republished in English in 2003 by Elephant Editions (not sure who they are either). It's also cited approvingly in Lies Journal, and in Abolish Restaurants. Which is unexpected, given the quotes people are pulling out. Will try and make time to read it.

That's really weird about Lies, as that's a Marxist feminist journal.

Where is it cited in Abolish Restaurants? Had a quick look through and couldn't find it.

Elephant Editions is an insurrectionist publishing outfit, involving Jean Weir, who translated the original. I thought that the main guy from Active Distribution was involved as well but this may be a mistake on my part.

Thanks for the clarification about the name Dominique, I should've realised that!

Joseph Kay's picture
Joseph Kay
Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
Nov 29 2016 15:53
Steven. wrote:
Where is it cited in Abolish Restaurants? Had a quick look through and couldn't find it.

The section 'coercion and competition' uses a quote from it as an epigraph (the quoted bit is fine out of context, but in the original context not so much).

fingers malone's picture
fingers malone
Offline
Joined: 4-05-08
Nov 29 2016 16:22

deleted

jura's picture
jura
Offline
Joined: 25-07-08
Nov 29 2016 17:15

Indeed a fine specimen of shitty French ultra-left "theory".

Nymphalis Antiopa
Offline
Joined: 27-12-15
Nov 29 2016 17:42

I received what is written below from Samotnaf about this text and spoke to him over the phone. He says that he wrote it yesterday and early today before some of the later posts were published. Apparently the bit in grey at the beginning was written by Elephant editions. This is a text I have not read properly yet so please do not shoot the messenger: I looked at the French original in a fairly haphazard way and should say that I found it more confusing than Samotnaf said it was and it is quite complex; personally I doubt if the people here who say they have read it have read it meticulously, because it is a great deal more ambiguous than they say it is.

Quote:
Me and Red Marriott (who still contributes to libcon) put that text up on a now defunct site (endangered phoenix), which stopped existing shortly after this text was put up on libcom. I have since started a very different site - http://dialectical-delinquents.com/ - but have not put this text up on the site mainly for a different reason than Karmus' and Fleur's strange misreading of the text. The main reason is that I found out, contrary to what was intentional misleading information by "La Guerre Sociale", that the article was written by a man not by a woman as they had implied. Moreover, I had read the text only once, after RedM had suggested we put it up, and probably should have read it again as much of it is unclear and confused, and so may be open to the kind of confused response you seem to have given it.

Why do I call Karmus' and Fleur's comments a "strange misreading"? Firstly, RM and I wrote an intro which clearly criticises many aspects of its attitude towards rape, which they seem to have not read (or at least, if they have read it , they should have pointed out what they maybe consider is its feebleness or referred to it in some way). Secondly, the text is not as simplistic as they say: they have clearly wanted to crudely categorise it in the way they have, because the text is far more complex than the way they've portrayed it. In fact it is, at times, confused in part because it strives to talk of things that feminist ideology as well as traditional masculine ideology censor, and confusion is almost inevitable when you're trying to broach contradictions for the first time.
Karmus says: "it should be clear to everyone that rape is about power - not about sex.", which, however, is affirmed (even if it at times seems to be contradicted by other statements) by this quote: "Rape is a contradiction in act....An incapacity for characterlogical reasons and the lack of a social context in which to meet people and assure the coincidence of desires. Frustration engenders aggression. The need for love veers into a relationship of domination and destruction." Where exactly does the author go " to the extremes of defending rape as a social phenomenon among miserable men"? An attempt at explanation does not mean that he's "defending rape", anymore than an attempt to explain Nazism means defending Nazis. You might say the explanation is confused or whatever, but surely an explanation beyond just saying it's a question of domination, not sex, is necessary. Moreover, many feminists call for chemical castration for rapists. Since it's not about sex but about domination, then such a policy would merely exacerbate the horror - instead of rape the woman might be tortured or killed. Striving to understand the social historical context of something is always necessary in order not to make miseries worse.

And where does he refer positively to " the passive and imagined 'nature' (what the fuck) of women of being house-keepers" (Karmus) ? I might well be wrong, but given the other stuff Karmus says (and/or ignores), I suspect that Karmus is so into feminist ideology that she reads something he critiques as something he affirms positively (there are a lot of things like that in this text). And where exactly is the condescending "mansplaining" in this text ?

Moreover I find this comment of Karmus' somewhat disingenuous: "I would definitely put a disclaimer on this to warn future readers". I doubt that there have been many readers, but Karmus providing the first ever comment on it in the over 7 years since it's been up will certainly mean a great deal more people will read this text she considers misogynist and an "example of fascism in disguise" than have so far done so. As far as I know this text has had almost zero influence so far, as I've never seen anyone refer to it. I guess, however, that your comment will mean that, contrary to your explicit intention, maybe people will bother to read it. It's certainly made me read it for the second time.

The elements of confusion in this text does not excuse what seems like Karmus and Fleur's will to misread it. At times, the text is original and revealing, at others it's not at all clear what he wants to say and it leaves him open to misinterpretation to those who don't want to admit that they're confused by it. But their desire to simplify what is said ( and in Fleur's case, to quote out of context), to reduce it to the narrow terms which make some kind of easy-to-grasp sense to them because they conform to, what seems to me, their identity and petrified outlook, a classic ideological attitude utterly compatible with today's intensified alienation, must mean they just had no desire to untangle what was lucid from what was perplexing and doubtful. The 1970s, when this was written, was an epoch in which the revolutionary critique of male-female separations & miseries had yet to solidify into the crazy petrified ideologies of the present which judge everything according to narrow notions of political correctness on the one hand or to the false - equally rigid and contemptible - rejections of political correctness on the other. The struggle against this world involves a constant self-questioning both in nuanced theory and practice which challenges ones own established "truths" and forms of complicity as much as other peoples', and which involves also critiquing past theories and practices and going forward into unknown pioneering territory. For example, given the fact that so many scumbags call themselves feminist (Hilary Clinton and Marine le Pen come to mind), a critique of feminism as ideology (not as part of a struggle against both feminine and masculine alienation and their material base) is essential. To be stuck in "feminism" nowadays is just as fucked up as being stuck in macho misogyny: both are an expression of a will to self-deceit and to hierarchical separation.

This text was translated from Dauve's group La Guerre Sociale and produced originally by Elephant publications, Jean Weir and Bonnano's publishing house. Now I don't have enormous repsec for much of the writings of Dauve, or the other 2, but libcom seem to have an inordinate respect at least for Dauve. To rely on quotes out of context without checking up on this context amounts to an unfortunately all-too typical manipulation and evasion, and a desire to jump on the bandwagon of shallow uninformed put-down.

By the way "Dominique" can be either masculine or feminine.

I have no interest in discussing this myself and told this to S . He suggested people send messages to him (SamFanto) if they wish to discuss it with him. But the text is no longer there. So now it seems nobody can even judge anything written about it from posters or from S. or from the introduction by Red Marriott and S because you have decided to take it off. And this is meant to be a “discussion”?

Craftwork's picture
Craftwork
Offline
Joined: 26-12-15
Nov 29 2016 18:20

You can find the article, in its original form in La Guerre Sociale #2 (in French), here:

http://archivesautonomies.org/IMG/pdf/gauchecommuniste/gauchescommunistes-ap1952/guerresociale/gs-n02.pdf

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Nov 29 2016 18:17

So I made the effort to read the whole text and it was clearly included as a reference text in the libcom library with some justification subject to the 2 qualifying introductions with it's arguments for 'Communism as an attack on the roots of the family institution' and the harm inflicted on women, men and children, rather than it being limited to 'democratising that institution'. I would say that it is essentially a critique of a particular tendency in 1970's Feminism and in particular those leftist and reformist elements, rather than everything in feminism that is potentially subversive of capitalism. It suffers by way of exaggeration when trying to emphasise points and is certainly confused and confusing as it descends further into some questionable psychology but seems non-the-less to be an honest attempt to get to grips with some of the perceived contradictions in social and sexual relationships in modern capitalism and the often equally contradictory and limited efforts to respond to these. There are certainly some factual errors in it but I think some of the sentences that posters here have understandably objected to most are not so much expressions of the authors own personal views but taken in context are rather their understanding of common views of people at the time? Of course it may well be that the some of the authors own prejudices are also seeping through into the analysis but there is worthwhile material in there as well. Probably could have benefited from some detailed criticism back in 2009 though.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Nov 29 2016 18:34

Basically, fuck off Samotnaf. I would suggest you go back to obsessing over the actions taken some years ago by little known academics and pursuing your guilt by association paranoia than defending this awful tripe. How belittling rape by comparing it to theft, whining about women putting the goods on show & then moaning about rape or writing all that anti-abortion shit is open to misreading is a little stretch. It's an appalling piece of writing and anyone who defends it is an appalling human being.

Steven.'s picture
Steven.
Offline
Joined: 27-06-06
Nov 29 2016 18:56
Nymphalis Antiopa wrote:
I have no interest in discussing this myself and told this to S . He suggested people send messages to him (SamFanto) if they wish to discuss it with him. But the text is no longer there. So now it seems nobody can even judge anything written about it from posters or from S. or from the introduction by Red Marriott and S because you have decided to take it off. And this is meant to be a “discussion”?

Er not sure what you mean here. The introduction which was originally posted by Samotnaf is still included above, as is clearly explained. The rest of the text can be read easily elsewhere on the internet. So it looks like this is meant to be some sort of attack on us but I can't figure out what sort of evil scheme you're accusing us of.

Thanks to Samotnaf for responding with some explanation, although it does seem kind of pointless to send a post thread third-party rather than just posting it yourself, especially as you have done this on previous occasions as well, so it's not like you are maintaining principled nonparticipation on libcom…

I've got to go out but just wanted to quickly respond to a couple of things

Quote:
Me and Red Marriott (who still contributes to libcon) put that text up on a now defunct site (endangered phoenix), which stopped existing shortly after this text was put up on libcom. I have since started a very different site - http://dialectical-delinquents.com/ - but have not put this text up on the site mainly for a different reason than Karmus' and Fleur's strange misreading of the text.

you say it's a strange misreading, but can't you see how terrible those sections of the text are? I know you did put on an introduction which slightly criticised some elements of the text, but doesn't touch on the outright misogynist viewpoint of some of it.

Quote:
The main reason is that I found out, contrary to what was intentional misleading information by "La Guerre Sociale", that the article was written by a man not by a woman as they had implied.

That's very interesting, and what I wondered above.

Quote:
Karmus says: "it should be clear to everyone that rape is about power - not about sex.", which, however, is affirmed (even if it at times seems to be contradicted by other statements) by this quote: "Rape is a contradiction in act....An incapacity for characterlogical reasons and the lack of a social context in which to meet people and assure the coincidence of desires. Frustration engenders aggression. The need for love veers into a relationship of domination and destruction." Where exactly does the author go " to the extremes of defending rape as a social phenomenon among miserable men"? An attempt at explanation does not mean that he's "defending rape", anymore than an attempt to explain Nazism means defending Nazis. You might say the explanation is confused or whatever, but surely an explanation beyond just saying it's a question of domination, not sex, is necessary. Moreover, many feminists call for chemical castration for rapists. Since it's not about sex but about domination, then such a policy would merely exacerbate the horror - instead of rape the woman might be tortured or killed.

On this, I don't know about "feminists", but I often see right-wingers, like anti-feminist Daily Mail types calling for this (it's true that some feminists may as well: feminism is such a broad term, much like "socialism", that you can find self-declared "feminists" calling for just about anything).

But regardless, rape isn't necessarily penetration by a penis, but is often by foreign objects.

It would be interesting to hear what Red thinks about the text.

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Nov 29 2016 19:19

Might have to read the text again. It certainly does ''belittle' rape in emphasising other of capitalism's brutalities, but not convinced it is 'anti-abortion', rather I think it was arguing for the material conditions that would allow women to make genuine choices as to whether or not to give birth or have an abortion - something debated in many feminist circles even if in terms of promoting other capitalist reforms in addition to access to 'free abortion on demand' rather than in favour of communism as a necessary solution.

fingers malone's picture
fingers malone
Offline
Joined: 4-05-08
Nov 29 2016 20:40

I hadn't read it all the way through by the time it was taken down, but I found it on line in about 5 seconds, so I don't think debate has really been stifled. I don't think anyone is making a deliberate or disingenuous misreading of it. I read it and I thought it was basically horrible.

fingers malone's picture
fingers malone
Offline
Joined: 4-05-08
Nov 29 2016 20:45

My mum was involved in the late seventies feminist campaigns for abortion on demand. They were constantly making demands for more nurseries, better housing, more money, more parks, better facilities for parents and children generally. Also, if you are unwillingly pregnant, full communism is unlikely to arrive before the due date.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Nov 29 2016 21:01
fingers malone wrote:
Also, if you are unwillingly pregnant, full communism is unlikely to arrive before the due date.

I think this is my favorite quote on libcom, ever

sabot's picture
sabot
Offline
Joined: 21-06-08
Nov 29 2016 23:44
Steven. wrote:
Thanks to Samotnaf for responding with some explanation, although it does seem kind of pointless to send a post thread third-party rather than just posting it yourself, especially as you have done this on previous occasions as well, so it's not like you are maintaining principled nonparticipation on libcom…

Does Samotnaf have his account blocked? I can't really tell.

Spikymike
Offline
Joined: 6-01-07
Nov 30 2016 11:40

Yes I think the 'Endangered Phoenix' intro was particularly emphasising that it ''..offers little in practical engagement with or practical solutions to the immediate real problems of women in this world.'' (an understatement) or put another way the problem of communism being the best and only enduring solution to many of the interconnected problems we face in capitalism whilst seeming to recede into the distant future despite our everyday collective struggles to try and assert our human needs within the system. There is a connection between the two but this maybe only becomes apparent at the height of mass social struggles which surpass the sectional interests and movements that comprise reformist political campaigning?

jef costello's picture
jef costello
Offline
Joined: 9-02-06
Nov 30 2016 14:58

Long, dull and crappy point of view.

I was disappointed to see this on prole.info without even a disclaimer.

I think the nearest thing to a reasonable critique of feminism seems to be that feminism cannot be accomplished via bourgeois means.(I think in general we can agree that this is incorrect. capitalism can provide equality for women, it won't but it technically could. ) and that trying to do so discourages people from being radical. But the article in general is awful.

I've taken a long quotation (some of which was quoted above.)

So we have a complaint about the use of the courts, I can see the point but I do wonder if they'd say the same about workers accepting money, or signing contracts etc.

"anti-male hysteria" well already I think the actual problem is rearing its head.

This is about women doing feminism wrong ("Not all feminists share such understanding") and targeting men.

Then we have the so-called bullying of a judge who refused to sentence a rapist (possibly a statutory rapist, but if you're writing the onus is on you to express things) and in this case again, would he complain that workers who picketed for unpaid wages were "enriching" the system?

Rape expressed as extreme physical violence involving strangers, another problematic view.

It's not quoted here but looking for a full version I saw the first page in French, accusing feminists of trying to use rape to repress natural male desire 'just like society'.

This is such a completely awful approach that can only see feminism as targeting men and as someting not to be entrusted to women. I hope no one else bothers to read this rubbish. There's a bunch more awful stuff in the quotation but I really feel that this is enough. To be honest I didn't need to weigh in, this was such an obviously poor text.

Quote:
Rape does exist and, just as with crime in general, it’s on the increase. Various factors contribute to making rape common, even normal in the eyes of some people: revenge or an easy compensation involving no great risk. In fact most rapists don’t get caught. Often the victims don’t even report it. Due to shame, fear, a sense of futility or not wanting to bring punishment to a member of the family? From a gang of lads who "take advantage" of a "girlfriend" with fifteen of them gang-banging her, to those weekend "funseekers" who kidnap and amuse themselves with a mentally retarded girl, not forgetting the horror of rape followed by the murder of children, women or couples, it is possible to accumulate a hoard of sordid, tragic and sometimes tragi-comic tales.
Yet it is difficult not to feel uneasy about the fight that is being put up against rape, about the tone and methods being used. Moreover this unease is probably felt by those involved as well: some feminists make it clear that they are not against all men, that rapists are above all victims of society, that they are not calling for repression and only use the courts for publicity, in order to break the silence.

Not all feminists express such understanding. Some call for heavier sentences. In Rome demonstrators against the gang-rape of Maria reacted with anti-male hysteria. In Wisconsin, USA, the feminists together with some institutions hardly to be suspected of extremism got on the tracks of a judge. His crime? He had refused to imprison a fifteen year old boy who had raped a sixteen year old girl at school, putting him on a year’s probation and justifying his act as something normal given the victim’s sexy clothing and the generally eroticised climate in which it took place.

So rape is everywhere. The chat-up is rape, domination is rape. Man is by nature rapist and woman his eternal, innocent victim.

Some extreme feminists claim that penetration is an act of domination, a form of humiliation to be refused. Some of them even say that violence and exploitation are the acts of males alone and that this part of humanity must therefore be neutralised or eliminated by the arrival of a world of women where, thanks to the progress in biology, reproduction will be carried out without men.

Red Marriott's picture
Red Marriott
Offline
Joined: 7-05-06
Nov 30 2016 18:48

Samotnaf's account is not how I remember the text was dealt with - I don't even remember reading this text. According to him it was put on Endangered Pheonix towards the end of that site when there were a lot of 'communication problems' between us. It's tempting to say 'it's shit and I had zilch to do with it' and I've had a look at my files and e-mails and haven't found any reference to it; but I can't factually say for sure that he's playing similar games with the history of this text as he still does with his various libcom alter-egos, claimed 3rd parties etc for his expressions on here. All I can say is I don't find his version of events always reliable. But the intro doesn't look to me like my style of writing and I don't recognise it. Regardless, although I didn't post it here and the criticisms appear valid, in general I don't have a problem with putting online or publishing articles that one doesn't wholly agree with if they have some interesting points - as we've seen, people are free to criticise.