This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.

Revolutionary feminism

Page created and maintained by Web Minister mim3@mim.org

Some more thoughts on patriarchy in the party

October 5 2007

Overall, imperialist patriarchy is in transition, to what goal, it does not know. Gender relations are deteriorating, but no new order is in place yet. The feminist principle is destructive of patriarchy, and its progeny are ready-made excuses for prison-building.

So when the reactionaries say that feminism destroys the family, there is some truth to that. On the other side, there is no revolutionary model. That is the fantasy of fools who think they are revolutionary peasants in China, not exploiters. No, Nepal has nothing to say about it yet. They are stuck in the bourgeois stage of revolution, where gay-bashing and Archie Bunker are welcome. They're not saying anything new for the transition imperialist countries are in the midst of.

Optimism on the gender question in imperialist countries is the closet agenda of white nationalism. The transition in the imperialist countries will be long and painful. Those able to ignore that are guilty of a pragmatist method.

The most consistent theorist, Catharine MacKinnon says to go even higher into the stratosphere for imprisonment rates for rape. Although many are too stupid to admit it, the rational imperialist male has increasingly less reason for any gendered interaction. Isiah Thomas--what a fool,(1) just like imperialist country males in general. He's a rich man, so he should know what Las Vegas is for.

To counter this trend, the imperialist bourgeoisie develops in the female a notion of pleasure up to a point--with the gender aristocracy. The capitalist system finally asks the female what it is that she wants with her freedom relative to previous modes of production, but look what happens.

I$rael's Bar Rafaeli is what we need to clarify the specific gender dynamics of our time:

"An Israeli supermodel said she doesn't regret dodging army service and announced she is moving to Los Angeles.

"Bar Rafaeli, who evaded the draft by marrying a friend whom she later divorced, told Yediot Achronot, 'I don’t regret not enlisting because it paid off big time.'

"In the interview, she explained her reasons for emigrating.

"'Israel or Uganda, what difference does it make? It makes no difference to me,' Rafaeli said. "Why is it good to die for our country? What, isn’t it better to live in New York?"

"Rafaeli is linked romantically with actor Leonardo DiCaprio, who visited her in Israel earlier this year. The visit resulted in a scuffle with paparazzi in Jerusalem, after which Rafaeli vowed not to bring her famous friends to her native country."(2)

95% of Amerikan political activists have to be discarded as worthless to the international proletariat. Another 95% of the remainder resists the obvious truth on why Bar Rafaeli is right by inventing how-to- guides on evading patriarchy for activists.

There is nothing activists should be saying about the wonders of patriarchy--and that means the presentation of ugly truth--not bubbling Freudian optimism. Now maybe Freud has nailed down a certain percentage of imperialist country males as having sex on the brain all the time. That would not necessarily mean that Freud has a socially useful solution for gender relations. Quite the contrary, he is trying to fit square female pegs into round holes.

Revolutionary clarity from the heterosexual female--it will never happen in the imperialist countries, because the revolutionary principle is asexual--and consciously asexual females are not dating the revolutionary males. "Have-it-both-ways" is the rule for the petty-bourgeoisie and confused females dating the Flaming Heterosexual Revolutionary Male--like Mark Rudd or Bill Clinton if he had taken a different road.

Catharine MacKinnon is the direction and it is destruction that we do not try to get in the way of. Patrick Buchanan and his dupes in the left-wing of white nationalism will try but fail. At root, we will find their idea of race and eugenics causing strife to the species. MacKinnon is trying to go forward to what she does not know, but Buchanan is the old war-ridden past.

MIM's position is against having children in imperialist countries. That is too much of a lifestyle guideline to make sense by itself. It makes more sense when we think about children who end up serving in Iraq and how we need to restrict that supply. There are more general reasons than that as well. When it comes to gender, the imperialist country male is correct: desire is the intrinsic reason for gender relations. Conversely, feminism is the reason not to have gender relations. These are two sides of the same coin. Male desire is the ordering principle of patriarchy, a logical one, but a lop-sided one.

The clear-minded feminist theorist is a destroyer in the imperialist countries. MacKinnon raises the question of the social construction of desire point-blank.

Among more timid souls, pragmatism rules. We need to cut it down on gender questions every time it tries to creep back into revolutionary life. Pragmatism is often the cover for ideas even more backward than those of the gender aristocracy.

We have a few questions for the flaming heterosexual male considering vanguard party work. 1) If "her" desire does not match yours, why is the relationship really there? 2) If the desire is not there, are you entering into a security problem by having a relationship? If she is ambiguous with you socially, how do you think she will fare under political or security pressure? Ask these two questions consistently and get the skittish females out of your way.

The egalitarian-minded male is apt to a Liberal out, in which we let "her" decide these questions. This is how backward ideology creeps in. The would-be revolutionary male lets her decide why she opts into patriarchy instead of weeding out relationships which MacKinnon is going to get to if revolutionary men do not. MacKinnon's method is reformist--so she is trying to destroy a certain large portion of would-be relations.

Bar Rafaeli has part of the answer on the intrinsic purpose of life. The male perspective involves an intrinsic desire for sex. The trouble enters when we allow other factors to be thrown in for exchange purposes. Prostitution is open and to be preferred to mish-mash dishonest reasons given for relationships that also amount to exchange.

We encourage flaming heterosexual revolutionary men to entertain that doubt, "why is she going out with me?" Here is a question. Your partner or intended partner does not want sex. She puts up confused and erratic reasons why she goes out with you. Now ask yourself: "if you were 10% as attracted to her as you are, would you act like that?" In other words, treat the adult female as just another persyn you can understand and do not accept inconsistent answers. If you figure you must be 20 times more attracted to her than vice-versa, the trouble is she may still go out with you, even try to marry you.

MIM reveals now the dirty secret of exchange. Ms. Asexual-around-you does not have an advanced revolutionary theory of why she goes out with you--fantasy number one crushed.

The real reasons she goes out with you--if you are an intellectual male apt to consider the vanguard party idea--she could be seeking to drag you off to I$rael to make some babies. Even in the united $tates she could get child support out of you. Her country told her to. Your children will be serving at a West Bank checkpoint near you-- pretty aesthetically pleasing, eh?

The contemporary reason she wants to go out with you Mr. Red Bill Clinton--is to have a colleague. Now you thought that was why people go to work, to have colleagues, but see, her mother did not have a career or at least if she did, the reason for that did not sink in yet. So your girlfriend thinks that dating is a cool way to add a competitive advantage to her career.

Warren Beatty tried to tell you Mr. Red Bill Clinton that she should get into bed with you after you make a good revolutionary speech. What a bunch of Hollywood bullshit.

Another reason--actually she knows she's not attracted to you, said it many times. Yet, two of her sisters and her mother told her to go out with you and even settle down. It's just what "normal" people do-- don't you know it? Don't worry, the sisters and mother told your girlfriend she will have to "compromise." Conformist pressure works in the short run. In the long run, the plan is for babies to serve in Iraq. Hey, the party did not get to those sisters and mother yet, so they do not know that their idea is a holdover from feudalism extrinsic to a legitimate dynamics for a relationship of pleasure. The party did not tell these people yet that "normal" is just a little in-joke. Actually there is no reason to conform to "normal" if the desire is not there. If desire is not there, better to be a prostitute and get paid for sex. At least then you could buy something you did intrinsically like. So that normal thing, that exchange thing--it's not too exciting. Whether it is prostitution or your mother vamping on you, it's going to be the same thing or maybe the mother oppressing you is actually worse than prostitution.

Now, Mr. Egalitarian Heterosexual Male, then there are those "how-to" excuses you get. "Oh, I did not read Cosmo magazine yet and we're just having some mechanical sex problems." Oh yeah? Did you need to read Cosmo to know you wanted to get her into bed again, no matter how frustrating the last experience was? That's what we thought. So the truth is that you have the desire, the ordering principle of patriarchy. She just does not.

Now why do you want to sleep with this persyn? Is it attractive to have sex with people who do not want it? Woops, did we tell you that you are at risk for date rape accusations, especially in politically correct circles and not in those Bible-thumping southern states where they can barely read? Are you going to toss your revolutionary career to take a risk on some confused female who has no intrinsic idea why she goes out with you? Let someone else make some babies for the military base in Korea: you have other things to do. Bag that "she must have some reason" idea of yours. You may be clearer about feminism than she is, because you have the desire to be.

Notes:
1. http://www.newsday.com/sports/basketball/knicks/ny-nymsg02vr5398796oct02,0,7390798.story
2. http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/breaking/104483.html