White Supremacy and Profeminism

This topic cannot be contained within one post. So let's just call this post #1 on this matter.

The most immediate issue I want to address is what does it mean for women's liberation that Western profeminism is white-dominated and eurocentric?

To me it means this: our Western white supremacy will remain unchallenged in this movement, if this is, indeed, a movement.

A discussion among feminist bloggers about the degree to which radical feminism is white supremacist has been happening for some time. I do not recall this discussion ever happening among profeminist men: why? Because there are only a dozen of us? (I mean that could be the answer!)

If white men in the West control and dominate everything from media to the study of philosophy, how are radical women of color's voices and white feminist voices to be heard, let alone be responded to responsibly?

To which radical women of color and white women, feminist identified or not, is any white man fully accountable? To have politically active progressive to radical white men centralize the struggles of, and speak to the issues which most greatly impact women of color and white women worldwide--what would it take for that to happen?

In Response to the Virulently Misogynistic blog, REX PATRIARCH

There are many forms of virulent misogyny online.

Some are pro-rape websites. Some are racist-misogynistic pornography sites. But another form of this scum is found among Men's Rights bloggers and an even more peculiar, here meaning delusional, group of blogging men, who call themselves anti-misandrists. (Because, Lorde knows, we all experience what an institutionalized, centuries old problem man-hating is! Note: that's sarcasm, as thick as it gets.)

"Rex Patriarch" aka cybro, is one such blog(ger).

What follows is a link to one thread from his blog--an histerical response to a liberal feminist statement. The comments section appears below. You may note that none of these boys can even answer my questions. As cybro notes, this is the first and last time he'll allow me to post any comments to his blog. [Credit to Andrea Dworkin for the term, histerical. And patriarchs say she had no sense of humour! Apparently, U.S. antifeminists are among the most humourless people in this part of the West.]

Below is the entire comments section to date, from the blogpost on: REX PATRIARCH entitled
"OH NOW THEY WANT A TRUCE" [For more, see this URL: http://rexpatriarch.blogspot.com/2008/07/oh-now-they-want-truce.html ]

11 Comments -

Show Original Post

Mars said...
I also don't care. I wonder what their reactions are going to be when they find out that no mercy will be given and no quarter shown?
July 21, 2008 4:24 PM

Comment deleted
This post has been removed by the author.
July 21, 2008 8:46 PM

Anonymous said...
No Peace.No Surrender.Only total capitulation from the enemy will suffice.
July 21, 2008 8:59 PM

Anonymous said...
Typical of women.The only time when a woman worries about abusive alimony and child support is when she is the second wife of the man condemned to these payments (so she receives less money because of them).The only time when a woman worries about man-hating is when she realizes that this produces less men willing to commit and slave themselves to support a wife (and the children women long for). There is a shortage of suckers so let's treat men better so they can produce "stable families". Of course, the feelings and the dreams of men are not worth discussing. And this kind of articles have only appeared when the marriage strike has begun to have effect. 30 years of man-hating have been enjoyed with enthusiasm by average women. Now that they are a man shortage, it's when they worry about that.It's not compassion about other human beings (men) the reason of this article. Women can be empathetic about kids and other women but not about men. Women see men only as a tools to achieve what they most want (marriage, kids, financial security).Go your own way and let them whine about the man shortage. You will do anything you want and spend your money on you, not on a ungrateful parasite.
July 22, 2008 5:36 AM

julianreal said...
What do you call this sort of speech here, "anti-misandrous"? This whole discussion here, both the intitial post and comments to date, are about as astounding as any I've seen, right up there with Hitler blaming the Jews for the woes of the German economy, and GWBush blaming our socio-economic problems on them immigrants (note: white men are unwelcomed immigrants on North American land: so go back home where ya came from). Look in a mirror; there you'll find your enemy, clear as day.Julian
July 23, 2008 10:04 AM

cybro said...
Thank you for your comments. The kind of speech depends on who you ask. Feminist call it hate speech. I call it the truth, that's why feminist hate it so much. Yes you will find the discussion here astounding in so much that men have no say in other forms of media. Those have been completely feminized and nothing that isn't pro feminazi is allowed to be said. That is why you never hear it.As far as white men go you need to hear what a famous indian said about them to his fellow indians. Basicaly he said if the indians didn't stop wacking each other, join together and fight the white man, whitey would just walk in and take over. Can you guess what happened?
July 23, 2008 11:08 AM

julianreal said...
I think we all know what happened and is still happening to Indigenous people all over the planet: white men and our values, industries, and institutions are killing them, genocidally. And white men are also systematically raping Indigenous women. See this for more:http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096415046What is your humanitarian response to these atrocities?In what institutions, in what social venues, in what regions of North America, in your view, do "women rule over men"? I am eager to hear your answer.As for where men get to speak like this: have you looked at the pornography industry in the last thirty five years; men have been putting down women there in every conceivable way, degrading women, raping women, pretending to rape women, cumming on women's faces, gang-banging women, treating women of color like sh*t in particularly racist and misogynist ways. Often and routinely over these many years, the pornographers (I'm here I'm talking about the big fellas: the white corporate pimps, not someone at home alone or with a partner using their webcam) make feminists and feminism the targets of this scorn, contempt, and defamation: that's a multi-billion dollar a year industry. I ask this in earnestness: can you name for me one multi-billion dollar a year industry that promotes (accurately) the perspectives of radical feminists? Because I can't, and I've looked. Practically every woman I know has been seriously harmed physically, emotionally, and sexually by a man or by several men, often within their own families of origin: I'm not a youngster, and this means dozens and dozens of women, just those women to whom I am personally connected. One woman friend was molested by three different men over one summer when she was nine years old. Another woman was raped by her father, older brothers, and male cousins when she was a girl. My female dental hygienist was murdered by her ex-boyfriend; he came to her home when she was alone and killed her. I also know boys who have been raped or molested or assaulted by men: again, their numbers are in the dozens, but approximately half as large as the population of females harmed by men in these ways. Do you know even five women who have been charged with rape, incest, child molestation, criminal battery, women who have detained boys or men in their basements as sexual slaves, women who have trafficked in boys and men for the purposes of sexual gratification, at the expense of the humanity of those so used and abused?I see men treat one another like sh*t often, beating each other up outside of bars, shouting and threatening each other: white men threatening and discriminating against men of color; heterosexual men bullying and beating gay men. I'm curious why you don't see men as a significant population of man-haters. I honestly (I'm being entirely serious here) know of not one single woman who hates men. Not one. I know women who fear men, based on past experiences; I know women who fight for justice for women, for women to be free from rapist culture, from pornographic culture, from a dominant culture in which Indigenous North American women can be raped by white men without any recourse. I can't "reverse" this phenomenon and match it to reality. Could you name the social experiences, on a large scale, that lead you to see the world this way?Regarding your use of the term "feminazi": Given social-political reality, aren't white men "the Nazis," and women of all ethnicities more like "European Jews" than the other way around? In what sense do feminists in North America control the media, run state police forces, direct the military, and form an unfathomably inhumane dictatorship, as Hitler did? What sense does it make to call any feminists "Nazis"? Please explain this to me. (Thank you.)How have you been harmed, personally, by women?I look forward to your response. Thanks for engaging on this topic. I appreciate your willingness to keep the dialogue open.Julian
July 24, 2008 11:13 AM

cybro said...
Sounds like a womyn's studies graduate. I refer you to the video I just posted. That chick will describe to you the hatred they have for men and why. Other than that I already know that nothing I say is going to penetrate the insanity that a feminist lives in. What I advize men to do with troublesome females is dump them and move on before they can do any serious damage.
July 24, 2008 12:31 PM

Anonymous said...
cybro, it simply isn't possible to converse with someone who is so utterly brainwashed by Feminist Propaganda as julianreal. That's what so terrible about the feminist virus; once a person is infected with it, it cannot be removed. No amount of logic, reason, facts, etc., is capable of convincing them they've been lied to and continue to be lied to by Feminist Propaganda. Honestly, Women's Studies has been debunked for over 10 years and women continue to eat it up! F:"We hate men because of x,y,z."M:"X,y,z are lies and have been thoroughly debunked. Here's the evidence."F:"Shut up, we still hate men even if x,y,z aren't true."Even the very rare women who were once Hardcore Radical Feminists who've altered their position and realized that Feminism is based on lies cannot convince people like julianreal.Feminism is social engineering at its finest. It takes a very honest, open minded, intelligent woman willing to think outside the herd to understand this. I mean, even women who have sons have a hard time understanding how damaging feminism is to their sons and society.Feminism is the greatest lie ever told and women eat it up. The most crafty thing about Feminism is that if Men clearly point out to them that it's based upon lies, the women have been conditioned to not listen to those oppressive men! Genius!That's why you cannot argue with them. They've been brainwashed to hate you and not listen to you ... even if you're right and back it up with facts.
July 24, 2008 3:36 PM

cybro said...
I'll give any feminist one free rant. The next rant gets them kicked through the goal posts. It's the same thing they do to me on their blogs.I have a similar policy with all chicks in real life. You disrespect me one time, you get one warning, the next time you get your ass kicked to the curb.That in of itself is doing more to help my fellow man than any amount of money that could be donated to some retarded mens activist group. I'm training her up for the next guy that says you get one warning...
July 24, 2008 7:03 PM

Kapt Krunch said...
Right on Cybro. There is no point debating these ladies. They use the same old worn out tricks in the feminist playbook to stay off subject. There never is a discussion. It's all personal attacks and accusations. I heard it all a million times before.
July 25, 2008 3:25 PM

Noam Chomsky Finally Speaks Out Against Pornography

Three years ago, Nikki Craft and I created the activist website Hustling The Left. It's purpose was to hold men on the Left accountable to being silent on issues directly related to women's liberation from patriarchal exploitation and subordination, specifically their silence on or support of the corporate pimping of women in pornography.

You can visit that site by clicking here. WARNING: THERE IS GRAPHICALLY RACIST, ANTISEMITIC, HOMOPHOBIC, AND MISOGYNISTIC MATERIAL PRESENTED ON THIS SITE: SURVIVORS OF SEXIST AND RACIST ABUSE MAY BE TRIGGERED OR REPULSED BY THESE IMAGES. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS PORNOGRAPHY.

Nikki just informed me that there's now a 2008 Noam Chomsky video interview, in which he addresses pornography specifically as something that is degrading to women. Nikki was in contact with him about this issue back when we were working on the website. His correspondence with her is documented. Click here for that. SAME WARNING AS ABOVE ABOUT CONTENT.

Here is that video.
END OF POST. THERE IS NO MORE

Kyle Payne and the Problem of Profeminism

It's not new news.

In fact, it's a story that has been extensively discussed in some circles of the blogosphere: Kyle Payne, a white anti-racist, anti-globalization pro-feminist has been charged and convicted for sexually violating a woman over whom he had complete control. She had no meaningful agency at the time of him violating her through entrance of her room leading to him touching her and photographing her, for his own sexual purposes. (He wasn't documenting bruises for a police report, for example.) He did what he did while she was unconscious from inebriation.

The gist of a quote by Andrea Dworkin comes to mind: the consequence to women of getting drunk ought to be a hangover, not date rape. Kyle, according to the news story, did not commit date rape: they were not on a date, and it remains unclear exactly to what degree he violated her body. But he did use and abuse her in various ways that are abhorrent and outrageous, and antithetical to profeminist values and practices.

Kyle's job, as RA, was to make sure she was safe and secure in the dormitory. His job, as a white male supremacist, is to take advantage of his many privileges and entitlements, including having access, on demand, to women's bodies.

What led to her inebriation is not part of this story; it is irrelevant to what Kyle did. The fact of her being so inebriated is indeed an important factor: it means she didn't have the agency and ability even to shout, "Get away from me, Kyle." Our patriarchally mythic childhood stories tell us that men get excited because a woman is a catatonic thing. "Is there anything more alluring?," male supremacists ask each other, men who disgruntledly must do the extra work of violating women who move and speak.

In Western patriarchal mythology, and in the societies which perpetuate them, women are supposed to be used and abused in ways men desire, which, as Dworkin notes:

Antifeminism defends the conviction that the male abuse of women, especially in sex, has an implicit logic, one that no program of social justice can or should eliminate; that because the male use of women originates in the distinct and opposite natures of each which converge in what is called “sex,” women are not abused when used as women — but merely used for what they are by men as men.

– Andrea Dworkin, Right-wing Women

If we pay attention to a range of white Western men's tales (or if we live in reality), we notice it is women of all colors, across the globe, who are there for the taking. Men act on these entitlements with frequency oppressively effecting millions of women and girls directly; this fact is, depending on how you look at it and experience it, horrifically alarming, or frustratingly commonplace. The Kyle news may be met with a comment like "that hypocritical f*cker!" or "of course: what else is new?" I tend to have both responses when I hear about stories such as Kyle's abuse of a woman student, perhaps in part to my knowledge of what other profeminist men have done, and of what antifeminist men do with considerably less anxiety.

The problem of profeminism is that its practicioners don't state what our principles and values are, exactly. Given the variety of forms feminism takes, to whom are profeminist men accountable: the women we call feminists? Time and again, when arguing with the sort of white heterosexually active man who speaks "progressively" of his use of pornography featuring Asian women, or his enjoyment of sadomasochistic sex, including calling his sexual partner his sex-slave, he'll use the line, lying or not, self-servingly at any rate: "My girlfriend is the one who suggested it" or, at least "she enjoys it." Perhaps she did and perhaps she does. And perhaps there is more to the story than that.

My positition as a radical profeminist is that those of us who call ourselves profeminist had better be clear on what our politics, practices, and values are. The fact that some women are drawn to or introduced to sadomasochism by men or pornography, are ethusiastically engaged in or compulsorarily acting out sexist heterosexuality, or being femme in heterosexist ways, does not alter my understanding of how patriarchy works; rather, it confirms it. This doesn't mean I am entitled to tell women with whom and how to be sexual or social; to believe I am entitled to do so is utterly patriarchal, and not at all profeminist. I believe, instead, in calling out men who use women's feelings, experiences, and conditions inside patriarchy to defend our own patriarchal behavior.

The problem of profeminism is that Kyle may be seen as a deviant in our midst, a betrayer to the rest of us allegedly "good boys." The harsher truth is that most men, profeminist or not, remain fully entitled to behave in ways detrimental to the goal of achieving women's liberation from patriarchy. And a key component of that entitlement is that it not be addressed and challenged by men. Men do not, as a rule, accurately name what we do, let alone take responsibility for it. Rarer still is the phenomenon of men making the commitment to see to it that our male supremacist entitlements are revoked, or that the price paid for acting on them is so high as to make men fear for their lives.

The problem of profeminism is that the presence of The White Brotherhood's own value system--its politics and practices--are not sufficiently identified, challenged, and collectively rejected as antithetical to our work as profeminist activists.

If, in fact, Kyle is us and we are him, where does he, and where do we, go from here?

To cast him out of our "club" is to do what? Pretend we are now purified of men with pornographically rapist tendencies and histories? To sympathetically support him is to do what? Reinforce his entitlements and pretend that what he did is not an act of gross inhumanity?

For me, the radically profeminist challenge is take a third approach: to demand that he be accountable to feminists. To demand that he be in regular contact with profeminists who are directly accountable to feminists who work against the atrocity of rape and the harm of pornography; to make sure he doesn't violate another woman, to the best of our abilities; to make sure he learns all he can from what he did in order to become a humane and responsible member of the profeminist community; to let him know what the consequences will be if he violates another woman; and to follow through with those consequences should he violate a woman again.

Feminist bloggers immediately discussed the Kyle Payne case. It is not surprising to me, and it is outrageous, that so few male bloggers will take this matter on, critically. This absense of action reveals the extent to which The White Brotherhood demands our silence on all matters about which we should speak up and otherwise act in ways that are distinctly and radically antipatriarchal.

Welcome

There are too few blogs moderated by men with discussions leading to activism that seek an end to rape and racism, to name but two atrocities.

This will be a space to report news and have constructive, pro-activist (not elitist academic or abstract) discussion about how to dismantle white supremacist, ecocidal Western patriarchal societies and the ideologies and violence that bolsters and defines them. I hope what appears here is useful to radical activists, particularly to Womanists and feminists.

No comments will be accepted that promote misogynistic/male supremacist, racist/white supremacist/anti-Indigenist, homophobic/heterosexist, ecocidal or other pro-oppression, pro-"death culture" stances and actions. The goal is to compost CRAP: Corporate Racist Atrocious Patriarchy; I'm a sucker for pithy acronyms--what can I say?

I am a white, gay, class-privileged Westernized man. I have many of the privileges and entitlements that come with being a man, being white, not being raised in poverty, not being physically disabled, and not being a child or very elderly. I also benefit by having English as a first language in an English-speaking region of the world, and by having an "education", as defined by Academics. (I do not equate "being educated" with being wise, knowledgeable, perceptive, or intelligent. Some of the most ignorant people I know have a graduate degree.)

I find the Internet to be a particularly despicable place, often. It has taken me years to decide to have a blog, because I never wanted to be committed to being here as often as bloggers are, if attending to their blogs regularly and responsibly. Not that this news is going to shock anyone, but cyberplace is filled with industry-produced pornography, and also has many misogynistic, racist, and misopedic websites and web networks designed by men, predominantly white men, to participate in and gain pleasure from the rape and torture of women and girls. (Boys, trans, and intersex folks are also made into objects of abuse also at these sites and within these networks.)

As for my own history of participation in white male supremacist activities:

I once used what used to be termed soft-core pornography; I have never enjoyed pornography portraying "sex acts" between people--or between people and nonhuman animals. And I haven't spent any money on pornography in a very long time, and never online; I used to look at some "adult" magazines geared to gay men, and later at Internet images--still and video--of young men jerking off, or going "solo" as it's put in gay sex website lingo. I endeavor not to look at these images and videos again. Will I ever seek them out? We'll see. I'll state here if and when I do. Putting this statement out to you is one form of accountability.

My experience of heterosexual men who use industry pornography is that they are threatening to women's self-esteem and dignity, interpersonally, at least. I don't give gay men a pass because we don't desire to look at images of objectified women. Gay pornography, as has been noted especially by Christopher Kendall, contains all the elements and values of a racist, patriarchal, consumerist sexuality. Replacing an image of a Photoshopped woman, presented as if she has no history or intellect, with a Photoshopped man, presented similarly, doesn't make those images liberating or radically empowering; the fact that they now proliferate commercial mass media is a sign industry pornographers have done one part of their job, with a healthy paycheck to prove it.

I have engaged two younger men in physical-sexual contact since being an adult: all the sexual contact I had before becoming an adult was with age peers, was consensual, with fellow teenagers, or was in the category of sexual abuse of me by men. Given that the law doesn't understand the limits or subtleties of meaningful consent, only the abuse done to me would be actionable in court; the abuse I did to others would not be. This tells us a lot about the lack of social understanding of what abuse is and how it is accomplished. While I have never used physical force or overt coercion, restraints, drugs, or alcohol, to obtain sexual contact with another person, I have used forms of manipulative seduction that were geared to appear and be experienced by the other person as non-threatening; no one I've had sex with was afraid of me or is afraid of me; I say this not based on self-serving speculation, but on the non-sexual verbal contact I have since had with each individual I abused, which has included me owning what I did to them as abuse, apologizing for it, and them accepting my apology. While I had the means to use my entitlements, privileges, and power to obtain sex in a more overtly abusive way, I didn't do so because I didn't desire to do so. We men generally don't do what we don't desire to do, when it comes to sexual activity. And we are able to do what we do because we have the means to do it, including interpersonal and social systems of secrecy and mandatory complicity.

I am not presenting myself as someone incapable of sexual abuse, only as someone who has taken it upon myself, with full accountability to feminist friends and colleagues, to make sure it doesn't happen again: for example, I don't put myself in situations and locations where I might be tempted to objectify young (or older) men, for example; I don't have a home computer in part for that reason. For the last several years I have been celibate: there isn't an active sexuality that exists yet that I find compelling to participate in. I am gay-identified because of two things: I only desire to be sexual with men, and I see individual women as full human beings, not as body parts or things who exist for my pleasure.

There are many ways to harm women of all colors and men of color, of course, beyond sexual contact. And being celibate doesn't mean a man, in my case, cannot objectify others in violating ways. I do not practice objectification by interrupting any early stage of doing so. Objectification is a political action, not a genetic imperative. To those heterosexual [or gay] men who say, "Objectifying women [or men] is natural and inevitable" I say: Given my own experience and my work with other men, I believe you are wrong, and are self-servingly making excuses for continuing a behavior that sexually pleases you, at the expense of others' humanity.

As for other ways of being abusive, I can, on occasion, raise my voice or withdraw from conversation in frustration, hurt, and anger; I am not, generally, "a yeller." I don't like being part of loud discussions with voices raised.

I find myself feeling really irritable and annoyed when around white people and/or men with class privilege who proclaim liberal perspectives on the world while believing them to be politically useful or responsible, and that irritability is usually intuitively picked up by those around me, regardless of whether or not I speak or withdraw from the conversation. I am told that my non-verbal "energy" speaks loud and clear, and can be intimidating or have a shaming effect on those around me--leaving them with a sense of "I am wrong", or "I am bad". As I wish to engage constructively with others, I choose to not be that social, as I do not expect all my family and friends to see things from a radical perspective; and given that I also do not always see things from radical perspectives (meaning striving to get to the roots of the social-political matter) can get irritated with myself. I welcome my own lapses into liberalism or other forms of political ignorance being pointed out to me; my radical activist friends know this. But I live in a liberal society; it is easiest to maintain a liberal perspective on the world because it doesn't threaten the oppressor's worldview, nor does it demand that someone with privileges deal responsibly with the political consequences of her or his own behavior.

White men's conservatism, in the U.S., is currently alarmingly close to fascism. I oppose it as well. It is ridiculous to me that feminists, any feminists, are called "feminazis" by men. Men who use this term seriously are utterly delusional about what fascism is and has been; they obviously have never been on the receiving end of fascistic policies and practices or they don't recognize them as fascistic. (Some white men with graduate degrees use that term, feminazi, as if it made sense or had social meaning: this alone shows how little one can learn spending years in an academic setting.)

I have never struck another person in anger, or with the intention of harming them, except my older brother (who had cooties and I think still does). When we were little and he was picking on me, including physically, I would sometimes strike back, hitting his arm or shoulder. My efforts at self-defense had pathetic and harmless results: no injuries to him, no "ouch" exclaimed by him, nor even a halt to his behavior. I'm just not a physical fighter. There were and are names for boys-to-men like me, and they range from pansy to pacifist. It occurs to me now how humorously ironic it is that the word "fist" appears in the term pacifist. Ah, English: a language from a culture and civilization known for what Marimba Ani, in her astoundingly important book, Yurugu: An African-Centered Critique of European Cultural Thought and Behavior (1994) terms its "rhetorical ethic." This ethic, she makes clear, is made socially real in oppressive action; it is not simply a problem of saying things one doesn't mean. White Westerners say one thing while doing another, with atrocious and horrific results. To learn more about her book, please go to the following website, which, in the lower left, includes link to chapters one and six of the book. Chapter six contains an extensive analysis of that ethic, see here.

I'll close for now.