UK Lobby (including The Economist) bullies Corbyn over 'anti-Semitism',
demands he expel Livingstone
Newsletter published on 5 April 2018
(1) The Economist come out as part of
the Lobby
(2) Corbyn’s dinner with Jewdas - the 'good' Jews
(3) Jewdas the
'good' Jews?
(4) 'Ken Livingstone must go', Jewish leaders tell Jeremy
Corbyn
(1) The Economist come out as part of the Lobby
https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21739672-labours-leader-will-not-rid-his-party-scourge-until-he-understands-what-it-means-jeremy
Jeremy
Corbyn’s anti-Semitism problem
Labour’s leader will not rid his party of
the scourge until he
understands what it means
Print edition |
Britain
Mar 31st 2018
JEREMY CORBYN has spent a remarkable
proportion of his life on
"demos"—indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that
protesting is his core
competence. This week, however, the Labour leader
found himself on the
receiving end of a demonstration. Two Jewish groups,
the Board of
Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council,
organised a
protest in Parliament Square to draw attention to Mr Corbyn’s
anti-Semitism problem.
The demonstration was only about a thousand
strong. The organisers
forgot to bring a PA system so it was impossible to
hear what was being
said. Only a handful of people joined in with the chant
of "Mural, mural
on the wall, who is the biggest racist of them all—Corbyn!"
But this was
nevertheless a significant moment: a group of Jews standing
outside
Parliament, protesting about the prevalence of anti-Semitism not on
the
fascist extreme but at the heart of one of Britain’s two biggest
parties.
The immediate cause of the protest was a recently unearthed
comment that
Mr Corbyn posted online in 2012 in response to a piece of
London street
art. The mural in question is a blatantly anti-Semitic
portrait of a
group of capitalists, most of them with hook-noses, playing
Monopoly on
a table resting on the backs of naked workers. The local
authority
ordered the mural be painted over. Mr Corbyn leapt to the artist’s
defence, writing on his Facebook page: "Why? You are in good company.
Rockerfeller [sic] destroyed Diego Viera’s [Rivera’s] mural because it
includes a picture of Lenin." The discovery of the post proved too much
for many leading British Jews, who have written to Mr Corbyn with three
complaints: that the Labour Party contains pockets of anti-Semitism;
that Mr Corbyn has repeatedly turned a blind eye to such noxious
attitudes; and that previous attempts to deal with it have proved
inadequate.
They are right on all three counts. Jewish Labour MPs
such as Luciana
Berger have been subjected to anti-Semitic rants and
intimidation from
supporters of the hard left. Jewish students have
abandoned Labour
groups because they feel threatened and vilified. One
source of the
anti-Semitic infection is the hard left, which is almost
defined by its
hostility to Israel and capitalism. There is nothing
necessarily
anti-Semitic about either position. But in the heat of political
debate,
distinctions can blur and ancient hatreds flame. Hard-leftists
habitually refer to Jews as "Zios". The artist behind the London mural
said it was not an attack on Jews but on capitalists such as Rockefeller
and Warburg.
Another source of Labour’s anti-Semitism is British
Muslims. A poll last
September found that 55% of Muslims held anti-Semitic
attitudes, with
27% believing that "Jews get rich at the expense of others",
compared
with 12% of the general population. Mehdi Hasan, a Muslim writer,
says
that "weird and wacky anti-Semitic conspiracy theories are the default
explanation for a range of national and international events." For all
their disagreements on issues like gay rights, hard-leftists and Muslims
forged a lasting alliance in the Stop the War movement against the
invasion of Iraq.
Mr Corbyn has done more than turn a blind eye to
anti-Semitism. He has
had tea in Parliament with Islamist radicals such as
Sheikh Raed Salah,
who has claimed that "a suitable way was found to warn
the 4,000 Jews
who work[ed] every day in the Twin Towers" to stay at home on
September
11th 2001. He has appeared on Iranian national television, despite
the
fact that the regime issues wild threats to destroy Israel. One of his
old friends, Ken Livingstone, has repeatedly asserted that Hitler
supported Zionism in the early 1930s.
This week’s row was proof in
itself that previous attempts to tackle the
problem have failed. Several
Labour MPs joined the protests in a public
rebuke to the party leadership.
But is there also a chance that it marks
a turning-point? Mr Corbyn has
issued a statement recognising that
"anti-Semitism has surfaced within the
Labour Party", apologised for his
misjudgment over the mural and offered to
meet Jewish leaders. His aides
are reportedly "rattled" by the fallout from
the row, which represents
more of a threat to his reputation for sanctity
than his links to IRA
activists.
Speak no evil
But there are
powerful reasons for believing that the problem will not
be tackled. One is
biographical. Mr Corbyn has spent his life moving in
far-left circles since
arriving in London in the early 1970s. His
instinct is that there are no
enemies to the left—that fellow protesters
in the Socialist Workers Party or
International Marxist Group should be
forgiven their peccadillos (such as
believing in armed revolution)
because they believe in social justice. Mr
Corbyn’s supporters have the
same attitude. This week they rallied to his
defence, claiming that the
establishment was conjuring up the anti-Semitism
row to discredit their
champion.
Another reason is strategic. British
Jews—particularly those who support
Israel—are being marginalised in the
Labour Party. There are 3m Muslims
in Britain compared with about 284,000
Jews, and they are concentrated
in areas vital for Labour’s future, such as
Birmingham and Manchester.
The philo-Semitic tradition in the Labour Party,
exemplified by Harold
Wilson and James Callaghan, is dying.
The most
important reason is philosophical. Mr Corbyn has devoted much
of his life to
protesting against racism. But for him, racism is linked
to class and
exploitation. It is about privileged people doing down the
marginalised, and
saintly activists like Mr Corbyn riding to their
rescue. But the Jews are
perhaps the world’s most successful ethnic
minority. They have almost always
succeeded by the sweat of their brow
rather than the largesse of activists
or government programmes. They are
often hated precisely because they have
succeeded where other
marginalised groups have failed. The danger is not
that Mr Corbyn will
continue to ignore anti-Semitism after this week’s
protests. It’s that
he doesn’t understand what anti-Semitism is.
This
article appeared in the Britain section of the print edition under
the
headline "Nothing to see here"
(2) Corbyn’s dinner with Jewdas - the
'good' Jews
https://www.redpepper.org.uk/jewdas-corbyn-and-the-policing-of-jewishness/
Jewdas,
Corbyn and the policing of Jewishness
Stop accusing Jewish people of
treachery when they criticise Israel,
writes Eleanor Penny
April
3, 2018
On Monday night, Jeremy Corbyn attended a Passover seder hosted
by a
left-wing organisation Jewdas – a group known for their pro-Palestinian
politics, their bedazzled Purim cabarets and their insistence that it’s
pronounced ‘beigel’, not ‘bagel’. The group includes Jewish people from
all different backgrounds – ashkenazi, sephardi, middle eastern and
more. They welcome practising Jews, secular Jews, the Jew-ish like
myself and the simply Jew-curious.
Right-wing muckraking site Guido
Fawkes gleefully splashed this the news
of Corbyn’s dinner with Jewdas
across its front page – as proof that he
was doubling down on his shameless
antisemitism. After spending a week
criticising Corbyn for not listening to
Jewish people, now he’s being
dragged through the mud for listening to the
wrong kind of Jewish
people. Jewdas, we’re told, are a ‘fringe group’, not
‘mainstream Jews’
– not really proper Jews at all.
[...] Jewdas has
been viciously criticised for its leftwing stance – its
members have been
labelled traitors, kapos and antisemites. This,
despite the fact that Jewdas
activists have been on the frontlines of
anti-fascist struggles across the
UK, that they count rabbis and
priests-in-training among their number.
Despite the fact that they spend
their time educating people about
antisemitism, and tirelessly campaign
against antisemitism in the
pro-Palestine movement – publishing
literature on ‘How to criticise Israel
without being antisemitic’.
Despite the fact that they shouldn’t have to
prove their Jewishness to
edgelords looking for their next redbait or
clickbait. The verdict is
in: these are the bad Jews, and they don’t
count.
Herein lies the problem – that non-Jews and commentators see fit
to
adjudicate a public debate on who counts as legitimately Jewish. It
re-plays a tired game of bigot bingo where the ‘good minorities’ are the
ones who comply, who do what they’re told, the ones whose lives and
opinions are tolerable to the people in power. Bad minorities on the
other hand are trouble makers, and they aren’t entitled to public
protection.
It’s surprisingly easy to be a bad Jew – even if you were
raised Jewish,
even if you practise faithfully. Disagreement with the Board
of Deputies
can land you in the dock – even though they slightly undermined
their
ability to unilaterally adjudicate on antisemitism when they publicly
congratulated Donald Trump for a victory he secured with the help of
Nazis and white supremacists. The original sin, though, seems to be
criticising Israel – in the frothing imaginary of the red-baiting press,
all anti-Israeli sentiment is antisemitic, even when coming from Jewish
people. [...]
Passover is a festival which celebrates liberation from
oppression. To
commemorate the struggles of the Jewish people fleeing
slavery in Egypt,
many people include in their Haggadah contemporary
struggles against
oppression and injustice of all kinds. Jewdas’ seder
featured a prayer
"for the land and people of Israel-Palestine: ‘Freedom
calls: let water
run like judgement upon Jerusalem / And justice like a
mighty stream to
Gaza’.
Last week, Israeli soldiers opened fire on
Land Day protesters at the
Gazan border wall, killing 17 and injuring
hundreds more. They were
demonstrating against the occupation, and against a
decade-long blockade
which has brought the territory to its knees – starving
it of food,
power and basic medical supplies. Some might want you to think
that
being a ‘real Jew’ means turning a blind eye to the daily tyrannies of
life under Israeli occupation. There are many, many Jews who disagree –
and who are (say it with me) no less Jewish because of it. If anything,
the lesson of Passover is that the struggle for liberation still
continues – not in some heavenly paradise, but right here on
earth.
(3) Jewdas the 'good' Jews?
https://forward.com/opinion/398071/sorry-british-non-jews-you-dont-get-to-decide-who-the-good-jews-are/
Sorry,
British Non-Jews: You Don’t Get To Decide Who The Good Jews Are
Keith
Kahn-Harris
April 3, 2018
It’s a very strange time to be a Jew in
Britain. With the issue of
anti-Semitism in Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party
dominating the headlines
for the last couple of weeks, we’ve now reached the
point where arcane
questions of Jewish communal politics are now of national
interest.
The latest example concerns Jewdas, an irreverent collective of
radically-inclined, (mostly) young Jews. The attendance of Jeremy Corbyn
at their recent third night seder has become a matter of national
debate. At a time in which he is under intense pressure to show he is
serious about tackling anti-Semitism, Corbyn’s choice to attend an event
by a radical Jewish group has been interpreted in some quarters as a
snub (calculated or careless according to your point of view) to the
"mainstream" Jewish community. [...]
Who is right then? The truth
about Jewdas is less easy to summarize.
When they emerged over 10 years
ago, they were, for some of us on the
Jewish left, what we’d always longed
for. Organizing parties, happenings
and "radical Torah" events, Jewdas has
always challenged the Jewish
community’s sacred cows — including Israel and
Zionism — in an often wry
and provocative manner. And in their "exposés" of
Corbyn’s "outrageous"
participation in the Jewdas seder, critics have
pointed to some highly
incendiary language about Israel, including a prayer
in their 2017
Haggadah: "Please God, smash the state of Israel."
In
truth though, the Jewdas collective contains a plurality of views on
Israel,
including everything from tortured ambivalence about Israel to
convinced
anti-Zionism. Similarly, members have veered wildly between
exposing and
confronting left anti-Semitism and supporting some of those
(such as Corbyn)
who have been accused of enabling it. Naturally, it is
their more
incendiary, often deliberately over-the-top statements that
get the
publicity.
The attendance of Corbyn at the seder poses other risks to
Jewdas as
well. There is a disturbing whiff here of the kind of Jewish
communal
politicking that we find in more mainstream Jewish organizations,
where
members of a Jewish organization will preen themselves as the good
Jews
that the non-Jewish politicians love; and, in turn, there’s the feeling
of the non-Jewish politicians validating themselves by telling the world
"Look! The good Jews love me!"
The irony is that Jewdas was never
supposed to be a collective of good
Jews. Yet that is what they are being
turned into by the Corbynistas,
just as Corbyn’s detractors are determined
to turn them into bad Jews.
It’s all depressingly familiar and very very
non-radical.
These days, pretty much anyone who is accused of
anti-Semitism can find
a group of Jews to give them a pass. In the last
couple of weeks we’ve
seen the apotheosis of this process, with endless
"Jewsplaining" about
who the real, good Jews are, the Jews to whom one
should listen to about
anti-Semitism. In their attempt to perform as "woke"
opponents of
anti-Semitism, non-Jewish Jewsplainers on the right and left
are
recapitulating the worst — and most self-hating — of our traits as
Jews.
If Jewdas, and anyone else who thinks of themselves as a Jewish
radical,
is seeking something to smash, it should be this. Non-Jews need to
be
told to stop picking and choosing which Jews they listen to. Engaging
with Jews and fighting anti-Semitism means recognizing that there will
be Jews who hold positions you disagree with.
Genuine anti-racism
means fighting for the rights of people you despise.
I don’t know why
Jewdas invited Corbyn to their seder (and I’ve heard
whispers that some of
those in attendance weren’t happy about it), but I
wish one of them had had
the courage to do something truly
revolutionary. They should have told
Corbyn to get out of his comfort
zone and attend a seder held by Jews whose
politics he does not agree
with. And instead of hosting Corbyn, Jewdas
should have invited a
different kind of non-Jewish politician who claims to
oppose
anti-Semitism, one on the right who finds the idea of leftist Jews
baffling or disgusting.
That would have been truly
radical.
Dr. Keith Kahn-Harris is a London-based writer and sociologist.
His book
on denial will be published by Notting Hill Editions in 2018. His
website is kahn-harris.org.
(4) 'Ken Livingstone must go', Jewish
leaders tell Jeremy Corbyn
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/04/04/ken-livingstone-must-go-jewish-leaders-tell-jeremy-corbyn-crunch/
'Ken
Livingstone must go', Jewish leaders to tell Jeremy Corbyn at
crunch meeting
on anti-Semitism
Harry Yorke, political correspondent
4 APRIL
2018
Jewish leaders will tell Jeremy Corbyn to prove his "militant"
opposition to anti-Semitism by expelling his old ally Ken Livingstone
from Labour, The Daily Telegraph has learned.
The Labour leader will
be told during a face-to-face meeting to bring
the two-year investigation
into Mr Livingstone’s conduct to a close if
he is serious about cleansing
his party of anti-Jewish hatred.
It comes after Mr Corbyn defended his
decision to attend a Passover
event hosted by Jewdas, a left-wing group
which has described Israel as
a "steaming pile of sewage" which needs to be
"properly disposed of".
His attendance at the Seder celebration on Monday
was heavily criticised
by mainstream Jewish groups, who
questioned...
Wednesday, June 13, 2018
947 Australian Civil Court finds Jewish Court (Sydney Beth Din) In Contempt of Court
Australian Civil Court finds Jewish Court (Sydney Beth Din) In Contempt
of Court
Peter Myers, April 5, 2018
The Supreme Court of New South Wales has found Sydney Beth Din in
contempt of court. The Jewish Court was attempting to deny a Jewish man
access to Civil Courts - in effect placing Jewish Law above State Law.
This harkens back to the days before Jews were emancipated, when Rabbis
reigned over them.
https://www.jewishnews.net.au/beth-din-appeals-contempt-ruling/75357
Beth Din appeals contempt ruling
Australian Jewish News
April 5, 2018
THE rabbis of the Sydney Beth Din (SBD) have appealed a December Supreme
Court ruling which found them in contempt of court and the associated
penalty of $50,000 in fines plus court costs, expected to be more than
$250,000, handed down last week.
Last year, Reuven Barukh was called to front the SBD to resolve a
business dispute, but he refused to attend and instead offered to have
the case heard "in a civil court".
SBD’s Rabbi Eli Schlanger wrote to Barukh that "all members of the
Jewish faith are obliged to have their disputes heard in accordance with
Jewish Law at a Beth Din" and that Jews are "not permitted to seek
adjudication at a civil court without the express permission of a Beth Din".
When Barukh still refused to attend the SBD, and asked again for the
case to be brought to a secular court, Rabbi Schlanger wrote that if he
didn’t comply, among other sanctions, "Synagogue/s where he prays will
be informed accordingly. He will not be counted to a minyan. He will not
be able to receive an aliyah to the Torah. He will not be offered any
honour in the synagogue."
Last December, NSW Supreme Court’s Justice John Robertson Sackar found
the rabbis in contempt of court and last Thursday fined Rabbi Schlanger,
Rabbi Yehoram Ulman and Rabbi Michael Chriqui $10,000 each.
He fined Rabbi Moshe Gutnick $20,000 because the judge said he was "the
principal actor in the circumstances and as a result he should bear a
greater responsibility than that of the others".
A statement provided to The AJN by Schweizer Kobras Lawyers on April 4
said: "The Beth Din has appealed the judgment handed down by Justice
Sackar on 14 December 2017 and the decision in regards to penalty handed
down on Thursday 29 March 2018, both as to the underlying findings of
contempt and the amount of the penalties imposed against each of the
members of the Beth Din.
"The rabbis intend to honour the judge’s ruling until such time as the
decision is overturned."
In announcing the penalties, the judge noted that the rabbis did
apologise. The rabbis also said they had suffered "significant
embarrassment and distress as a result of being found guilty of
contempt" but the judge stated this "can be seen equally to be the
product entirely of their own behaviour".
Rabbi Gutnick told the court that Jewish people should respect the rule
of law, and that he would never knowingly or intentionally do anything
that would be considered contempt of Australian law.
A Directions hearing will be held at the Court of Appeal next Wednesday.
AJN STAFF
of Court
Peter Myers, April 5, 2018
The Supreme Court of New South Wales has found Sydney Beth Din in
contempt of court. The Jewish Court was attempting to deny a Jewish man
access to Civil Courts - in effect placing Jewish Law above State Law.
This harkens back to the days before Jews were emancipated, when Rabbis
reigned over them.
https://www.jewishnews.net.au/beth-din-appeals-contempt-ruling/75357
Beth Din appeals contempt ruling
Australian Jewish News
April 5, 2018
THE rabbis of the Sydney Beth Din (SBD) have appealed a December Supreme
Court ruling which found them in contempt of court and the associated
penalty of $50,000 in fines plus court costs, expected to be more than
$250,000, handed down last week.
Last year, Reuven Barukh was called to front the SBD to resolve a
business dispute, but he refused to attend and instead offered to have
the case heard "in a civil court".
SBD’s Rabbi Eli Schlanger wrote to Barukh that "all members of the
Jewish faith are obliged to have their disputes heard in accordance with
Jewish Law at a Beth Din" and that Jews are "not permitted to seek
adjudication at a civil court without the express permission of a Beth Din".
When Barukh still refused to attend the SBD, and asked again for the
case to be brought to a secular court, Rabbi Schlanger wrote that if he
didn’t comply, among other sanctions, "Synagogue/s where he prays will
be informed accordingly. He will not be counted to a minyan. He will not
be able to receive an aliyah to the Torah. He will not be offered any
honour in the synagogue."
Last December, NSW Supreme Court’s Justice John Robertson Sackar found
the rabbis in contempt of court and last Thursday fined Rabbi Schlanger,
Rabbi Yehoram Ulman and Rabbi Michael Chriqui $10,000 each.
He fined Rabbi Moshe Gutnick $20,000 because the judge said he was "the
principal actor in the circumstances and as a result he should bear a
greater responsibility than that of the others".
A statement provided to The AJN by Schweizer Kobras Lawyers on April 4
said: "The Beth Din has appealed the judgment handed down by Justice
Sackar on 14 December 2017 and the decision in regards to penalty handed
down on Thursday 29 March 2018, both as to the underlying findings of
contempt and the amount of the penalties imposed against each of the
members of the Beth Din.
"The rabbis intend to honour the judge’s ruling until such time as the
decision is overturned."
In announcing the penalties, the judge noted that the rabbis did
apologise. The rabbis also said they had suffered "significant
embarrassment and distress as a result of being found guilty of
contempt" but the judge stated this "can be seen equally to be the
product entirely of their own behaviour".
Rabbi Gutnick told the court that Jewish people should respect the rule
of law, and that he would never knowingly or intentionally do anything
that would be considered contempt of Australian law.
A Directions hearing will be held at the Court of Appeal next Wednesday.
AJN STAFF
946 Facebook shuts down Palestinian news outlet, citing "hate speech"; Al Jazeera doco on Lobby suppressed
Facebook shuts down
Palestinian news outlet, citing "hate speech"; Al Jazeera doco on Lobby
suppressed
Newsletter published on 31 March 2018
(1) Big Brother - in
your pocket, in your hand
(2) Facebook
alternative $2/month
(3) Alternative
Social Media that don't censor you
(4) Facebook shuts
down Palestinian news outlet, calls it “hate speech”
(5) Al Jazeera
documentary on the US Israel lobby - suppressed
(6) Robert Fisk calls
for screening of Al Jazeera documentary
(1) Big Brother - in
your pocket, in your hand
From: bronek [mailto:bronekc@me.com]
Sent: Fri, 16 Mar 2018 16:50:30 -0400
This is George Orwell's dream!
How much info is Google getting from your phone?
Feb. 07, 2018 - 5:06 - Google doesn't have a camera in every
home, but it does have a phone - and tracking mechanism - in millions of
pockets.
Youtube to correct “conspiracy” topics with Wikipedia
"facts"
(2) Facebook
alternative $2/month
They do not censor, data mine, sell your data to a third
party, of give any data to the government. They servers are offshore and are
exempt from the US government and court orders and the patriot act.
(3) Alternative
Social Media that don't censor you
From: bronek <bronekc@me.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 20:15:32 -0400
Subject: Fwd: Internet Alternatives: A Growing List
Alt-Tech. S.L., Alt-Tech, February 20, 2018.
If you're new to @Gab, Gab is the Free Speech version of
Twitter. There's a growing eco-system of Alt Tech companies supporting Free
Speech, unlike the censors at Big Social:
Facebook can be replaced by http://socialcross.org/ [Christian];
Twitter can be replaced by Gab;
Reddit can be replaced by Voat;
Imgur can be replaced by Kek.gg;
Chrome can be replaced by Brave;
YouTube can be replaced by Bitchute or http://yandex.ru/ [from
Russia];
Google can be replaced by Startpage, Duckduckgo, or http://yandex.ru/
Wikipedia can be replaced by Infogalactic;
GoFundMe can be replaced by MakerSupport.
Snapchat, Skype, Windows Messenger, AOL Instant Messenger,
Yahoo! Messenger, Threema, Google Talk, Facebook Messenger replaced by Telegram
[from Russia]; and 4Chan stands alone.
(4) Facebook shuts
down Palestinian news outlet, calls it “hate speech”
From: "Sadanand, Nanjundiah (Physics and Engineering
Physics)"
Subject: Facebook says, Palestinian journalism is "hate
speech"
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 18:04:24 +0000
Facebook labels Palestinian journalism “hate speech”
Ali Abunimah
Media Watch
27 March 2018
https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/facebook-labels-palestinian-journalism-hate-speech
Facebook is defending its decision to shut down the page of a major Palestinian
news outlet, describing the action as a move against “hate speech.”
On Saturday, the social media giant closed without warning
the page of the Safa Palestinian Press Agency, which had 1.3 million followers,
as well as Safa’s account on the photo sharing site Instagram.
(5) Al Jazeera
documentary on the US Israel lobby - suppressed
From: "Come Carpentier comecarpentier@gmail.com
[shamireaders]" Date: Tue, 13 Mar
2018
What’s in Al Jazeera’s undercover film on the US Israel
lobby?
Asa Winstanley
The Electronic Intifada
5 March 2018
The leading neoconservative think tank Foundation for Defense
of Democracies is functioning as an agent of the Israeli government, Al
Jazeera’s forthcoming investigation on the US Israel lobby will reveal.
According to a source who has seen the undercover
documentary, it contains footage of a powerful Israeli official claiming that
“We have FDD. We have others working on this.”
Sima Vaknin-Gil, a former Israeli military intelligence
officer, is said to state that the foundation is “working on” projects for
Israel including “data gathering, information analysis, working on activist
organizations, money trail. This is something that only a country, with its
resources, can do the best.”
Under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, commonly known as
FARA, US organizations and individuals who work on behalf of foreign governments
are required to register with the counterintelligence section of the Department
of Justice.
A search on the FARA website shows that the Foundation for
Defense of Democracies is not registered.
Al Jazeera’s film reportedly identifies a number of lobby
groups as working with Israel to spy on American citizens using sophisticated
data gathering techniques. The documentary is also said to cast light on covert
efforts to smear and intimidate Americans seen as too critical of Israel.
Israel lobby groups have placed intense pressure on Qatar,
which funds Al Jazeera, to shelve the film, fueling speculation it may never be
aired.
Covert agent of Israel
Sima Vaknin-Gil, who holds the rank of brigadier-general in
Israel’s military, is now the top civil servant at Israel’s Ministry of
Strategic Affairs.
The ministry is in charge of running a covert campaign of
sabotage against BDS, the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement in support
of Palestinian human rights.
Vaknin-Gil’s ministerial boss is Gilad Erdan, a close ally of
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Soon after she was appointed to lead the ministry at the
start of 2016, Vaknin-Gil promised to “create a community of fighters” who would
“flood the internet” with Israeli propaganda that would be publicly distanced
from the government.
As well as getting funding from Sheldon Adelson, the
anti-Palestinian billionaire and number one donor to Donald Trump’s presidential
campaign, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies has close ties to the United
Arab Emirates.
In hacked emails last year the Emirati ambassador in
Washington encouraged the foundation to push for moving a US military base from
Qatar to his own country.
The film will also reportedly show undercover footage of a
junior Israel lobbyist boasting of how close Israel’s ties are with the United
Arab Emirates and other Gulf regimes.
(6) Robert Fisk calls
for screening of Al Jazeera documentary
Subject: Documentary of Israel's influence on U.S Government
still not aired
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 16:12:48 +0000
Will a Hard-Hitting Investigation Into Israel's Influence in
US Government Ever See the Light of Day?
By Robert Fisk,
The Independent
29 March 2018
According to Swisher, if his documentary on the American
lobby doesn’t air soon, 'it might prove to be ammunition sought by a group of
zealous US politicians who wish to declare Al Jazeera a foreign entity, and
label us journalists as ‘spies’'
So when am I going to be able to watch Al Jazeera’s
hard-hitting investigation into Israel’s powerful lobby in the United States?
Remember Al Jazeera? The tough, no-holds-barred Middle East satellite channel
that transformed Qatar into a media empire whose reports frightened dictators
and infuriated potentates and presidents alike? Why, George W Bush once wanted
to bomb its headquarters in Doha – so it must have been doing something right.
It even has an office in Jerusalem.
But something seems to be amiss. Not Al Jazeera’s disastrous
American venture, which was supposed to break free of the dross on CNN and Fox
News and ended up looking just like CNN or Fox. Nor the tragicomedy of its
journalists’ imprisonment in Sissi’s Egypt, banged up by Cairo’s farcical laws
and the stupidity of Al Jazeera’s own management in Qatar.
No, I’m talking about a documentary called The Lobby,
directed by one of Al Jazeera’s top journalists, Clayton Swisher, the man whose
exclusive (and book) on the “Palestine Papers” blew open the secret and
scandalous American-led negotiations between Israelis and the Palestinian
authority between 2000 and 2010. But after months of postponement, The Lobby,
which secretly filmed pro-Israeli US activists and Israeli government officials
and was completed last autumn, is still no nearer to being shown – and Swisher
himself has taken a paid leave of absence. He even chose to explain his
frustration in an article for the progressive American Jewish magazine Forward,
which has always maintained a liberal and often very critical view of
Israel.
“Don’t mistake me – I love Al Jazeera,” Swisher told me this
week. “I love working for Al Jazeera. They’ve done fantastic things. And they
look after their staff very well. But our new documentary doesn’t seem to be
getting on air.”
In his published explanation, Swisher described how his
award-winning investigative unit – which he says operates “without [Qatari]
government interference” – sent an undercover reporter to look into “how Israel
wields influence in America through the pro-Israeli American community. But when
some right-wing American supporters of Israel found out about the documentary,
there was a massive backlash. It was even labelled as antisemitic in a spate of
articles.”Nothing surprising there, you might think. Any reporters who have
dared to criticise Israel grow used to the vile smear of antisemitism thrown
over them – but there was an even more disturbing background to Swisher’s
attempts to get his documentary on the air.
The programme’s completion, he writes, “came at a time when,
due to an arbitrary blockade on Qatar imposed by the United Arab Emirates and
Saudi Arabia, Qatar had been pursuing an end to its siege by appealing to the
US. According to reports, Qatar sought to offer its own side of the narrative in
this conflict by hosting thought leaders, including from the American Jewish
community. From reports in the Israeli press, I learned that [Harvard Professor
Alan] Dershowitz had been brought to meet with the Qatari emir [Tamim bin Hamad
Al Thani], and that the American Jews had brought up what they saw as Al
Jazeera’s antisemitism in those meetings. Of course, our documentary is not
antisemitic. It is an exploration of how Israel, a foreign government,
influences US foreign policy.”
Ironically, one of the Saudi-UAE demands for a return to
normal relations with Qatar was to shut down Al Jazeera.
Most of Swisher’s staff within Al Jazeera are American or
British, and he recruited a young Oxford postgraduate, James Anthony Kleinfeld,
to meet and mix with members of pro-Israeli groups in Washington. When this was
discovered – partly because Swisher, for legal reasons, contacted those
appearing in the programme to say that his team had used secret filming during
their investigations – there was uproar.Kleinfeld, who apparently used the name
“Tony Kleinfeld”, was accused of being “pro-Palestinian” but of “embedding
himself with the Washington pro-Israel crowd” while spending “months of his life
under a new and meticulously fabricated persona to infiltrate pro-Israeli
groups”.
The concern of Israeli lobbyists was not without reason.
Recipients of legal letters from the documentary group – referring to the
secretly recorded Israeli activists – included AIPAC, the Israeli-American
Council, the Sheldon Adelson-created Maccabee Task Force, the Israel Project,
the Zionist Organisation of America and other groups. Although Swisher’s
reporters had exposed genocide in Myanmar, presidential corruption in the
Maldives and paedophilia in British youth football, another documentary under
Swisher’s direction concentrated on Israel’s influence over Britain and included
a secretly filmed sequence in which Israeli official Shai Masot discussed how to
“take down” British MPs regarded as pro-Palestinian, including Sir Alan Duncan.
Masot was forced to resign and the Israeli ambassador to London, Mark Regev,
issued a formal apology.
According to Swisher, if his documentary on the American
lobby doesn’t air soon, “it might prove to be ammunition sought by a group of
zealous US politicians who wish to declare Al Jazeera a foreign entity, and
label us journalists as ‘spies’”. In response to antisemitism claims after the
London documentary, the broadcasting regulator Ofcom ruled that the programme
was “a serious investigative documentary”. It was the same question, Swisher
says, that he and his team sought to answer in the American edition of The
Lobby: “whether the Israeli government was funding or involved in lobbying
efforts in the US under the guise of a domestic lobbying group”.
Swisher says that several “leaders of Jewish American
organisations” met with Qatar’s registered agent and lobbyist, Nick Muzin – a
former aide to US Senator Ted Cruz, who supported American recognition of
Jerusalem as Israel’s capital – “to see if he could use his ties with the
Qataris to stop the airing”. Since October, Swisher says, “we’ve faced a series
of unexplained delays on broadcasting our project, the likes of which I’ve never
experienced. I was repeatedly told by everyone to ‘wait’, and was assured our
documentary would eventually see the light of day. Then, as now, I took my
senior management at its word. To my own specially trained ears, ‘wait’ did not
constitute ‘stop’. In fact, it must not constitute ‘stop’.”
Almost every journalist I’ve met in the Middle East has
encountered similar problems. When I worked for the The Times, I alerted the
then editor, Charles Douglas-Home, to evidence that Israeli officers had secretly buried at
least seven Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners – done to death in an
interrogation centre – at night in a Sidon graveyard in 1983. He wanted me
to spend as many weeks as necessary to find out if the story was true. Then,
months later, when witnesses emerged with evidence of the burial, including the
gravedigger – the bodies still had their hands tied behind their back with nylon
rope when they were brought to him – I called my editor. My witnesses were being “visited” by armed
members of the Israeli Shin Beth intelligence agency, I told him, and I was
being trailed around Sidon by Israeli-registered vehicles. It was time to run
the story.
To my shock, Douglas-Home – an editor who otherwise loyally
stood by me in every Middle East dispute over my work – replied that he wasn’t sure “how we’re justified in
running a story like this so long after the event”. In other words, we had
to be sure of our facts on such an important story – but by taking the time to
do just that, the story was now out of date.
After much argument – during which I suggested to the
Israelis that they might like to institute a military inquiry into the deaths if
they wanted to avoid a scandal (they said, mysteriously, that it was already
under way, although I doubted this) – the story ran. A deputy editor, I was
told, had tried to cut the report by two-thirds. He was overruled. Then the
story ran. In full.So, old story, new story. I’ve appeared many times on Al
Jazeera. And never been told to mince my words. Nor would I. But a lot of us are
waiting to see Swisher’s new documentary. If we don’t, we’ll know what to think
of Al Jazeera.
945 Gabriele Kuby sexual revolution - Africa & Eastern Europe resist LGTBI
Gabriele Kuby sexual revolution - Africa & Eastern Europe resist
LGTBI
Newsletter published on 13 March 2018
(1) Gabriele Kuby sexual revolution - Africa resists Western pressure to
adopt LGTBI
(2) EU bullies countries to report 'intolerance', 'hate crimes',
'transphobia'; Facebook thread closed
(3) 'Safe Schools' program pushes LGTBI - Gabriele Kuby
(4) Gabriele Kuby: East European resisting LGBTI; the new totalitarianism
(5) Feminists draw on Marx & Engels; abolish the monogamous family
(1) Gabriele Kuby sexual revolution - Africa resists Western pressure to
adopt LGTBI
http://catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/08/26/how-gabriele-kubys-conversion-led-her-to-write-about-the-sexual-revolution/
"How Gabriele Kuby’s conversion led her to write about the sexual revolution
by Francis Phillips posted Friday, 26 Aug 2016
The author explains why she believes her book has helped spark
resistance to the 'gender revolution'
I blogged about Gabriele Kuby’s book The Global Sexual Revolution:
Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom, here. Her book explains
why the traditional distinction between men and women is under such
attack today in the West and why for instance in Germany today peaceful
demonstrations on behalf of family values now need heavy police
protection. Indeed, as Kuby points out, anyone who believes in a divine
purpose for men and for women is now labelled a "religious
fundamentalist" or a "biological, sexist fundamentalist."
Kuby is a convert. I asked her what led to her own conversion. She tells
me that she had been searching for God for more than 20 years down the
wrong paths, within esoteric philosophies and psychology. Her marriage
had broken down and her life was in crisis. Alone with three teenage
children, a young woman rang her doorbell and told her to pray. She
prayed a novena – in front of a Buddhist statue – and by the end she
knew she would become a Catholic. Her conversion led to speaking and
writing about her new-found faith and about the global sexual revolution.
How was her book received in Germany? Kuby replies, "The mainstream
media tried to block it by not reviewing it. Nonetheless it has had six
editions in two years and has been translated into seven languages so
far." She thinks the book has helped spark resistance to the "gender
revolution".
Could she expand on this resistance? "Wherever I go I meet Christians
who are involved in this cultural battle, despite the fact that money
and power are in the hands of the other side. Nobody can stop us, as
Christians, from our faith, hope and love of God. The course of history
is in God’s hands."
She adds, "We will encounter fear, insecurity and risk. They can only be
overcome by prayer. If we sincerely want to work for the kingdom of God,
we will find a way. God needs us and will provide the grace necessary."
Where does the Church’s future lie? Kuby mentions the former Cardinal
Ratzinger’s phrase about "creative minorities" of Christians in Europe.
She adds that although the West blackmails Africa to adopt the LGTBI
agenda, the continent is a "great hope for Christianity and [Guinean]
Cardinal Sarah a bright light for the Church." She affirms: "We can lose
our life but not our hope."
(2) EU bullies countries to report 'intolerance', 'hate crimes',
'transphobia'; Facebook thread closed
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/08/11/what-happened-when-i-explained-church-teaching-about-gender-on-facebook/
"What happened when I explained Church teaching about gender on Facebook
by Francis Phillips posted Thursday, 11 Aug 2016
The thread on Facebook was promptly closed (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File)
First the commenters became angry – then they demanded the thread be
shut down
Recently I had a surreally disquieting experience. Someone had randomly
posted up a photograph of girls in school uniform on my school’s Old
Girls’ Facebook page (this school used to be a convent boarding school
but is now a girls’ Catholic day school). Above the photo was a caption
referring to private schools having to face up to new transgender issues.
I added a one-line comment, saying I hoped that such schools would not
give in to political correctness on this matter. There were instant
strong objections to my remark. So I added a couple of paragraphs,
explaining why Christians follow history, the Bible, biology and common
sense on sex and gender and recommending a couple of books. This led to
an irrational and angry response on the part of several commentators who
demanded that the thread be closed immediately. It was.
I thought of this incident when reading Gabriele Kuby’s book, The Global
Sexual Revolution: Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom,
recently republished from the German by Angelico Press. Her book, as its
title suggests, carefully explains, with the aid of much research and
citing many telling statistics, just why western society (it doesn’t
apply to the rest of the world) has moved in recent decades from
militant feminism to the destruction of marriage and now to an
aggressive push for "gender ideology" and the right to "choose" your sex.
It is a frightening story, in which the UN, with its international
conferences on population control and women’s rights, and the EU, which
bullies reluctant member countries to report "intolerance" and "hate
crimes" such as "transphobia", as part of its secularist agenda, is
highly influential. As Kuby comments, "Never before has there been an
ideology that aims to destroy the gender identity of man and woman and
every ethical standard of sexual behaviour."
She adds, "People are no longer allowed to preach, teach or be raised to
believe that the purpose of sexuality is the bond of love between a man
and woman and the creation of children."
Herald readers will know of this insidious development and deplore it.
Christians generally have an increasingly dwindling voice in the public
square, where "tolerance" has become the battle-cry of relativism and
where rational, reflective and respectful debate is now impossible – as
I learnt to my cost on my school’s Old Girls’ Facebook page.
(3) 'Safe Schools' program pushes LGTBI - Gabriele Kuby
https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/gabriele-kuby-the-woman-exposing-the-gender-agenda/
March 2, 2018
Meet Gabriele Kuby, the woman exposing the gender agenda: ‘There is no
innate same sex attraction, no innate gender identity’
By Natasha Marsh October 24, 2016 0 ?
On 14 October last year, a play called FEAR premiered in Berlin. The
play, written and directed by Falk Richter, centres around five
"zombies", who are five pro-family women known to Germans for their
public rejection of gender ideology.
The "actors" poke out the zombies’ eyes, and at one point a character
says "to shoot them in the brain, as only then will they be really
dead". The curtains close to loud applause.
Not surprisingly, life soon imitated art and there were arson attacks on
two of the women. One, Hedwig von Beverfoerde had her van firebombed,
the fire spreading to the headquarters of her family business,
destroying it.
One of the five is Gabriele Kuby, German sociologist, writer and mother
of three. She is author of the book The Global Sexual Revolution:
Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom, published in English
translation in 2015.
She visited Australia in October, sponsored by Parousia Media, to warn
of the dangers of gender-ideology and legalisation of same-sex marriage.
When asked if she was afraid for her personal safety, Gabriele thought
for a moment before responding; "No, we have the truth on our side."
It is not for nothing that she has been called a modern day Joan of Arc.
So what is it that she has been saying that caused such vitriol?
Gabriele speaks out against the global project of "gender mainstreaming".
Although most people haven’t heard of the term, it has been "the guiding
principle" for most of the Western world since the early nineties, and
is being forced on the developing world.
Simply put, gender mainstreaming is the unqualified acceptance of all
sexual practices under the banners of "diversity" and "freedom".
While we may not have heard the term we certainly know its fruits:
normalisation of sexually deviant behaviour; STDs; sex "education";
same-sex marriage; same-sex adoption; widespread pornography; legalised
prostitution; contraception; IVF; abortion and the more recent "gender
theory" which calls for the acceptance of bi-sex, inter-sex, trans-sex
and any other "-sex" which fits under the roomy term "queer".
Gabriele sees these developments as a "project" and not simply a
by-product of culture after 1969.
"At first sight, it seems to be about the equality of men and women–a
long, necessary and successful battle of the woman movement," she said.
"[But], radical feminism turned it into a war against men, motherhood
and the right to life."
"Then, at the 1995 UN-Women conference in Beijing, the term ‘gender’ was
introduced, to promote the notion that sexual differences between men
and women are only ‘constructed’ and need to be deconstructed. How can
this be best done? By demolishing sexual morality, and proclaiming any
sexual lifestyle is as good as another."
Her insights help explain the extraordinary coincidence that all Western
countries have a preoccupation with gender issues simultaneously.
It also helps explain how legislations that advance gender mainstreaming
have been consistently non-democratic. "It is the ideology that forces
students to adopt it, if they want to have a career." said Gabriele "It
used to be Marxism. Now it is genderism."
Democracy was denied on the first sitting day of Australian Parliament
(October 11), where the Labor Party, along with the Greens and other
balance-of-power Senate benchers blocked the Coalition’s plebiscite.
This is despite the majority of opinion polls showing that Australians
want a say on marriage.
The so-called "Safe Schools" program followed a similar pattern. The
radical, unscientific program that denies the existence of male and
female was given $8 million state funding and implemented across 75
primary schools before parents even knew about it.
Despite public outcry, Victorian premier Daniel Andrews is rolling out
the program and plans to make it "compulsory" for all high schools by
2018. The briefest research shows its toxicity. One gem is the website
Minus18, one of the resources found on the Safe Schools Coalition page.
As well as links to gay nightclubs and sex-shop Tools for Life (both
removed after national pressure), it also features helpful articles such
as ‘Healthier and Safer Ways to Bind your Chest’ – "if you do decide to
bind … do it safely."
Sexualisation of children aside, the ideology of gender mainstreaming
does not pass muster in scientific research, despite the billions of
dollars and academic dishonesty poured into it.
In a meta-study of 200 studies, Professors Paul McHugh and Lawrence
Meyer exposed the non-scientific nature of the claims used to push the
"gender agenda".
"The whole LGBTQI narrative collapses," said Gabriele.
"There is no innate same sex attraction. It is not supported by
scientific evidence. There is no innate gender identity. It is not
supported by scientific evidence. Most children with gender dysphoria
grow out of it. It is not supported by scientific evidence that all
these children need some kind of hormonal measures of sex change, which
I think is simply a severe abuse of children."
"Every cell of the body of a woman is XX and every cell of the body of
the man, of all the trillions of cells, is XY," she said.
The darker side of the movement is seen when it crushes opposition from
those within the LGBTQI community itself.
Members of the same-sex community are ostracised when they do not agree
with the narrative, do not stand for same-sex marriage or seek therapy.
It also explains why only two per cent of same-sex couples apply for
marriage in the countries that have legalised it — two per cent.
"Judith Butler, American philosopher, is the inventor of gender-theory"
as outlined in her book Gender Trouble—Subversion of Identity (1990).
"Her incredible ‘success’ in destroying the binary structure of human
existence can only be explained because she is useful to the powerful
elites of this world," she said.
In this way, LGBTQI rights are the Trojan Horse that will bring gender
mainstreaming into every corner of society.
The argument is simple: If you disagree, you are "homophobic", and you
might even be the cause of suicide. In this way, people’s innate sense
of kindness is the weapon used to keep us in line.
Because the narrative does not accord with reality, it has to "force
itself" on society. "It has to become totalitarian", said Gabriele.
However, this is not Brave New World, and Gabriele is not Huxley.
She is Catholic, and knows there is always reason for hope. The sun will
dispel the rainbow.
In her penultimate chapter of The Global Sexual Revolution entitled
"Resistance" Gabriele lists the grassroots movements pushing back
against gender mainstreaming.
Demonstrations in France; petitions in Germany; the closing of the
Competence Centre for Sexual Pedagogy (which came up with the "Basel Sex
Box" for kindergarten children) in Switzerland and on and on.
"We now have Catholic conservative governments in Hungary and in Poland.
And the EU goes crazy," said Gabriele.
"These governments have come into power by perfectly democratic
elections but are portrayed as close to fascism, just because they
return to Christian values and protect marriage, family and life from
conception to natural death."
For a "zombie", Gabriele is certainly full of life, hope and vitality.
"People have to get up on their feet," said Gabriele, "especially the
fathers. Maybe if they see the danger, they can raise their head again,
which has been so subdued through radical feminism."
People like Gabriele are a rallying point for those whose ideal is a
world where marriage is ordered, nature is cherished, children are
innocent, men are chivalrous and women are ladies, and over all of it is
a canopy of design and purpose – held in existence by He Who Is.
Get your copy of The Global Sexual Revolution: Destruction of Freedom in
the Name of Freedom at Parousia Media. It’s not light bedtime reading,
but it does make you think twice about skipping your prayers.
(4) Gabriele Kuby: East European resisting LGBTI; the new totalitarianism
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2014/09/08/the-global-sexual-revolution-and-the-assault-on-freedom-and-family/
German author and sociologist Gabriele Kuby discusses "gender
mainstreaming", the new totalitarianism, and being called a "homohater"
September 8, 2014 Benjamin J. Vail
In early April 2014, German author Gabriele Kuby visited the Czech
Republic to give a number of public presentations promoting her new
book, The Global Sexual Revolution: The Destruction of Freedom in the
Name of Freedom, recently translated to Czech. During her visit to Brno,
I had a chance to interview Kuby about her book and ask how her Catholic
perspective helps her understand one of the most important issues of our
time: the continuing sexual revolution that is leading not only to
private lifestyle changes but a new legal understanding of sexuality and
the family.
Kuby warns that the global trend of "gender mainstreaming" threatens the
fundamental understanding of our very human nature, with dire
consequences for children, families, and society as a whole. For
example, until 2014 users of Facebook had to indicate their sex –
whether they are a man or a woman. But now the popular internet social
network gives users 58 different options to indicate their gender. Also
in 2014, the winner of the popular "Eurovision" song contest was an
Austrian man named Thomas Neuwirth, known by his stage name Conchita
Wurst, who attracts curiosity by cross-dressing in women’s clothing
while wearing a thick beard. Kuby points out that these kinds of
situations create confusion and real psychological and spiritual harms
for individuals and society.
CWR: For the benefit of our readers, would you please summarize the main
thesis of your new book?
Gabriele Kuby: After my conversion to the Catholic faith, and given my
background in the study of sociology and interest in political and
social developments, I began to realize that sexuality is the issue of
our time. We live in a time when sexual norms are being turned
completely upside down, which is unique in human history. No society
does has done this. No society has ever said, "Live out your sexual
drive any way you like," but our society does. I think this issue of
sexuality is the main attack on the dignity of the human being, and on
society as a whole, because if a society lets go of its morality in
general, and especially in the area of sexuality, it tumbles into
anarchy and chaos, and this can result in a new totalitarian regime by
the state.
CWR: A main theme of your book is "gender mainstreaming." Can you
educate our readers about gender mainstreaming, and explain why it is
dangerous?
Kuby: The term "gender" was a grammatical term used to differentiate the
genus of a word, before it was used for a political agenda. Then radical
feminists discovered this word and used it to create a new ideology. I
marvel at the strategic far-sightedness of knowing that you need a term
to promote a new idea, and this is the term "gender." Gender now means
there is a "social sex" which can differ from you biological sex. Of
course, there are cultural and historical differences in the ways people
live their masculinity and femininity. But the feminist theory is, there
is a social construction of sex which can be different – indeed, need
not be identical to – your biological sex. And if we give up our
identity as a man or a woman, and say there is no such identity, then of
course the whole sexual order collapses, and anybody can have sex with
anybody – which is not just a theoretical claim, but a practical claim
of this movement: there are not two sexes, or two genders; there are
many genders, like heterosexual men and women, homosexuals, bisexuals,
transsexuals, transgender, intersexual and queer people ("queer" being a
term for any kind of sexual deviance from heterosexuality).
Gender theory says our sexual orientation is the main criterion for our
identity. The main value by which this is promoted is freedom. Our
hyper-individualized society claims that we have freedom to choose our
sex, whether we are man or woman, and it is our freedom to choose our
sexual orientation. Society must not only tolerate but positively accept
any kind of sexual orientation. But in fact, heterosexuality is the
natural condition of our human existence, and more than 97 percent of
the population of this earth is heterosexual and has an instinctive
rejection of homosexuality. The people who push the gender agenda around
the world of course have to start with very young children and teach
them that any kind of sexual orientation is equally valid.
The whole thing is "sold," so to speak, as ever more rights for women.
If people have heard anything about it, they think gender mainstreaming
is about more rights for women. But if men and women are seen as no
longer different, then what is the point of fighting for the rights of
women? It’s an internal contradiction.
After 150 years of feminism – which was an important and necessary
social movement because women did not have equal rights – the movement
has radicalized and today in Western society, we are in a power struggle
of women over men. Men are discriminated against, and it is men who are
really underprivileged. For instance, in the German education system,
women and girls are the winners, while boys more and more fall through
the cracks. Women are privileged in job acquisition by quotas, and women
are privileged in divorce law suits. Behind all this is a constant
complaint by feminist organizations who say men are basically aggressive
rapists, and women are the victims.
CWR: Why did you choose to have your book translated from German into
East European languages, such as Slovak, Hungarian, Croatian, and
Polish, before English and other West European languages?
Kuby: It was not a choice, it just happened. I didn’t do anything for
this to happen. These doors opened by themselves. Czech is now the fifth
language into which the book has been translated, and this year it will
be published in Romanian as well. The book now is being translated into
English but we are still looking for a publisher. It was not a strategy
on my part. All I did was sit at my desk and try to write the truth; the
translations and invitations to speak in many countries are not my doing.
CWR: Promoting your book is taking you to many countries, making you a
witness of different cultures in Europe. Do you notice any differences
between the gender situation in Western Europe and the post-communist
countries?
Kuby: There is definitely a difference. The East European countries
were, so to speak, protected by communist totalitarianism from the 1968
cultural revolution in the West. They did have abortion on a huge scale,
and still do, but they did not have the sexual revolution. There was not
a direct attack on the family through the sexual revolution and radical
feminism. There was a communist attack on the family, but it didn’t go
as deep as the sexual revolution now does.
When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 we all had this hope of freedom
and entering an era beyond ideology. But while we were delighting in
that hope, powerful forces prepared for the next step of the global
sexual revolution. Don’t ask me who these forces are, but I see this
revolution taking place at a global scale, with a clear intent to
destroy the basis of the family. The destruction of the family uproots
every single human being. We become atomized human beings who can be
manipulated to do anything.
A new totalitarianism is developing under the cloak of freedom. But now
the East European countries are becoming aware of this trend, and my
book seems to be helping awaken people. The destruction has not gone as
far here and people are motivated to resist it. My great hope is that
these East European countries will become a stronghold of resistance in
the European Union. There are signs of this happening.
CWR: Is it true that in at least some parts of Europe today, a man can
go to his local government office and redefine his gender, and walk out
with a new identity card stating he is a woman?
Kuby: In Germany the Left and the Greens are working for this. They
suggest that in your passport there should be no indication of male or
female. They are fighting for this, and whether we already have a German
state where this is happening, I don’t know. It is moving in that
direction, no doubt. In my country, there was a legislative initiative
in the parliament to have the sex category removed from the identity card.
CWR: What would that mean for society? What would be the consequences?
Kuby: The idea behind these initiatives is that it is an expression of
the ultimate "freedom" to "choose" whether I am a man or a woman. But
this is madness! The truth is, such confusion makes a person sick. If
you do not identify with your sex as a man or woman – such a situation
is called transsexuality – this is officially recognized as a
psychological disorder. From a criminological point of view, if you can
change between man and woman, it will be pretty difficult to identify
people.
The idea of changing our sex upsets the notion of what it means to be
human. It is the deepest rebellion against the conditions of our human
existence that you can possibly imagine. It makes people sick and
rootless and they do not know who they are. We are losing our roots in
faith, nation, and family, and now even one’s identity as man or woman
is under attack to create a new vision of humanity. What will this make
of us? A whole mass of sexualized consumers who can be manipulated to do
anything. At the same time, the division between rich and poor is
growing globally, so we have a concentration of wealth and power in a
minority and masses of people who have no roots. That is what the gender
mainstreaming agenda is apparently aiming at.
CWR: So there is an elite, and this gender confusion is one of the tools
they use to manipulate the masses?
Kuby: I only observe what I can see: a strategy in the United Nations,
in the European Union and leftwing governments to enact a policy of the
deregulation of sexual norms, thus destroying the basis of the family.
If you go beyond that, and ask: "Who are the people who want this, who
profits from this, cui bono?" then of course you get into so-called
conspiracy theories. I’ve actually not gone into that because it doesn’t
really help us to do what we can in the place where we are. If I can
identify, say, the hundred families who control the wealth of this
planet – what does it help? I cannot do anything against the
Rockefellers and Bill Gates and George Soros and Warren Buffet. We know
they are financing the LGBT-agenda and the abortion industry, but we
have no influence on that level.
But still we are not powerless. What can they do if there is a rebellion
against their agenda, if parents say, "we do not want this sexualization
of our children in school"? In France, parents have gone on strike, and
do not send their children to school once a month because they don’t
want gender education. What can the elites do about such a reaction?
There are many initiatives and many awake people, many very good
Christians who have a perception of the signs of the time. They hear the
sound of the bell and they work against gender mainstreaming. There is
resistance now growing in many countries. So, I work for that.
CWR: What is your goal? What do you want to achieve, and what’s your
motivation?
Kuby: Personally, the deepest motivation in my life is truth. This
fueled my search for a very long time, and finally led me to the
Catholic faith at a late stage in my life. I had a powerful experience
of God in 1973. Then there were more than 20 years of searching in
esoterics, psychology, and what not. All this led to a life crisis in
which my marriage broke up. When I was alone with my three teenage
children a neighbor came to my door and said: "Pray!" I did, and all of
sudden it was clear that I would enter the Catholic Church – and that
was at a time, when I had many reasons to reject the Catholic Church.
Today I had a meeting with the bishop of Brno, and he said he can use my
material. That is a joy for me. My intention was not, "how can I write
something that is useful for bishops?" I just have to say the truth, and
here something is happening with it. I had a wonderful opportunity to
visit Pope Benedict emeritus, and he said sex education is not only
brainwashing, it is also "soul-washing." If children are sexualized it
destroys their sense of shame, their relationship with their parents,
their relationship in general to authority, and it destroys their
relationship with God. They tell us gender mainstreaming is about
"tolerance," but it’s really about changing us as human beings.
CWR: The forces that you’re describing, such as the education system and
also consumer culture and politics, are very powerful, and I want to ask
what is your sense of the future. Are you optimistic or pessimistic
about the fight against these forces? What do you think is the direction
today?
Kuby: I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic; I hope to be realistic. I
want to see reality as it is. I can see that the forces are very
powerful, the money and the power are on the other side, and they have
victories every day which astound me. On the other hand, there is
resistance accumulating in many countries now. In Croatia there was a
referendum to define marriage in the constitution as between one man and
one woman. It was achieved against the influence of the mainstream media
and the socialist government. In Hungary there is a Christian
constitution and the government of Viktor OrbÁn has just been reelected
with a two-thirds majority. Wherever this resistance happens, the
European Union gets very excited and threatens: "We will use our power
to go against this! It is undemocratic and against our values!" Their
value is same-sex "marriage" and sex education of children "free of taboos."
Recently in Paris and in France a huge movement has sprung up, called
"Manif pour tous." Last year more than a million people – among them
20,000 mayors – were on the streets protesting against homosexual
"marriage," a movement called "Marriage pour tous." The law legalizing
homosexual "marriage" did get passed, but many people have awoken and it
doesn’t seem that the government of President François Hollande is very
stable.
In Germany, resistance is growing. Currently there is movement against
the so-called Bildungsplan – education plan – in the state of
Baden-Württemberg where recently a Green-Red government came into power.
This education plan says there should be LGBTTIQ education in the
schools for children of all ages and in all subjects. LGBTTIQ refers to
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, intersexual, and
queer. It’s mad!
Under the plan, the whole education system would be permeated by the
sexual agenda. But one teacher (who is also a parent) said, "OK, let’s
start a petition against this." One person! 200,000 people signed, which
was a great surprise for everybody. Those promoting gender mainstreaming
became very excited. They said, "This is against democracy!" But a
petition is a perfectly democratic instrument. Now we have
demonstrations in Stuttgart and more organizations are participating, so
we’ll see where this goes.
There is also resistance at the level of the European Union. At first
all these gender mainstreaming issues were enacted by the EU easily,
with no resistance at all. But now we have resistance.
The "One of Us" movement is such an initiative. It was amazingly
successful – 1.8 million people in Europe signed up, though only 1
million was necessary, stating that they do not want the European Union
to use money for the destruction of life, be it by embryonic stem cell
research or abortion. The hearing took place on April 10, 2014 and now
the Commission has to answer to that.
Another example is the recent rejection of the Estrela Report. The
socialist Member of European Parliament Edite Estrela had proposed a
resolution to the European Parliament that demanded sex education
"without taboos" and the elimination of the freedom of conscience for
medical personal, so they must be willing to participate in providing
abortions. This agenda was rejected by just seven votes. Many people
were mobilized by that fight, and it shows that the gender mainstreaming
agenda is getting wobbly.
CWR: The public debate about gender mainstreaming is framed in terms of
human rights, freedom, tolerance, and discrimination. A common label
used against people like you, in the media and by activists, is
"homophobe" or "fundamentalist." How can Catholics avoid being labeled
as bigots or homophobes?
Kuby: We get all sorts of labels. We are called "homophobe" and even
"transphobe." The worst thing you can possibly be called in German is
"right wing." And if you are labeled "right radical," you are completely
expelled from the discussion. This is the number one stigma in Germany.
In contrast, you are allowed to be "Left." I ask people why "Left" is
good. It’s not so easy to explain because hundreds of millions of people
have died under leftwing ideology and terror. Why do these victims not
count? Why is it that if you’re "Left" you’re fine in the public square,
but if you have the slightest touch of "Right" you are expelled?
And there is another label – "homohater." There are hate laws in Canada,
South Africa, Denmark, Great Britain, and in some states in the USA. If
you say anything which the LGBT lobby doesn’t want to hear – like "what
are the reasons for homosexuality?" or "what are the risks of
homosexuality?" or "there is therapy for homosexuality" – you are
"homophobic." Added to this is now the term "transphobic." So now you
are not even able to say that, for instance, you don’t want a
transsexual as a teacher of your children. How mad can you get?
The term "homophobia" is interesting. It was created by an American
psychoanalyst called Weinberg in the 1970s. Weinberg’s theory is that
anybody who is against homosexuality rejects his own inherent homosexual
inclinations, and this is the reason for their homophobia. It is a term
which states that anyone opposed to homosexuality has a neurotic fear.
So we are the ones who need a psychiatrist! Things are turned upside
down. The book of Isaiah says, "Woe to those who call evil good and good
evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness." We live in a
time when this is happening.
We cannot protect ourselves from these accusations. I think there’s just
one way to deal with it: to live in accordance with your conscience. As
a Christian I do not hate. If I hated anybody, I would separate from
God, and I would lose my Christianity. So I do not hate. If a homosexual
was sitting right here next to me, I would speak with him in the same
way that I speak with you. But I would not be quiet about what I think.
I would say, "You can choose to live that lifestyle, but I will not call
the relationship you have with a man a marriage. I would object if you
start adopting children, because each child has a right to a father and
mother, but people who cannot have children do not have a right to a child."
Jesus says, be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. We have to be wise,
and train ourselves in asking for guidance through the Holy Spirit. Is
it the time to speak up, or a time for silence? We each have to do this
in accordance with our position in life.
CWR: I teach sociology at a state university in Brno. For one of my
courses, a student recently wrote an essay about gender theory. He wrote
that gender is a social construction completely divorced from physical
reality. How would you respond to this young man?
Kuby: I would let him do a writing assignment on the neuro-psychological
research which shows that the male brain and the female brain are very
different: on the mere physical level, on the hormonal level, and in the
way they work. These differences are there to make us good fathers and
good mothers. The working of the female brain results in more empathy,
emotion, and the making of social connections and relationships. Men
tend more to aggression, achievement, hierarchy, and order. This is what
we want a father to be, and what we want a mother to be.
CWR: I have a colleague in America, a sexology professor at a
university, who says (along with other feminists) that men and women are
no different than North Dakota and South Dakota – two states that are
next to each other and very similar. She wants to minimize or even deny
sex differences.
Kuby: But why should we be deluded by this kind of thinking? You are a
man and I am a woman, and we know we are different. We are fundamentally
different. I don’t want such mad theories to take over. We share our
humanity, of course. We are human beings and as such have human dignity.
But there is an obvious difference between us which allows us to live in
different ways. What is just astounding to me is such fundamental
confusion, about things which anybody can recognize.
You know, it’s easy to convince people to work toward a classless
society, as with communism – to create this utopian vision in your mind,
"Yes, we will build the just society!" We have seen it doesn’t work, but
we can understand that people can fall for this way of thinking. You can
even understand that people fall for ideologies that assert, "We are the
strongest ones, the most wonderful race on this planet!" But that a
theory is devised – gender mainstreaming – that says we are not men and
women, it’s just amazing that people fall for it.
CWR: It sounds like today we’re living in a time of great change, and
faith is essential. We need to fight for what’s right.
Kuby: That’s it, exactly that. Even if we are not successful in our
lifetime, we will have used our lives to fight for the right cause. As
Christians, our basic hope cannot be destroyed, and that is our hope in
Jesus Christ. We believe that He will come back, and as long as we are
truly grounded in that hope we have our roots in truth and in eternity,
and we cannot be wiped away. We can die, yes, but we know that the
ultimate victory is ours. And from that hope, we have to work.
In a talk in the 1990s called "Death and Resurrection," Joseph Ratzinger
said that first there is the crucifixion, the passion, which is followed
by Easter Saturday, a time of total silence. The disciples go to Emmaus
and they are so blinded that they don’t even realize God is walking next
to them. Isn’t that the time we live in now, when we fear that God is
silent? Like the disciples in the boat, there’s a storm and they feel
they will lose their lives and their boat will sink, and Jesus is
sleeping. "Why do you not care for us?" they cry. He reproaches them and
he says, "Oh, you of little faith!"
We are called to have a strong faith and I think it’s the only way to
get through this time. We have to grow in a living relationship with
Jesus Christ. Such faith will be the vessel to get us through this time,
and will give us the energy to work, and to accept the sacrifices,
whatever they may be. Jesus doesn’t give us illusions about that. We can
only pray that by the grace of God we are strong enough.
About Benjamin J. Vail ? 7 Articles
Dr. Benjamin J. Vail, OFS is an American Secular Franciscan living with
his family in Brno, Czech Republic. He has studied sociology and
environmental studies at the University of Oslo (Norway), the University
of Wisconsin-Madison, and Masaryk University (Czech Republic).
(5) Feminists draw on Marx & Engels; abolish the monogamous family
http://www.hungarianreview.com/article/20150514_the_internal_contradictions_of_feminism
14 May 2015
Belinda Brown
The Internal Contradictions of Feminism
One of the most striking things about feminism is the extent to which a
body of beliefs based on notions of equality has produced new
inequalities without hardly anyone seeming to notice. I particularly
have in mind the inequalities between a rich, privileged female elite
and the majority of other women as well as the growing inequalities
between men. These are partly the consequence of changes in the
employment market produced by a growing pool of female labour prepared
to work for a lower wage because their priorities lie elsewhere.
However, they are also due to changes in the structure of the family
which have resulted from the way in which Marxist ideas have shaped
feminist thinking and ensured that its impact on a rich, privileged
minority has been quite different to its impact on others. I believe
that this has happened because those ideas were based on a flawed
conception of the relationship between the family and the workplace.
However, it should be noted that the developments to which I refer are
far more pronounced in Western societies than they are in former
communist societies where relatively high levels of employment among
women and somewhat greater access to top jobs meant that the motivation
to develop a women’s movement was not as strong as in the West. I would
urge caution on those women’s groups in Central and Eastern Europe who
may feel tempted to adopt Western-style feminism: to do so would risk
jeopardising the progress achieved since the collapse of communism by
allowing some Marxist assumptions to be readmitted through the back door.
XX WOMEN AND THE OTHER 80 PER CENT
In Britain, the debate over the inequalities between different female
socio- economic groups has been stimulated by Alison Wolf’s book, The XX
Factor: How Working Women Are Creating a New Society.1 This revealed
some striking disparities in incomes and lifestyles of contemporary
women. Broadly, the top 15–20 per cent work in environments where men
and women are more or less equally represented and rewarded. These are
women who live to work: career women who work full- time, and who take
little time off to have children. The other 80 per cent of women are
likely to work in environments where there is a disproportionate number
of female employees; these women are less well paid, attach a
significantly lower priority to work and are more likely to work part-time.
As a consequence, feminists are being criticised for focussing on issues
which are the concern of the rich and privileged such as the number of
women in the boardroom or in the broadcasting studio, rather than upon
the problems of ordinary women. The feminists respond to this charge by
saying that they have been fighting to improve educational opportunities
for women and to raise the status of female employment, and by pressing
for greater access to flexible employment or childcare so that women can
spend more time at work. However, the evidence suggests that given the
choice, ordinary women want to reduce the amount of time spent at work
in order to spend more time with their children; only the least well-off
of all regard long working hours as a solution to their problems.2 For
many, the real source of disadvantage and disappointment is not to be
located in the workforce but in the family, for the family is very
different among the less well-off. This group is less likely to be
married; if they do have partners they are more likely to split up and
if they marry they are more likely to be divorced and they are unlikely
to have a male partner that earns more than them; indeed, they are
unlikely to find a partner from the dwindling supply of hardworking,
motivated and employable young men.
MEN: A HIDDEN RESOURCE
If one peers behind the façade of feminism and female independence, it
turns out that in the lives of the modern liberated woman the man
actually plays an important and very useful role – even if this is not
so in the case of their less fortunate sisters. This is evident from the
fact that among married and cohabiting couples in contemporary Britain
only ten per cent of mothers with pre-school children are the only, main
or equal earner. Among graduate mothers of three- year-olds, only one in
five works full-time. By contrast 91 per cent of graduate fathers have
full-time jobs. Surveys suggest that in such situations women are far
from clamouring to do more work, although once their children are at
school this changes. Even then it is those with partners who are more
likely to be able to return to work when their children are older than
those without.3
In such privileged households men work just as hard as women, albeit
more outside the household than in. This had led feminists to complain
that if men did more housework and childcare women could work more
outside the home. However, the available evidence suggests that on the
whole men are responsive to women’s preferences in this regard.4
Research indicates that in both the immediate and longer term, it is the
mother’s employment schedules that determine the levels of paternal
involvement with the father increasing the hours spent on childcare as
the mother spends longer at work.5 The paternal involvement in housework
and childcare enhances life satisfaction for both partners with the
result that they live happier lives.6
It also appears that overall men do earn more than women (and
consequently contribute 72 per cent of the total tax take) while women
are responsible for 70 per cent of domestic expenditure; these figures
draw attention to the contrast between the lives of a privileged elite
with male partners who contribute significantly to domestic expenditure
and those who lack male partners.7-8
Finally, it is clear that the high level of female employment depends
largely on informal childcare with grandparents providing 42 per cent
and resident partners 20 per cent of the care provided; non-resident
partners play only a negligible role.
Women with partners inevitably have far more access to childcare not
only because this can be provided by the partner but also because there
will be two sets of grandparents to give support, rather than one. Such
resources are especially important to those on low wages. Meanwhile,
many ordinary women become more dependent on the state or on poorly paid
employment for the lack of an adequate supply of male providers.
MARX AND FEMINISM – A MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE
To understand how we arrived at this situation it is necessary to dig
deep into core feminist assumptions and to reflect on the blind faith
which early feminist myth makers such as Kate Millet and Germaine Greer
placed in two middle-class, middle-aged males: Engels and Marx. Greer,
Millet and others quoted extensively from both and more recent
theoreticians have continued to acknowledge their role with pride.
According to an article in the International Socialist Review: "It is no
exaggeration to say that Engels’ work has defined the terms of debate
around the origin of women’s oppression for the last 100 years."9
Another feminist theoretician credits him thus: "His analysis has been
indispensable to my organising. He penetrates capitalist reality
including in my own life and, from what I can see, in other people’s, as
no one else does, and helps keep me focussed on that reality by warding
off invasions of the enemy’s logic, excuses and invitations to egomania.
I am profoundly grateful for that help."10 A universalistic theory which
sought to upend traditional social institutions was no doubt popular to
Sixties women, helping to knit their discontents, post-pill confusion
and serious disadvantages and privations into a comprehensive
theoretical whole. For the socialists, feminism provided a neat solution
to the problems of the practical application of class.11
There is one key aspect of Marxist-Engelsian theory which I would
identify as crucial to the formation of feminism; the underlying
assumption on which all other theoretical innovations depend. That is
the identification of the means of production, i.e. the workplace and
its political apparatus, as the heart of society and the site of
potential transformation. All change stems from here. Marx expresses it
thus:
The mode of production of material life conditions the general processes
of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness
of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that
determines their consciousness…12
Similarly, Engels traces the origins of what he refers to as the "world
historical defeat of the female sex" as lying in the development of
technology, for example the cattle- drawn plough, which women’s
childcare responsibilities prevented them from using. This results in
men having ownership of surplus resources which they need to pass on to
their children. To do so they need to gain control of the women through
whom inheritance would otherwise occur. What follows from this is the
subordination of the family and women within it for the purposes of
transferring wealth:
The woman was degraded and reduced to servitude, she became the slave of
his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.
Monogamous marriage is regarded by Engels as the "subjugation of the one
sex by the other".13 For Marx the woman is similarly subjugated but his
focus is more on the reproduction of the labour force than on the
transfer of wealth:
The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears
that [under communism] the instruments of production are to be exploited
in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the
lot of being common to all will likewise fall to women.14
THE SPAWN OF MARX AND MILLET
The fundamental belief about the relationship of the family to the means
of production forms the plate tectonics of feminism. Through feminism
Engels’ words are still with us today:
Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the
wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and
that this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the
economic unit of society…
In its early days feminism focussed unambiguously on the need to destroy
the family. For example this is what Kate Millet had to say:
"Why are we here today?" "To make revolution." "What kind of
revolution?" she replied. "The Cultural Revolution." "And how do we make
Cultural Revolution?" "By destroying the American family!" "How do we
destroy the family?" "By destroying the American Patriarch." "And how do
we destroy the American Patriarch?" "By taking away his power!" "How do
we do that?" "By destroying monogamy!"15
And so on. Germaine Greer wrote in The Female Eunuch: "Women’s
Liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a
necessary substructure of the authoritarian state; … so let’s get on
with it".16
The need to excise the father from family life became part of mainstream
thinking. So for example Anna Coote in a 1991 article for The Guardian
has this to say:
The father is no longer essential to the economic survival of the unit.
Men haven’t kept up with the changes in society; they don’t know how to
be parents. Nobody has taught them: where are the cultural institutions
to tell them that being a parent is a good thing? They don’t exist. At
the same time, women don’t have many expectations of what men might
provide.17
The British journalist Polly Toynbee takes a similar line:
Women and children will suffer needlessly until the state faces up to
the reality of its own inability to do anything about the revolution in
national morals. What it can do is shape a society that makes a place
for women and children as family units, self-sufficient and independent.18
This is just what the state proceeded to do. One example of this can be
found in the fact the British tax system has ensured that lower income
families are better off living apart. The Institute of Fiscal Studies
has calculated that in 2010, 95 per cent of single people would incur a
"couple penalty" if they married or started living together as couples.
89 per cent of existing couples with children presently incur a couple
penalty of averaging £109 per week.19 A recent pamphlet shows how much
better off a family is when its members separate. It explains that if
the family stays together the main provider (usually a father) is caught
in a tax trap and does not escape the high effective tax rates until his
salary reaches £38,000. If he chooses to live apart from his family he
could escape the tax trap at about 16k while the mother could access
state benefits as a lone parent with children. The authors conclude that:
The high Marginal Effective Tax Rates across a large income range are
not only a disincentive to earn more but reduce pressure on employers to
pay better wages, creating instead a dependency on welfare. The system
destroys aspiration, denies the father the opportunity to provide for
his family, discourages extra work and holds back business. Worse still
it encourages family separation.20
All of this has been accompanied by a strong emphasis on female
employment and tax policies which put pressure on women to go out to
work. As men are regarded as marginal to the family there is little
focus on male employment or on the ever declining educational
performance of men. At the same time the inability to effectively
perform the provider role is used by the courts, legal system and
mothers as a stick to beat men with and further exclude them from family
life.21 I would argue that it is precisely the resulting dearth of
motivated, employable educated men which constitutes the real difference
between the lives of ordinary women and those of the privileged few.
TRANSFORMING MEN
This provider role, which feminists are so intent on undermining, is not
about creating dependency among women, nor even is it necessarily about
provisioning them – although of course this is extremely valuable. It is
part of a process of motivating, socialising and getting the most out of
men. Geoff Dench has written a book in which this is convincingly and
elegantly argued:
… if women go too far in pressing for symmetry, and in trying to change
the rules of the game, men will simply decide not to play. The
traditional male weapons in the sex war are non-cooperation in domestic
chores, and flight. The traditional female weapon is celebration of
paternity and male responsibility; as it is this which is the proven key
to male commitment. If women now choose to define this as patriarchal
oppression and withdraw the notion that men’s family role is important
then they are throwing away their best trick. Feminism, in dismantling
patriarchy, is simply reviving the underlying greater natural freedom of
men…
And:
...the current attack on patriarchal conventions issurely promoting… a
plague of feckless yobs, who leave all real work to women and gravitate
towards the margins of society where males naturally hang around unless
culture gives them a reason to do otherwise. The family may be a myth,
but it is a myth that works to make men tolerably useful.22
Dench’s hypothesis is supported by a wide range of evidence. It has been
found that male unemployment and low income increased rates of union
dissolution whilst the opposite had a positive effect on marriage.
Married couples are much more likely to divorce if the mother is the
only earner. An unemployed husband is more likely to choose to leave a
relationship than a married man with a job; there is a positive
correlation between good labour market participation and lasting
marriage for fathers at all educational levels.23
PUTTING THE HEART BACK IN THE HOME
For Engels, the shift towards agricultural production increased the
productivity of labour which in turn increased the demand for labour,
because it meant more surplus could be produced. Reproduction was at the
service of production. In the real world relations are the other way
around. People work in order to feed and provide their family and this
seems to occur regardless of sex or age. So for example if we look at
the employment patterns of women we find that the category of women who
have raised their workplace participation the most and most rapidly are
precisely mothers with young children, suggesting that reproduction is a
push towards work. However, this does not mean that they have
prioritised employment. The clear preference of most women for part-time
work strongly supports the conclusion that work is valued insofar as it
fits in with family and community life and serves those purposes.24
Reproductive relations seem to be central for men too. Dench in his
research finds that it is among men who don’t have partners expecting
them to earn a living that the worklessness is heaviest. He suggests
that this is not simply a matter of women choosing partners who work. It
is also that men who do not get the experience of living with and
providing at least some support for a female partner may not develop the
necessary motivations to hold down a job.25
What is also interesting is that grandmothers turn out to be more likely
to be working than other women of their age and their decision to work
tends to coincide with their daughters’ decision not to work. Thus the
behaviour of different members of the family is determined by the needs
of the youngest – this is the driving force and, as Darwin discovered
only a few years before Engels wrote his tome, it is this instinct which
determines the survival of the race.
Once the primacy of private relations is acknowledged the heart is put
back into society. The stage is then set for some very positive social
changes.
Indeed, faced with the problem of combating poverty policymakers with an
understanding that individuals can be motivated through the opportunity
to support their loved ones will set about devising policy approaches
that recognise not only the needs of women and children but which also
seek to release the potential of that far more challenging group – men.
A workplace relation is based occasionally on exploitation, but always
on exchange of labour for a wage. As more and more women have entered
the economy the work done in the household has moved into the workplace.
Thus, despite their best intentions feminists are vulnerable to the
accusation that they have brought even the most intimate caring
relations under capitalist control.
By contrast, familial relations are based on trust, love and
interdependence; in such an environment material and non-material goods
circulate through reciprocity and exchange. Where families are strong
these networks will be outward-looking and will come to include more and
more people who are not necessarily related by blood, providing
additional sources of support and exchange. In this way, the flourishing
of family-type relationships based on care rather than self-interest can
act as a protective buffer, compensating for a weakening welfare state.
A strong domestic realm has been shown to contribute to gender equality;
this is most likely to occur where the home is a unit of production.
Social reproduction where varied social networks spiral outwards from
the family could compensate for the loss of role in material production.
This could serve to promote gender equality by increasing the power and
influence of the home.
In traditional societies the family often provided the mediating link
between production and reproduction. Those who earned more were able to
have more children and this helped to redistribute their wealth. The
less well-off restricted the number of children they had, when they were
able to, in order to better look after the few, although in developing
countries poor families might have many children in the hope that at
least one might provide for them in old age. The erosion of the family
has broken these links and thus a mechanism which had a regulatory role
facilitating equality has been destroyed. For example the very wealthy
now tend to have very few children, thus concentrating wealth in fewer
hands. The less well-off appear to have more children presumably because
children attract state benefits. A focus on the family unit for tax and
benefit purposes might help to restore the family’s regulatory and
supportive role.
CONCLUSION
Feminism wrought essential social change from which we have all
benefitted. The place of feminists in history is secure. However, social
landscapes constantly change and if the feminist movement is again to be
constructive it will need to significantly adapt. If this is not
happening this has much to do with the absence of any serious critical
analysis of feminist ideas and assumptions. Standing in the way of such
an analysis is the tendency to regard the body of feminist theory as if
it were objectively true rather than as the theoretical basis for
practical action to achieve change. This brief essay is intended to
provide just such an analysis as the first step in providing an
alternative approach to understanding gender relations which which I
believe is better suited to our times and circumstances.
1 Wolf, A., The XX Factor: How Working Women Are Creating a New Society,
London, Profile Books, 2013.
2 See for example
http://www.netmums.com/home/netmums-campaigns/the-great-work-debate Or
Alakeson, V., "The Price of Motherhood: women and part-time work",
Resolution Foundation, 2012.
3 Dench, G., What Women Want: Evidence from British Social Attitudes,
London, Hera Trust, 2010.
4 Bloemen, H. G. and Stancanelli, E. G. F., "Market hours, household
work, child care, and wage rates of partners: an empirical analysis", in
Review of Economics of the Household, 2013. DOI:10.1007/s11150-013-9219-4.
5 Norman, H., Elliot, M. and Fagan, C., "Which fathers are the most
involved in taking care of their toddlers in the UK? An investigation of
the predictors of paternal involvement", in Community, Work and Family,
2013. DOI:10.1080/13668803.2013.862361.
6 Agache, A., Leyendecker, B., Schafermeier, E,. Scholmerich, A.,
"Paternal involvement elevates trajectories of life satisfaction during
transition to parenthood", in European Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 2013. DOI: 10.1080/17405629.2013.851025.
7https://j4mb.wordpress.com/british-men-pay-72-of-the-income-tax-collected-in-the-uk-women-just-28-so-why-does-the-state-relentlessly-assault-men-and-boys-while-advantaging-women-and-girls/
8 http://she-conomy.com/facts-on-women
9 Smith, S., "Engels and the origin of women’s oppression", in
International Socialist Review, issue 2, 1997.
10 James, S., Marx and feminism, Crossroads Books, 1994.
11 Lyndon, N., Sexual Politics; Heresies on Sex, Gender and Feminism, 2014.
12 Marx, K., The Poverty of Philosophy, Progress Publishers, 1955.
13 Engels, F., "The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the
State", 1884, in Feminism: The Essential Historical Writings, Miriam
Schneir, 1972.
14 Marx K. and Engels F., The Communist Manifesto, New York, 1948, p.
27. Engels, op cit.
15 www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mallorymillett/marxist-feminisms-ruined-lives/
16 Greer, p. 326
17 "The Parent Trap", The Guardian, 16 September 1991. Cited from Neil
Lyndon, op. cit.
18 The worm-turned syndrome",in The Observer, 17 October 1989.
19 Draper, D., Beighton L., Independent Taxation – 25 years on, CARE,
2013, p. 33.
20 Fennel, A., Who Cares about the Family?, Mothers at Home Matter,
2015, p. 14.
21 Bryan, D. M., "To Parent or provide? The effect of the provider role
on low - income men’s decisions about fatherhood and paternal
engagement", in Fathering, 2013, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 71–89. DOI:
10.3149/fth.1101.71
22 Dench, G., Transforming Men: Changing Patterns of Dependency and
Dominance in Gender Relations, New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 1996.
23 Brown, B., "Reviewing Gendered Employment Policies", in Men for
Tomorrow, 2014, working paper 09/14.
24 Brown, B. and Dench, G., The Family Strikes Back: Changing Attitudes
to Work and Family, London, Hera Trust, 2014.
25 Dench, G., What Women Want; Evidence from British Social Attitudes,
New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 2011.
Newsletter published on 13 March 2018
(1) Gabriele Kuby sexual revolution - Africa resists Western pressure to
adopt LGTBI
(2) EU bullies countries to report 'intolerance', 'hate crimes',
'transphobia'; Facebook thread closed
(3) 'Safe Schools' program pushes LGTBI - Gabriele Kuby
(4) Gabriele Kuby: East European resisting LGBTI; the new totalitarianism
(5) Feminists draw on Marx & Engels; abolish the monogamous family
(1) Gabriele Kuby sexual revolution - Africa resists Western pressure to
adopt LGTBI
http://catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/08/26/how-gabriele-kubys-conversion-led-her-to-write-about-the-sexual-revolution/
"How Gabriele Kuby’s conversion led her to write about the sexual revolution
by Francis Phillips posted Friday, 26 Aug 2016
The author explains why she believes her book has helped spark
resistance to the 'gender revolution'
I blogged about Gabriele Kuby’s book The Global Sexual Revolution:
Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom, here. Her book explains
why the traditional distinction between men and women is under such
attack today in the West and why for instance in Germany today peaceful
demonstrations on behalf of family values now need heavy police
protection. Indeed, as Kuby points out, anyone who believes in a divine
purpose for men and for women is now labelled a "religious
fundamentalist" or a "biological, sexist fundamentalist."
Kuby is a convert. I asked her what led to her own conversion. She tells
me that she had been searching for God for more than 20 years down the
wrong paths, within esoteric philosophies and psychology. Her marriage
had broken down and her life was in crisis. Alone with three teenage
children, a young woman rang her doorbell and told her to pray. She
prayed a novena – in front of a Buddhist statue – and by the end she
knew she would become a Catholic. Her conversion led to speaking and
writing about her new-found faith and about the global sexual revolution.
How was her book received in Germany? Kuby replies, "The mainstream
media tried to block it by not reviewing it. Nonetheless it has had six
editions in two years and has been translated into seven languages so
far." She thinks the book has helped spark resistance to the "gender
revolution".
Could she expand on this resistance? "Wherever I go I meet Christians
who are involved in this cultural battle, despite the fact that money
and power are in the hands of the other side. Nobody can stop us, as
Christians, from our faith, hope and love of God. The course of history
is in God’s hands."
She adds, "We will encounter fear, insecurity and risk. They can only be
overcome by prayer. If we sincerely want to work for the kingdom of God,
we will find a way. God needs us and will provide the grace necessary."
Where does the Church’s future lie? Kuby mentions the former Cardinal
Ratzinger’s phrase about "creative minorities" of Christians in Europe.
She adds that although the West blackmails Africa to adopt the LGTBI
agenda, the continent is a "great hope for Christianity and [Guinean]
Cardinal Sarah a bright light for the Church." She affirms: "We can lose
our life but not our hope."
(2) EU bullies countries to report 'intolerance', 'hate crimes',
'transphobia'; Facebook thread closed
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2016/08/11/what-happened-when-i-explained-church-teaching-about-gender-on-facebook/
"What happened when I explained Church teaching about gender on Facebook
by Francis Phillips posted Thursday, 11 Aug 2016
The thread on Facebook was promptly closed (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, File)
First the commenters became angry – then they demanded the thread be
shut down
Recently I had a surreally disquieting experience. Someone had randomly
posted up a photograph of girls in school uniform on my school’s Old
Girls’ Facebook page (this school used to be a convent boarding school
but is now a girls’ Catholic day school). Above the photo was a caption
referring to private schools having to face up to new transgender issues.
I added a one-line comment, saying I hoped that such schools would not
give in to political correctness on this matter. There were instant
strong objections to my remark. So I added a couple of paragraphs,
explaining why Christians follow history, the Bible, biology and common
sense on sex and gender and recommending a couple of books. This led to
an irrational and angry response on the part of several commentators who
demanded that the thread be closed immediately. It was.
I thought of this incident when reading Gabriele Kuby’s book, The Global
Sexual Revolution: Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom,
recently republished from the German by Angelico Press. Her book, as its
title suggests, carefully explains, with the aid of much research and
citing many telling statistics, just why western society (it doesn’t
apply to the rest of the world) has moved in recent decades from
militant feminism to the destruction of marriage and now to an
aggressive push for "gender ideology" and the right to "choose" your sex.
It is a frightening story, in which the UN, with its international
conferences on population control and women’s rights, and the EU, which
bullies reluctant member countries to report "intolerance" and "hate
crimes" such as "transphobia", as part of its secularist agenda, is
highly influential. As Kuby comments, "Never before has there been an
ideology that aims to destroy the gender identity of man and woman and
every ethical standard of sexual behaviour."
She adds, "People are no longer allowed to preach, teach or be raised to
believe that the purpose of sexuality is the bond of love between a man
and woman and the creation of children."
Herald readers will know of this insidious development and deplore it.
Christians generally have an increasingly dwindling voice in the public
square, where "tolerance" has become the battle-cry of relativism and
where rational, reflective and respectful debate is now impossible – as
I learnt to my cost on my school’s Old Girls’ Facebook page.
(3) 'Safe Schools' program pushes LGTBI - Gabriele Kuby
https://www.catholicweekly.com.au/gabriele-kuby-the-woman-exposing-the-gender-agenda/
March 2, 2018
Meet Gabriele Kuby, the woman exposing the gender agenda: ‘There is no
innate same sex attraction, no innate gender identity’
By Natasha Marsh October 24, 2016 0 ?
On 14 October last year, a play called FEAR premiered in Berlin. The
play, written and directed by Falk Richter, centres around five
"zombies", who are five pro-family women known to Germans for their
public rejection of gender ideology.
The "actors" poke out the zombies’ eyes, and at one point a character
says "to shoot them in the brain, as only then will they be really
dead". The curtains close to loud applause.
Not surprisingly, life soon imitated art and there were arson attacks on
two of the women. One, Hedwig von Beverfoerde had her van firebombed,
the fire spreading to the headquarters of her family business,
destroying it.
One of the five is Gabriele Kuby, German sociologist, writer and mother
of three. She is author of the book The Global Sexual Revolution:
Destruction of Freedom in the Name of Freedom, published in English
translation in 2015.
She visited Australia in October, sponsored by Parousia Media, to warn
of the dangers of gender-ideology and legalisation of same-sex marriage.
When asked if she was afraid for her personal safety, Gabriele thought
for a moment before responding; "No, we have the truth on our side."
It is not for nothing that she has been called a modern day Joan of Arc.
So what is it that she has been saying that caused such vitriol?
Gabriele speaks out against the global project of "gender mainstreaming".
Although most people haven’t heard of the term, it has been "the guiding
principle" for most of the Western world since the early nineties, and
is being forced on the developing world.
Simply put, gender mainstreaming is the unqualified acceptance of all
sexual practices under the banners of "diversity" and "freedom".
While we may not have heard the term we certainly know its fruits:
normalisation of sexually deviant behaviour; STDs; sex "education";
same-sex marriage; same-sex adoption; widespread pornography; legalised
prostitution; contraception; IVF; abortion and the more recent "gender
theory" which calls for the acceptance of bi-sex, inter-sex, trans-sex
and any other "-sex" which fits under the roomy term "queer".
Gabriele sees these developments as a "project" and not simply a
by-product of culture after 1969.
"At first sight, it seems to be about the equality of men and women–a
long, necessary and successful battle of the woman movement," she said.
"[But], radical feminism turned it into a war against men, motherhood
and the right to life."
"Then, at the 1995 UN-Women conference in Beijing, the term ‘gender’ was
introduced, to promote the notion that sexual differences between men
and women are only ‘constructed’ and need to be deconstructed. How can
this be best done? By demolishing sexual morality, and proclaiming any
sexual lifestyle is as good as another."
Her insights help explain the extraordinary coincidence that all Western
countries have a preoccupation with gender issues simultaneously.
It also helps explain how legislations that advance gender mainstreaming
have been consistently non-democratic. "It is the ideology that forces
students to adopt it, if they want to have a career." said Gabriele "It
used to be Marxism. Now it is genderism."
Democracy was denied on the first sitting day of Australian Parliament
(October 11), where the Labor Party, along with the Greens and other
balance-of-power Senate benchers blocked the Coalition’s plebiscite.
This is despite the majority of opinion polls showing that Australians
want a say on marriage.
The so-called "Safe Schools" program followed a similar pattern. The
radical, unscientific program that denies the existence of male and
female was given $8 million state funding and implemented across 75
primary schools before parents even knew about it.
Despite public outcry, Victorian premier Daniel Andrews is rolling out
the program and plans to make it "compulsory" for all high schools by
2018. The briefest research shows its toxicity. One gem is the website
Minus18, one of the resources found on the Safe Schools Coalition page.
As well as links to gay nightclubs and sex-shop Tools for Life (both
removed after national pressure), it also features helpful articles such
as ‘Healthier and Safer Ways to Bind your Chest’ – "if you do decide to
bind … do it safely."
Sexualisation of children aside, the ideology of gender mainstreaming
does not pass muster in scientific research, despite the billions of
dollars and academic dishonesty poured into it.
In a meta-study of 200 studies, Professors Paul McHugh and Lawrence
Meyer exposed the non-scientific nature of the claims used to push the
"gender agenda".
"The whole LGBTQI narrative collapses," said Gabriele.
"There is no innate same sex attraction. It is not supported by
scientific evidence. There is no innate gender identity. It is not
supported by scientific evidence. Most children with gender dysphoria
grow out of it. It is not supported by scientific evidence that all
these children need some kind of hormonal measures of sex change, which
I think is simply a severe abuse of children."
"Every cell of the body of a woman is XX and every cell of the body of
the man, of all the trillions of cells, is XY," she said.
The darker side of the movement is seen when it crushes opposition from
those within the LGBTQI community itself.
Members of the same-sex community are ostracised when they do not agree
with the narrative, do not stand for same-sex marriage or seek therapy.
It also explains why only two per cent of same-sex couples apply for
marriage in the countries that have legalised it — two per cent.
"Judith Butler, American philosopher, is the inventor of gender-theory"
as outlined in her book Gender Trouble—Subversion of Identity (1990).
"Her incredible ‘success’ in destroying the binary structure of human
existence can only be explained because she is useful to the powerful
elites of this world," she said.
In this way, LGBTQI rights are the Trojan Horse that will bring gender
mainstreaming into every corner of society.
The argument is simple: If you disagree, you are "homophobic", and you
might even be the cause of suicide. In this way, people’s innate sense
of kindness is the weapon used to keep us in line.
Because the narrative does not accord with reality, it has to "force
itself" on society. "It has to become totalitarian", said Gabriele.
However, this is not Brave New World, and Gabriele is not Huxley.
She is Catholic, and knows there is always reason for hope. The sun will
dispel the rainbow.
In her penultimate chapter of The Global Sexual Revolution entitled
"Resistance" Gabriele lists the grassroots movements pushing back
against gender mainstreaming.
Demonstrations in France; petitions in Germany; the closing of the
Competence Centre for Sexual Pedagogy (which came up with the "Basel Sex
Box" for kindergarten children) in Switzerland and on and on.
"We now have Catholic conservative governments in Hungary and in Poland.
And the EU goes crazy," said Gabriele.
"These governments have come into power by perfectly democratic
elections but are portrayed as close to fascism, just because they
return to Christian values and protect marriage, family and life from
conception to natural death."
For a "zombie", Gabriele is certainly full of life, hope and vitality.
"People have to get up on their feet," said Gabriele, "especially the
fathers. Maybe if they see the danger, they can raise their head again,
which has been so subdued through radical feminism."
People like Gabriele are a rallying point for those whose ideal is a
world where marriage is ordered, nature is cherished, children are
innocent, men are chivalrous and women are ladies, and over all of it is
a canopy of design and purpose – held in existence by He Who Is.
Get your copy of The Global Sexual Revolution: Destruction of Freedom in
the Name of Freedom at Parousia Media. It’s not light bedtime reading,
but it does make you think twice about skipping your prayers.
(4) Gabriele Kuby: East European resisting LGBTI; the new totalitarianism
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/2014/09/08/the-global-sexual-revolution-and-the-assault-on-freedom-and-family/
German author and sociologist Gabriele Kuby discusses "gender
mainstreaming", the new totalitarianism, and being called a "homohater"
September 8, 2014 Benjamin J. Vail
In early April 2014, German author Gabriele Kuby visited the Czech
Republic to give a number of public presentations promoting her new
book, The Global Sexual Revolution: The Destruction of Freedom in the
Name of Freedom, recently translated to Czech. During her visit to Brno,
I had a chance to interview Kuby about her book and ask how her Catholic
perspective helps her understand one of the most important issues of our
time: the continuing sexual revolution that is leading not only to
private lifestyle changes but a new legal understanding of sexuality and
the family.
Kuby warns that the global trend of "gender mainstreaming" threatens the
fundamental understanding of our very human nature, with dire
consequences for children, families, and society as a whole. For
example, until 2014 users of Facebook had to indicate their sex –
whether they are a man or a woman. But now the popular internet social
network gives users 58 different options to indicate their gender. Also
in 2014, the winner of the popular "Eurovision" song contest was an
Austrian man named Thomas Neuwirth, known by his stage name Conchita
Wurst, who attracts curiosity by cross-dressing in women’s clothing
while wearing a thick beard. Kuby points out that these kinds of
situations create confusion and real psychological and spiritual harms
for individuals and society.
CWR: For the benefit of our readers, would you please summarize the main
thesis of your new book?
Gabriele Kuby: After my conversion to the Catholic faith, and given my
background in the study of sociology and interest in political and
social developments, I began to realize that sexuality is the issue of
our time. We live in a time when sexual norms are being turned
completely upside down, which is unique in human history. No society
does has done this. No society has ever said, "Live out your sexual
drive any way you like," but our society does. I think this issue of
sexuality is the main attack on the dignity of the human being, and on
society as a whole, because if a society lets go of its morality in
general, and especially in the area of sexuality, it tumbles into
anarchy and chaos, and this can result in a new totalitarian regime by
the state.
CWR: A main theme of your book is "gender mainstreaming." Can you
educate our readers about gender mainstreaming, and explain why it is
dangerous?
Kuby: The term "gender" was a grammatical term used to differentiate the
genus of a word, before it was used for a political agenda. Then radical
feminists discovered this word and used it to create a new ideology. I
marvel at the strategic far-sightedness of knowing that you need a term
to promote a new idea, and this is the term "gender." Gender now means
there is a "social sex" which can differ from you biological sex. Of
course, there are cultural and historical differences in the ways people
live their masculinity and femininity. But the feminist theory is, there
is a social construction of sex which can be different – indeed, need
not be identical to – your biological sex. And if we give up our
identity as a man or a woman, and say there is no such identity, then of
course the whole sexual order collapses, and anybody can have sex with
anybody – which is not just a theoretical claim, but a practical claim
of this movement: there are not two sexes, or two genders; there are
many genders, like heterosexual men and women, homosexuals, bisexuals,
transsexuals, transgender, intersexual and queer people ("queer" being a
term for any kind of sexual deviance from heterosexuality).
Gender theory says our sexual orientation is the main criterion for our
identity. The main value by which this is promoted is freedom. Our
hyper-individualized society claims that we have freedom to choose our
sex, whether we are man or woman, and it is our freedom to choose our
sexual orientation. Society must not only tolerate but positively accept
any kind of sexual orientation. But in fact, heterosexuality is the
natural condition of our human existence, and more than 97 percent of
the population of this earth is heterosexual and has an instinctive
rejection of homosexuality. The people who push the gender agenda around
the world of course have to start with very young children and teach
them that any kind of sexual orientation is equally valid.
The whole thing is "sold," so to speak, as ever more rights for women.
If people have heard anything about it, they think gender mainstreaming
is about more rights for women. But if men and women are seen as no
longer different, then what is the point of fighting for the rights of
women? It’s an internal contradiction.
After 150 years of feminism – which was an important and necessary
social movement because women did not have equal rights – the movement
has radicalized and today in Western society, we are in a power struggle
of women over men. Men are discriminated against, and it is men who are
really underprivileged. For instance, in the German education system,
women and girls are the winners, while boys more and more fall through
the cracks. Women are privileged in job acquisition by quotas, and women
are privileged in divorce law suits. Behind all this is a constant
complaint by feminist organizations who say men are basically aggressive
rapists, and women are the victims.
CWR: Why did you choose to have your book translated from German into
East European languages, such as Slovak, Hungarian, Croatian, and
Polish, before English and other West European languages?
Kuby: It was not a choice, it just happened. I didn’t do anything for
this to happen. These doors opened by themselves. Czech is now the fifth
language into which the book has been translated, and this year it will
be published in Romanian as well. The book now is being translated into
English but we are still looking for a publisher. It was not a strategy
on my part. All I did was sit at my desk and try to write the truth; the
translations and invitations to speak in many countries are not my doing.
CWR: Promoting your book is taking you to many countries, making you a
witness of different cultures in Europe. Do you notice any differences
between the gender situation in Western Europe and the post-communist
countries?
Kuby: There is definitely a difference. The East European countries
were, so to speak, protected by communist totalitarianism from the 1968
cultural revolution in the West. They did have abortion on a huge scale,
and still do, but they did not have the sexual revolution. There was not
a direct attack on the family through the sexual revolution and radical
feminism. There was a communist attack on the family, but it didn’t go
as deep as the sexual revolution now does.
When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 we all had this hope of freedom
and entering an era beyond ideology. But while we were delighting in
that hope, powerful forces prepared for the next step of the global
sexual revolution. Don’t ask me who these forces are, but I see this
revolution taking place at a global scale, with a clear intent to
destroy the basis of the family. The destruction of the family uproots
every single human being. We become atomized human beings who can be
manipulated to do anything.
A new totalitarianism is developing under the cloak of freedom. But now
the East European countries are becoming aware of this trend, and my
book seems to be helping awaken people. The destruction has not gone as
far here and people are motivated to resist it. My great hope is that
these East European countries will become a stronghold of resistance in
the European Union. There are signs of this happening.
CWR: Is it true that in at least some parts of Europe today, a man can
go to his local government office and redefine his gender, and walk out
with a new identity card stating he is a woman?
Kuby: In Germany the Left and the Greens are working for this. They
suggest that in your passport there should be no indication of male or
female. They are fighting for this, and whether we already have a German
state where this is happening, I don’t know. It is moving in that
direction, no doubt. In my country, there was a legislative initiative
in the parliament to have the sex category removed from the identity card.
CWR: What would that mean for society? What would be the consequences?
Kuby: The idea behind these initiatives is that it is an expression of
the ultimate "freedom" to "choose" whether I am a man or a woman. But
this is madness! The truth is, such confusion makes a person sick. If
you do not identify with your sex as a man or woman – such a situation
is called transsexuality – this is officially recognized as a
psychological disorder. From a criminological point of view, if you can
change between man and woman, it will be pretty difficult to identify
people.
The idea of changing our sex upsets the notion of what it means to be
human. It is the deepest rebellion against the conditions of our human
existence that you can possibly imagine. It makes people sick and
rootless and they do not know who they are. We are losing our roots in
faith, nation, and family, and now even one’s identity as man or woman
is under attack to create a new vision of humanity. What will this make
of us? A whole mass of sexualized consumers who can be manipulated to do
anything. At the same time, the division between rich and poor is
growing globally, so we have a concentration of wealth and power in a
minority and masses of people who have no roots. That is what the gender
mainstreaming agenda is apparently aiming at.
CWR: So there is an elite, and this gender confusion is one of the tools
they use to manipulate the masses?
Kuby: I only observe what I can see: a strategy in the United Nations,
in the European Union and leftwing governments to enact a policy of the
deregulation of sexual norms, thus destroying the basis of the family.
If you go beyond that, and ask: "Who are the people who want this, who
profits from this, cui bono?" then of course you get into so-called
conspiracy theories. I’ve actually not gone into that because it doesn’t
really help us to do what we can in the place where we are. If I can
identify, say, the hundred families who control the wealth of this
planet – what does it help? I cannot do anything against the
Rockefellers and Bill Gates and George Soros and Warren Buffet. We know
they are financing the LGBT-agenda and the abortion industry, but we
have no influence on that level.
But still we are not powerless. What can they do if there is a rebellion
against their agenda, if parents say, "we do not want this sexualization
of our children in school"? In France, parents have gone on strike, and
do not send their children to school once a month because they don’t
want gender education. What can the elites do about such a reaction?
There are many initiatives and many awake people, many very good
Christians who have a perception of the signs of the time. They hear the
sound of the bell and they work against gender mainstreaming. There is
resistance now growing in many countries. So, I work for that.
CWR: What is your goal? What do you want to achieve, and what’s your
motivation?
Kuby: Personally, the deepest motivation in my life is truth. This
fueled my search for a very long time, and finally led me to the
Catholic faith at a late stage in my life. I had a powerful experience
of God in 1973. Then there were more than 20 years of searching in
esoterics, psychology, and what not. All this led to a life crisis in
which my marriage broke up. When I was alone with my three teenage
children a neighbor came to my door and said: "Pray!" I did, and all of
sudden it was clear that I would enter the Catholic Church – and that
was at a time, when I had many reasons to reject the Catholic Church.
Today I had a meeting with the bishop of Brno, and he said he can use my
material. That is a joy for me. My intention was not, "how can I write
something that is useful for bishops?" I just have to say the truth, and
here something is happening with it. I had a wonderful opportunity to
visit Pope Benedict emeritus, and he said sex education is not only
brainwashing, it is also "soul-washing." If children are sexualized it
destroys their sense of shame, their relationship with their parents,
their relationship in general to authority, and it destroys their
relationship with God. They tell us gender mainstreaming is about
"tolerance," but it’s really about changing us as human beings.
CWR: The forces that you’re describing, such as the education system and
also consumer culture and politics, are very powerful, and I want to ask
what is your sense of the future. Are you optimistic or pessimistic
about the fight against these forces? What do you think is the direction
today?
Kuby: I am neither optimistic nor pessimistic; I hope to be realistic. I
want to see reality as it is. I can see that the forces are very
powerful, the money and the power are on the other side, and they have
victories every day which astound me. On the other hand, there is
resistance accumulating in many countries now. In Croatia there was a
referendum to define marriage in the constitution as between one man and
one woman. It was achieved against the influence of the mainstream media
and the socialist government. In Hungary there is a Christian
constitution and the government of Viktor OrbÁn has just been reelected
with a two-thirds majority. Wherever this resistance happens, the
European Union gets very excited and threatens: "We will use our power
to go against this! It is undemocratic and against our values!" Their
value is same-sex "marriage" and sex education of children "free of taboos."
Recently in Paris and in France a huge movement has sprung up, called
"Manif pour tous." Last year more than a million people – among them
20,000 mayors – were on the streets protesting against homosexual
"marriage," a movement called "Marriage pour tous." The law legalizing
homosexual "marriage" did get passed, but many people have awoken and it
doesn’t seem that the government of President François Hollande is very
stable.
In Germany, resistance is growing. Currently there is movement against
the so-called Bildungsplan – education plan – in the state of
Baden-Württemberg where recently a Green-Red government came into power.
This education plan says there should be LGBTTIQ education in the
schools for children of all ages and in all subjects. LGBTTIQ refers to
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, intersexual, and
queer. It’s mad!
Under the plan, the whole education system would be permeated by the
sexual agenda. But one teacher (who is also a parent) said, "OK, let’s
start a petition against this." One person! 200,000 people signed, which
was a great surprise for everybody. Those promoting gender mainstreaming
became very excited. They said, "This is against democracy!" But a
petition is a perfectly democratic instrument. Now we have
demonstrations in Stuttgart and more organizations are participating, so
we’ll see where this goes.
There is also resistance at the level of the European Union. At first
all these gender mainstreaming issues were enacted by the EU easily,
with no resistance at all. But now we have resistance.
The "One of Us" movement is such an initiative. It was amazingly
successful – 1.8 million people in Europe signed up, though only 1
million was necessary, stating that they do not want the European Union
to use money for the destruction of life, be it by embryonic stem cell
research or abortion. The hearing took place on April 10, 2014 and now
the Commission has to answer to that.
Another example is the recent rejection of the Estrela Report. The
socialist Member of European Parliament Edite Estrela had proposed a
resolution to the European Parliament that demanded sex education
"without taboos" and the elimination of the freedom of conscience for
medical personal, so they must be willing to participate in providing
abortions. This agenda was rejected by just seven votes. Many people
were mobilized by that fight, and it shows that the gender mainstreaming
agenda is getting wobbly.
CWR: The public debate about gender mainstreaming is framed in terms of
human rights, freedom, tolerance, and discrimination. A common label
used against people like you, in the media and by activists, is
"homophobe" or "fundamentalist." How can Catholics avoid being labeled
as bigots or homophobes?
Kuby: We get all sorts of labels. We are called "homophobe" and even
"transphobe." The worst thing you can possibly be called in German is
"right wing." And if you are labeled "right radical," you are completely
expelled from the discussion. This is the number one stigma in Germany.
In contrast, you are allowed to be "Left." I ask people why "Left" is
good. It’s not so easy to explain because hundreds of millions of people
have died under leftwing ideology and terror. Why do these victims not
count? Why is it that if you’re "Left" you’re fine in the public square,
but if you have the slightest touch of "Right" you are expelled?
And there is another label – "homohater." There are hate laws in Canada,
South Africa, Denmark, Great Britain, and in some states in the USA. If
you say anything which the LGBT lobby doesn’t want to hear – like "what
are the reasons for homosexuality?" or "what are the risks of
homosexuality?" or "there is therapy for homosexuality" – you are
"homophobic." Added to this is now the term "transphobic." So now you
are not even able to say that, for instance, you don’t want a
transsexual as a teacher of your children. How mad can you get?
The term "homophobia" is interesting. It was created by an American
psychoanalyst called Weinberg in the 1970s. Weinberg’s theory is that
anybody who is against homosexuality rejects his own inherent homosexual
inclinations, and this is the reason for their homophobia. It is a term
which states that anyone opposed to homosexuality has a neurotic fear.
So we are the ones who need a psychiatrist! Things are turned upside
down. The book of Isaiah says, "Woe to those who call evil good and good
evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness." We live in a
time when this is happening.
We cannot protect ourselves from these accusations. I think there’s just
one way to deal with it: to live in accordance with your conscience. As
a Christian I do not hate. If I hated anybody, I would separate from
God, and I would lose my Christianity. So I do not hate. If a homosexual
was sitting right here next to me, I would speak with him in the same
way that I speak with you. But I would not be quiet about what I think.
I would say, "You can choose to live that lifestyle, but I will not call
the relationship you have with a man a marriage. I would object if you
start adopting children, because each child has a right to a father and
mother, but people who cannot have children do not have a right to a child."
Jesus says, be wise as serpents and gentle as doves. We have to be wise,
and train ourselves in asking for guidance through the Holy Spirit. Is
it the time to speak up, or a time for silence? We each have to do this
in accordance with our position in life.
CWR: I teach sociology at a state university in Brno. For one of my
courses, a student recently wrote an essay about gender theory. He wrote
that gender is a social construction completely divorced from physical
reality. How would you respond to this young man?
Kuby: I would let him do a writing assignment on the neuro-psychological
research which shows that the male brain and the female brain are very
different: on the mere physical level, on the hormonal level, and in the
way they work. These differences are there to make us good fathers and
good mothers. The working of the female brain results in more empathy,
emotion, and the making of social connections and relationships. Men
tend more to aggression, achievement, hierarchy, and order. This is what
we want a father to be, and what we want a mother to be.
CWR: I have a colleague in America, a sexology professor at a
university, who says (along with other feminists) that men and women are
no different than North Dakota and South Dakota – two states that are
next to each other and very similar. She wants to minimize or even deny
sex differences.
Kuby: But why should we be deluded by this kind of thinking? You are a
man and I am a woman, and we know we are different. We are fundamentally
different. I don’t want such mad theories to take over. We share our
humanity, of course. We are human beings and as such have human dignity.
But there is an obvious difference between us which allows us to live in
different ways. What is just astounding to me is such fundamental
confusion, about things which anybody can recognize.
You know, it’s easy to convince people to work toward a classless
society, as with communism – to create this utopian vision in your mind,
"Yes, we will build the just society!" We have seen it doesn’t work, but
we can understand that people can fall for this way of thinking. You can
even understand that people fall for ideologies that assert, "We are the
strongest ones, the most wonderful race on this planet!" But that a
theory is devised – gender mainstreaming – that says we are not men and
women, it’s just amazing that people fall for it.
CWR: It sounds like today we’re living in a time of great change, and
faith is essential. We need to fight for what’s right.
Kuby: That’s it, exactly that. Even if we are not successful in our
lifetime, we will have used our lives to fight for the right cause. As
Christians, our basic hope cannot be destroyed, and that is our hope in
Jesus Christ. We believe that He will come back, and as long as we are
truly grounded in that hope we have our roots in truth and in eternity,
and we cannot be wiped away. We can die, yes, but we know that the
ultimate victory is ours. And from that hope, we have to work.
In a talk in the 1990s called "Death and Resurrection," Joseph Ratzinger
said that first there is the crucifixion, the passion, which is followed
by Easter Saturday, a time of total silence. The disciples go to Emmaus
and they are so blinded that they don’t even realize God is walking next
to them. Isn’t that the time we live in now, when we fear that God is
silent? Like the disciples in the boat, there’s a storm and they feel
they will lose their lives and their boat will sink, and Jesus is
sleeping. "Why do you not care for us?" they cry. He reproaches them and
he says, "Oh, you of little faith!"
We are called to have a strong faith and I think it’s the only way to
get through this time. We have to grow in a living relationship with
Jesus Christ. Such faith will be the vessel to get us through this time,
and will give us the energy to work, and to accept the sacrifices,
whatever they may be. Jesus doesn’t give us illusions about that. We can
only pray that by the grace of God we are strong enough.
About Benjamin J. Vail ? 7 Articles
Dr. Benjamin J. Vail, OFS is an American Secular Franciscan living with
his family in Brno, Czech Republic. He has studied sociology and
environmental studies at the University of Oslo (Norway), the University
of Wisconsin-Madison, and Masaryk University (Czech Republic).
(5) Feminists draw on Marx & Engels; abolish the monogamous family
http://www.hungarianreview.com/article/20150514_the_internal_contradictions_of_feminism
14 May 2015
Belinda Brown
The Internal Contradictions of Feminism
One of the most striking things about feminism is the extent to which a
body of beliefs based on notions of equality has produced new
inequalities without hardly anyone seeming to notice. I particularly
have in mind the inequalities between a rich, privileged female elite
and the majority of other women as well as the growing inequalities
between men. These are partly the consequence of changes in the
employment market produced by a growing pool of female labour prepared
to work for a lower wage because their priorities lie elsewhere.
However, they are also due to changes in the structure of the family
which have resulted from the way in which Marxist ideas have shaped
feminist thinking and ensured that its impact on a rich, privileged
minority has been quite different to its impact on others. I believe
that this has happened because those ideas were based on a flawed
conception of the relationship between the family and the workplace.
However, it should be noted that the developments to which I refer are
far more pronounced in Western societies than they are in former
communist societies where relatively high levels of employment among
women and somewhat greater access to top jobs meant that the motivation
to develop a women’s movement was not as strong as in the West. I would
urge caution on those women’s groups in Central and Eastern Europe who
may feel tempted to adopt Western-style feminism: to do so would risk
jeopardising the progress achieved since the collapse of communism by
allowing some Marxist assumptions to be readmitted through the back door.
XX WOMEN AND THE OTHER 80 PER CENT
In Britain, the debate over the inequalities between different female
socio- economic groups has been stimulated by Alison Wolf’s book, The XX
Factor: How Working Women Are Creating a New Society.1 This revealed
some striking disparities in incomes and lifestyles of contemporary
women. Broadly, the top 15–20 per cent work in environments where men
and women are more or less equally represented and rewarded. These are
women who live to work: career women who work full- time, and who take
little time off to have children. The other 80 per cent of women are
likely to work in environments where there is a disproportionate number
of female employees; these women are less well paid, attach a
significantly lower priority to work and are more likely to work part-time.
As a consequence, feminists are being criticised for focussing on issues
which are the concern of the rich and privileged such as the number of
women in the boardroom or in the broadcasting studio, rather than upon
the problems of ordinary women. The feminists respond to this charge by
saying that they have been fighting to improve educational opportunities
for women and to raise the status of female employment, and by pressing
for greater access to flexible employment or childcare so that women can
spend more time at work. However, the evidence suggests that given the
choice, ordinary women want to reduce the amount of time spent at work
in order to spend more time with their children; only the least well-off
of all regard long working hours as a solution to their problems.2 For
many, the real source of disadvantage and disappointment is not to be
located in the workforce but in the family, for the family is very
different among the less well-off. This group is less likely to be
married; if they do have partners they are more likely to split up and
if they marry they are more likely to be divorced and they are unlikely
to have a male partner that earns more than them; indeed, they are
unlikely to find a partner from the dwindling supply of hardworking,
motivated and employable young men.
MEN: A HIDDEN RESOURCE
If one peers behind the façade of feminism and female independence, it
turns out that in the lives of the modern liberated woman the man
actually plays an important and very useful role – even if this is not
so in the case of their less fortunate sisters. This is evident from the
fact that among married and cohabiting couples in contemporary Britain
only ten per cent of mothers with pre-school children are the only, main
or equal earner. Among graduate mothers of three- year-olds, only one in
five works full-time. By contrast 91 per cent of graduate fathers have
full-time jobs. Surveys suggest that in such situations women are far
from clamouring to do more work, although once their children are at
school this changes. Even then it is those with partners who are more
likely to be able to return to work when their children are older than
those without.3
In such privileged households men work just as hard as women, albeit
more outside the household than in. This had led feminists to complain
that if men did more housework and childcare women could work more
outside the home. However, the available evidence suggests that on the
whole men are responsive to women’s preferences in this regard.4
Research indicates that in both the immediate and longer term, it is the
mother’s employment schedules that determine the levels of paternal
involvement with the father increasing the hours spent on childcare as
the mother spends longer at work.5 The paternal involvement in housework
and childcare enhances life satisfaction for both partners with the
result that they live happier lives.6
It also appears that overall men do earn more than women (and
consequently contribute 72 per cent of the total tax take) while women
are responsible for 70 per cent of domestic expenditure; these figures
draw attention to the contrast between the lives of a privileged elite
with male partners who contribute significantly to domestic expenditure
and those who lack male partners.7-8
Finally, it is clear that the high level of female employment depends
largely on informal childcare with grandparents providing 42 per cent
and resident partners 20 per cent of the care provided; non-resident
partners play only a negligible role.
Women with partners inevitably have far more access to childcare not
only because this can be provided by the partner but also because there
will be two sets of grandparents to give support, rather than one. Such
resources are especially important to those on low wages. Meanwhile,
many ordinary women become more dependent on the state or on poorly paid
employment for the lack of an adequate supply of male providers.
MARX AND FEMINISM – A MARRIAGE OF CONVENIENCE
To understand how we arrived at this situation it is necessary to dig
deep into core feminist assumptions and to reflect on the blind faith
which early feminist myth makers such as Kate Millet and Germaine Greer
placed in two middle-class, middle-aged males: Engels and Marx. Greer,
Millet and others quoted extensively from both and more recent
theoreticians have continued to acknowledge their role with pride.
According to an article in the International Socialist Review: "It is no
exaggeration to say that Engels’ work has defined the terms of debate
around the origin of women’s oppression for the last 100 years."9
Another feminist theoretician credits him thus: "His analysis has been
indispensable to my organising. He penetrates capitalist reality
including in my own life and, from what I can see, in other people’s, as
no one else does, and helps keep me focussed on that reality by warding
off invasions of the enemy’s logic, excuses and invitations to egomania.
I am profoundly grateful for that help."10 A universalistic theory which
sought to upend traditional social institutions was no doubt popular to
Sixties women, helping to knit their discontents, post-pill confusion
and serious disadvantages and privations into a comprehensive
theoretical whole. For the socialists, feminism provided a neat solution
to the problems of the practical application of class.11
There is one key aspect of Marxist-Engelsian theory which I would
identify as crucial to the formation of feminism; the underlying
assumption on which all other theoretical innovations depend. That is
the identification of the means of production, i.e. the workplace and
its political apparatus, as the heart of society and the site of
potential transformation. All change stems from here. Marx expresses it
thus:
The mode of production of material life conditions the general processes
of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness
of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that
determines their consciousness…12
Similarly, Engels traces the origins of what he refers to as the "world
historical defeat of the female sex" as lying in the development of
technology, for example the cattle- drawn plough, which women’s
childcare responsibilities prevented them from using. This results in
men having ownership of surplus resources which they need to pass on to
their children. To do so they need to gain control of the women through
whom inheritance would otherwise occur. What follows from this is the
subordination of the family and women within it for the purposes of
transferring wealth:
The woman was degraded and reduced to servitude, she became the slave of
his lust and a mere instrument for the production of children.
Monogamous marriage is regarded by Engels as the "subjugation of the one
sex by the other".13 For Marx the woman is similarly subjugated but his
focus is more on the reproduction of the labour force than on the
transfer of wealth:
The bourgeois sees in his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears
that [under communism] the instruments of production are to be exploited
in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion than that the
lot of being common to all will likewise fall to women.14
THE SPAWN OF MARX AND MILLET
The fundamental belief about the relationship of the family to the means
of production forms the plate tectonics of feminism. Through feminism
Engels’ words are still with us today:
Then it will be plain that the first condition for the liberation of the
wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and
that this in turn demands the abolition of the monogamous family as the
economic unit of society…
In its early days feminism focussed unambiguously on the need to destroy
the family. For example this is what Kate Millet had to say:
"Why are we here today?" "To make revolution." "What kind of
revolution?" she replied. "The Cultural Revolution." "And how do we make
Cultural Revolution?" "By destroying the American family!" "How do we
destroy the family?" "By destroying the American Patriarch." "And how do
we destroy the American Patriarch?" "By taking away his power!" "How do
we do that?" "By destroying monogamy!"15
And so on. Germaine Greer wrote in The Female Eunuch: "Women’s
Liberation, if it abolishes the patriarchal family, will abolish a
necessary substructure of the authoritarian state; … so let’s get on
with it".16
The need to excise the father from family life became part of mainstream
thinking. So for example Anna Coote in a 1991 article for The Guardian
has this to say:
The father is no longer essential to the economic survival of the unit.
Men haven’t kept up with the changes in society; they don’t know how to
be parents. Nobody has taught them: where are the cultural institutions
to tell them that being a parent is a good thing? They don’t exist. At
the same time, women don’t have many expectations of what men might
provide.17
The British journalist Polly Toynbee takes a similar line:
Women and children will suffer needlessly until the state faces up to
the reality of its own inability to do anything about the revolution in
national morals. What it can do is shape a society that makes a place
for women and children as family units, self-sufficient and independent.18
This is just what the state proceeded to do. One example of this can be
found in the fact the British tax system has ensured that lower income
families are better off living apart. The Institute of Fiscal Studies
has calculated that in 2010, 95 per cent of single people would incur a
"couple penalty" if they married or started living together as couples.
89 per cent of existing couples with children presently incur a couple
penalty of averaging £109 per week.19 A recent pamphlet shows how much
better off a family is when its members separate. It explains that if
the family stays together the main provider (usually a father) is caught
in a tax trap and does not escape the high effective tax rates until his
salary reaches £38,000. If he chooses to live apart from his family he
could escape the tax trap at about 16k while the mother could access
state benefits as a lone parent with children. The authors conclude that:
The high Marginal Effective Tax Rates across a large income range are
not only a disincentive to earn more but reduce pressure on employers to
pay better wages, creating instead a dependency on welfare. The system
destroys aspiration, denies the father the opportunity to provide for
his family, discourages extra work and holds back business. Worse still
it encourages family separation.20
All of this has been accompanied by a strong emphasis on female
employment and tax policies which put pressure on women to go out to
work. As men are regarded as marginal to the family there is little
focus on male employment or on the ever declining educational
performance of men. At the same time the inability to effectively
perform the provider role is used by the courts, legal system and
mothers as a stick to beat men with and further exclude them from family
life.21 I would argue that it is precisely the resulting dearth of
motivated, employable educated men which constitutes the real difference
between the lives of ordinary women and those of the privileged few.
TRANSFORMING MEN
This provider role, which feminists are so intent on undermining, is not
about creating dependency among women, nor even is it necessarily about
provisioning them – although of course this is extremely valuable. It is
part of a process of motivating, socialising and getting the most out of
men. Geoff Dench has written a book in which this is convincingly and
elegantly argued:
… if women go too far in pressing for symmetry, and in trying to change
the rules of the game, men will simply decide not to play. The
traditional male weapons in the sex war are non-cooperation in domestic
chores, and flight. The traditional female weapon is celebration of
paternity and male responsibility; as it is this which is the proven key
to male commitment. If women now choose to define this as patriarchal
oppression and withdraw the notion that men’s family role is important
then they are throwing away their best trick. Feminism, in dismantling
patriarchy, is simply reviving the underlying greater natural freedom of
men…
And:
...the current attack on patriarchal conventions issurely promoting… a
plague of feckless yobs, who leave all real work to women and gravitate
towards the margins of society where males naturally hang around unless
culture gives them a reason to do otherwise. The family may be a myth,
but it is a myth that works to make men tolerably useful.22
Dench’s hypothesis is supported by a wide range of evidence. It has been
found that male unemployment and low income increased rates of union
dissolution whilst the opposite had a positive effect on marriage.
Married couples are much more likely to divorce if the mother is the
only earner. An unemployed husband is more likely to choose to leave a
relationship than a married man with a job; there is a positive
correlation between good labour market participation and lasting
marriage for fathers at all educational levels.23
PUTTING THE HEART BACK IN THE HOME
For Engels, the shift towards agricultural production increased the
productivity of labour which in turn increased the demand for labour,
because it meant more surplus could be produced. Reproduction was at the
service of production. In the real world relations are the other way
around. People work in order to feed and provide their family and this
seems to occur regardless of sex or age. So for example if we look at
the employment patterns of women we find that the category of women who
have raised their workplace participation the most and most rapidly are
precisely mothers with young children, suggesting that reproduction is a
push towards work. However, this does not mean that they have
prioritised employment. The clear preference of most women for part-time
work strongly supports the conclusion that work is valued insofar as it
fits in with family and community life and serves those purposes.24
Reproductive relations seem to be central for men too. Dench in his
research finds that it is among men who don’t have partners expecting
them to earn a living that the worklessness is heaviest. He suggests
that this is not simply a matter of women choosing partners who work. It
is also that men who do not get the experience of living with and
providing at least some support for a female partner may not develop the
necessary motivations to hold down a job.25
What is also interesting is that grandmothers turn out to be more likely
to be working than other women of their age and their decision to work
tends to coincide with their daughters’ decision not to work. Thus the
behaviour of different members of the family is determined by the needs
of the youngest – this is the driving force and, as Darwin discovered
only a few years before Engels wrote his tome, it is this instinct which
determines the survival of the race.
Once the primacy of private relations is acknowledged the heart is put
back into society. The stage is then set for some very positive social
changes.
Indeed, faced with the problem of combating poverty policymakers with an
understanding that individuals can be motivated through the opportunity
to support their loved ones will set about devising policy approaches
that recognise not only the needs of women and children but which also
seek to release the potential of that far more challenging group – men.
A workplace relation is based occasionally on exploitation, but always
on exchange of labour for a wage. As more and more women have entered
the economy the work done in the household has moved into the workplace.
Thus, despite their best intentions feminists are vulnerable to the
accusation that they have brought even the most intimate caring
relations under capitalist control.
By contrast, familial relations are based on trust, love and
interdependence; in such an environment material and non-material goods
circulate through reciprocity and exchange. Where families are strong
these networks will be outward-looking and will come to include more and
more people who are not necessarily related by blood, providing
additional sources of support and exchange. In this way, the flourishing
of family-type relationships based on care rather than self-interest can
act as a protective buffer, compensating for a weakening welfare state.
A strong domestic realm has been shown to contribute to gender equality;
this is most likely to occur where the home is a unit of production.
Social reproduction where varied social networks spiral outwards from
the family could compensate for the loss of role in material production.
This could serve to promote gender equality by increasing the power and
influence of the home.
In traditional societies the family often provided the mediating link
between production and reproduction. Those who earned more were able to
have more children and this helped to redistribute their wealth. The
less well-off restricted the number of children they had, when they were
able to, in order to better look after the few, although in developing
countries poor families might have many children in the hope that at
least one might provide for them in old age. The erosion of the family
has broken these links and thus a mechanism which had a regulatory role
facilitating equality has been destroyed. For example the very wealthy
now tend to have very few children, thus concentrating wealth in fewer
hands. The less well-off appear to have more children presumably because
children attract state benefits. A focus on the family unit for tax and
benefit purposes might help to restore the family’s regulatory and
supportive role.
CONCLUSION
Feminism wrought essential social change from which we have all
benefitted. The place of feminists in history is secure. However, social
landscapes constantly change and if the feminist movement is again to be
constructive it will need to significantly adapt. If this is not
happening this has much to do with the absence of any serious critical
analysis of feminist ideas and assumptions. Standing in the way of such
an analysis is the tendency to regard the body of feminist theory as if
it were objectively true rather than as the theoretical basis for
practical action to achieve change. This brief essay is intended to
provide just such an analysis as the first step in providing an
alternative approach to understanding gender relations which which I
believe is better suited to our times and circumstances.
1 Wolf, A., The XX Factor: How Working Women Are Creating a New Society,
London, Profile Books, 2013.
2 See for example
http://www.netmums.com/home/netmums-campaigns/the-great-work-debate Or
Alakeson, V., "The Price of Motherhood: women and part-time work",
Resolution Foundation, 2012.
3 Dench, G., What Women Want: Evidence from British Social Attitudes,
London, Hera Trust, 2010.
4 Bloemen, H. G. and Stancanelli, E. G. F., "Market hours, household
work, child care, and wage rates of partners: an empirical analysis", in
Review of Economics of the Household, 2013. DOI:10.1007/s11150-013-9219-4.
5 Norman, H., Elliot, M. and Fagan, C., "Which fathers are the most
involved in taking care of their toddlers in the UK? An investigation of
the predictors of paternal involvement", in Community, Work and Family,
2013. DOI:10.1080/13668803.2013.862361.
6 Agache, A., Leyendecker, B., Schafermeier, E,. Scholmerich, A.,
"Paternal involvement elevates trajectories of life satisfaction during
transition to parenthood", in European Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 2013. DOI: 10.1080/17405629.2013.851025.
7https://j4mb.wordpress.com/british-men-pay-72-of-the-income-tax-collected-in-the-uk-women-just-28-so-why-does-the-state-relentlessly-assault-men-and-boys-while-advantaging-women-and-girls/
8 http://she-conomy.com/facts-on-women
9 Smith, S., "Engels and the origin of women’s oppression", in
International Socialist Review, issue 2, 1997.
10 James, S., Marx and feminism, Crossroads Books, 1994.
11 Lyndon, N., Sexual Politics; Heresies on Sex, Gender and Feminism, 2014.
12 Marx, K., The Poverty of Philosophy, Progress Publishers, 1955.
13 Engels, F., "The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the
State", 1884, in Feminism: The Essential Historical Writings, Miriam
Schneir, 1972.
14 Marx K. and Engels F., The Communist Manifesto, New York, 1948, p.
27. Engels, op cit.
15 www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mallorymillett/marxist-feminisms-ruined-lives/
16 Greer, p. 326
17 "The Parent Trap", The Guardian, 16 September 1991. Cited from Neil
Lyndon, op. cit.
18 The worm-turned syndrome",in The Observer, 17 October 1989.
19 Draper, D., Beighton L., Independent Taxation – 25 years on, CARE,
2013, p. 33.
20 Fennel, A., Who Cares about the Family?, Mothers at Home Matter,
2015, p. 14.
21 Bryan, D. M., "To Parent or provide? The effect of the provider role
on low - income men’s decisions about fatherhood and paternal
engagement", in Fathering, 2013, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 71–89. DOI:
10.3149/fth.1101.71
22 Dench, G., Transforming Men: Changing Patterns of Dependency and
Dominance in Gender Relations, New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 1996.
23 Brown, B., "Reviewing Gendered Employment Policies", in Men for
Tomorrow, 2014, working paper 09/14.
24 Brown, B. and Dench, G., The Family Strikes Back: Changing Attitudes
to Work and Family, London, Hera Trust, 2014.
25 Dench, G., What Women Want; Evidence from British Social Attitudes,
New Brunswick, Transaction Publishers, 2011.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)