Mind shall be harder, heart the keener, spirit the greater as our strength lessens
– The Battle of Maldon
– The Battle of Maldon
Contemporary Anglo feminism is fraught with the same values as its historical context. Key themes include:
• Racism
• Classism
• Elitism
• Hypocrisy
• Repression
• Inconsistency
• Intolerance
Anglosphere feminism wants the best of all possible worlds: rights without responsibilities; privileges without obligations. As we have seen, Anglo-American feminism emerged among upper class English women in the late Nineteenth Century. It embodies all the faults associated with that type.
Virginia Woolf – Racist
Virginia Woolf is universally proclaimed as the radical proto-feminist icon among modern Anglo-American feminists:
Virginia Woolf, the most splendid modern writer, told us over and over how awful it was to be a woman of creative intelligence. She told us when she loaded a large stone into her pocket and walked into the river; and she told us each time a book was published and when she went mad – don’t hurt me for what I have done, I will hurt myself first, I will be incapacitated and I will suffer and I will be punished and then perhaps you need not destroy me, perhaps you will pity me, there is such contempt in pity and I am so proud, won’t that be enough? (Dworkin 1983: 45)
This ridiculous passage presents Woolf as victim – when a cursory glance at her background and attitudes shows her clearly to be a victimiser. Like most modern Anglo feminists, Wolff was racist, classist and elitist.
Astonishingly, Woolf is actually considered some sort of revolutionary ‘radical’ by the Anglo feminist establishment. Let’s see just how ‘radical’ she was, brimming over with philanthropic thoughts for her fellow-men. On Sat 9th Jan 1915, Woolf gave full vent to her eugenic and classist beliefs:
On the towpath we met & had to pass a long line of imbeciles. The first was a very tall young man, just queer enough to look twice at, but no more; the second shuffled, & looked aside; & then one realised that every one in that long line was a miserable ineffective shuffling idiotic creature, with no forehead, or no chin, & an imbecile grin, or a wild suspicious stare. It was perfectly horrible. They should certainly be killed (Woolf, 1979: 13).
On May 17th 1925 Woolf describes her instinctive reaction to non-white people:
...passing a nigger gentleman, perfectly fitted out in swallow tail & bowler & gold headed cane; & what were his thoughts? Of the degradation stamped on him, every time he raised his hand & saw it black as a monkey's outside, tinged with flesh colour within (Woolf, 1981: 23).
There is also a sickening anti-Semitic outburst in a Feb 1940 diary entry, which for reasons of good taste is not included here.
These outrageous views should not surprise us. They (or attenuated versions of them) are endemic in modern Anglo feminism. Those who consider Anglo-American women to be morally superior (and a large number do) should consider these statements carefully. As John Carey and others have shown, the Modern movement in literature and the arts was characterised by rabid racism and elitism (Carey: 1992). Anglo-American feminism hails from the same patrician culture and embodied similar values from its inception. For example, many early feminists were racists and eugenicists (Nathanson and Young, 2001).
Virginia Woolf (1882-1941) was the daughter of Julia Jackson Duckworth of the Duckworth publishing family, and Leslie Stephen, a literary critic. She grew up at the family home at Hyde Park Gate. Her mother died when she was a teenager. When her brother Toby died in 1906, she had a prolonged mental breakdown.
In 1912 she married the political theorist Leonard Woolf (not a farm hand or labourer, take note) and published her first book, The Voyage Out in 1915. With To the Lighthouse (1927) and The Waves (1931) Woolf established herself as a leading modernist. She developed innovative literary techniques in these works to find an alternative to ‘patriarchal’ views of reality. Of course, it never occurred to her, that patrician, privately-tutored women’s experiences are equally irrelevant to the vast majority of women. An excerpt from ‘Mrs Dalloway’, one of Woolf’s most challenging works, underlines the rarefied patrician tone:
What a surprise! In came Richard, holding out flowers. She had failed him, once at Constantinople; and Lady Bruton, whose lunch parties were said to be extraordinarly amusing, had not asked her (Woolf, 2000: 129).
A Room Of One's Own (1929) is Woolf’s piece de resistance, at least for Anglo feminists. This is seen as a proto-feminist ‘statement’ describing how a woman’s creativity can blossom when she has financial and personal independence. Here we can see the early, eccentric lines of modern Anglo-American feminism: a narrow preoccupation with elite experience, sexual repression and gendered isolation. Moreover, Wolff was a fanatical upholder of her traditional ‘privileges’ as a patrician female even while she clamoured for new ‘rights’.
Other highlights of her career include Three Guineas (1938), which examined the necessity for women to strive for their own history and literature. Orlando (1928), a rambling fantasy novel, traced the polymorphous career of an androgynous protagonist from the Elizabethan court to 1928. Woolf was also a prolific essayist, publishing some 500 essays in periodicals and collections.
After a final attack of insanity she loaded her pockets with stones and drowned herself near her Sussex home on March 28, 1941.
The prevailing theme of modern Anglo-American feminism – that women are united by gender above all other considerations, especially class – begins with Woolf and her acolytes. This essential problem still hinders Anglo feminism: In one breath, they want responsibility and autonomy. The next moment, they cling to their traditional prejudices like limpets. Vast contradictions riddle their arguments.
The greatest absurdity in Anglo feminism is its arrant class blindness. In lectures, books and articles, contemporary Anglo feminists continually conflate international bridge-playing females with char-women and five-dollar call-girls as if they all shared common interests. As we have said elsewhere, Anglo-feminism is rather like nationalism or racism, an attempt to inveigle disenfranchised women into subordinating their claims as an oppressed class in favour of an arbitrary gender link with their oppressors. It is faux revolt.
Contemporary feminists claim that disenfranchised males are just as much ‘oppressors’ as men from Andover or Eton. Can the patrician origins of Anglo feminism explain this absurd position?
Because early Anglo feminists were all upper class (indeed, most still are) they knew nothing about mainstream social experience. ‘Ordinary’ women never entered their thoughts, except as objects of domestic labour. ‘Ordinary’ men were mere beasts of burden. Consequently, their ideas were absurdly skewed: while claiming to be ‘revolutionaries’ they unthinkingly retained their traditional prejudices.
These characteristic contradictions can be seen in all subsequent Anglo feminists: Greer (a ‘revolutionary’ who hates working class women); Dworkin (a ‘revolutionary’ who favours censorship); Hite (a ‘revolutionary’ who ardently supports monogamy); Paglia (a ‘revolutionary’ who accepts men are biologically superior); Julie Burchill (a racist, nationalist ‘revolutionary’). Of course, all ‘liberal’ Anglo feminists remain committed to such bourgeois anachronisms as marriage to wealthy men and the protective platitudes of organised religion. These absurd inconsistencies have a long pedigree, dating back to the earliest origins of Anglo feminism, exemplified by the classist, racist Woolf.
Whatever they say, Anglo feminists are natural allies of the authoritarian right. The key lines of Anglo feminist thought were set when Anglo-Saxon society was still pre-democratic and the broad masses little better than serfs. Hence arrogant elitism pervades this brand of feminism, something quite absent from the partnership feminism of Continental Europe. Since Anglo men have begun to reject the Anglobitch for women with traditional virtues, this intolerance has reached feverish levels (‘Oh, those China/Hispanic/Russian Dolls!’).
Andrea Dworkin Deconstructed
Dworkin is one of the most prolific Anglo feminist writers. Her work illustrates amply the follies of feminist thought. In Right Wing Women, she writes:
It is white women who have become who have become poor and extraneous with old age; they are taken from mainstream communities where they are useless and dumped in nursing homes. It is important to keep them away from those eager, young, middle-class white women who might be demoralized at what is in store for them once they cease to be useful (Dworkin: 1983:155).
This ridiculous conflation of the degrading treatment meted out to the elderly in modern society with feminist issues is pernicious and insulting. Dworkin seems to think that elderly males are being feted with steak and champagne while elderly females eat bread and water. Perhaps her distorted views reflect the fact that, their numbers thinned by overwork, unequal divorce settlements, military service and general vilification by the Anglo-American cultural establishment, too few men survive into old age for a meaningful picture of post-work male experience to be drawn.
It is in her discussion of the Sixties and the rise of the Anglo-American feminist movement that the true flaws in her thinking are revealed:
The sixties in the United States, repeated with different tonalities throughout Western Europe, had a particularly democratic character. One did not have to read Wilhelm Reich, though some did. It was simple. A bunch of nasty bastards who hated making love were making war. A bunch of boys who liked flowers were making love and refusing to make war. These boys were wonderful and beautiful. They wanted peace. They talked love, love, love, not romantic love but love of mankind (translated by women: humankind). They grew their hair long and painted their faces and wore colorful clothes and risked being treated like girls. In resisting going to war, they were cowardly and sissies and weak, like girls. No wonder the girls of the sixties thought that these boys were their special friends, their special allies, lovers each and every one (Dworkin, 1983: 89).
Firstly, let us put things in perspective, here. The Sixties’ counterculture did not embrace everyone, especially in Anglo Saxon cultures. It was overwhelmingly an upper middle class phenomenon. Most people – the poor, routine white-collar workers, the traditional middle class – were entirely unaffected by countercultural values. Secondly, American males in this counterculture were never at risk of going to war. As members of the elite, and thus educated and privileged, they all had college deferments. Finally, most women (‘girls of the sixties’) were entirely contemptuous of men who rejected traditional masculine gender roles. Women who embraced the counterculture were overwhelmingly upper middle class and completely unrepresentative of the female population as a whole.
Dworkin reveals this prejudice in the following passage:
They decried the stupidity of their mothers and allied themselves on overt sexual terms with the long-haired boys who wanted peace, freedom, and fucking everywhere. This was a world vision that took girls out of the homes in which their mothers were dull captives or automatons and at the same time turned the whole world, potentially, into the best possible home (Dworkin, 1983: 90).
In assuming that all women were cocooned ‘in the home’ Dworkin reveals her bourgeois and wildly unrepresentative origins. In truth, the vast majority of women have always worked. In the Sixties and before, those women who could afford not to work were middle class women, period. Yet here she assumes that such women were the norm: they may have been so in the women’s movement, but certainly not in society at large.
But it is when she moves on to the reasons why women rejected the sexual revolution that unpleasant realities stand revealed:
In the sexual-liberation movement of the sixties, its ideology and practice, neither force nor the subordinate status of women was an issue. It was assumed that--unrepressed--everyone wanted intercourse all the time (men, of course, had other important things to do; women had no legitimate reason not to want to be fucked); and it was assumed that in women an aversion to intercourse, or not climaxing from intercourse, or not wanting intercourse at a particular time or with a particular man, or wanting fewer partners than were available, or getting tired, or being cross, were all signs of and proof of sexual repression. (Dworkin, 1983: 92).
Tellingly, Dworkin does not elaborate on why ‘a particular man’ should be so offensive to a woman’s sexual sensibilities. A good guess might be because he was working class, uneducated, black, or in some other way offensive to the ingrained sexual elitism of the Anglobitch. This was surely the real reason why Anglo women rejected the sexual revolution: it was too revolutionary for them.
The sexual revolution, in order to work, required that abortion be available to women on demand. If it were not, fucking would not be available to men on demand. Getting laid was at stake. Not just getting laid, but getting laid the way great numbers of boys and men had always wanted--lots of girls who wanted it all the time outside marriage, free, giving it away. The male-dominated Left agitated for and fought for and argued for and even organized for and even provided political and economic resources for abortion rights for women. The left was militant on the issue (emphasis mine). (Dworkin, 1983: 95)
As well it might be. After all, equality relates as much to sexual as to economic matters. Dworkin’s italicised phrase is eerily significant: giving it away free. Fundamentally, this is what Dworkin finds problematic about the sexual revolution: as an Anglobitch, giving sex away free is almost a crime. For her, sex is something to be used as a weapon to injure or manipulate men, not a sacrament of freedom.
The men refused to change but even more important they hated the women for refusing to service them anymore on the old terms--there it was, revealed for what it was. The women left the men--in droves. The women formed an autonomous women's movement, a militant feminist movement, to fight against the sexual cruelty they had experienced and to fight for the sexual justice they had been denied (Dworkin, 1983: 96-7).
The women left in droves because authentic liberation left them cold. Being Anglo females, and thus sexually elitist, they felt better than black men or poor men, and consequently did not want to have sex with them. And the women in the main did not form an autonomous women’s movement – they moved on to marry business tycoons, movie moguls and the like – in other words, they turned away from radicalism back to traditional Anglobitch sexual parasitism because it suited them better than ‘free love’. Jane Fonda is a stellar example of a ‘radical’ Anglo feminist who saw fit to marry a string of millionaire media moguls rather than street sweeps (Ted Turner, founder of CNN, being a prime example).
They discovered the utter irrelevance of their own individual, aesthetic, ethical, or political sensitivities (whether those sensitivities were characterized by men as female or bourgeois or puritanical) in sex as men practiced it. The sexual standard was the male-to-female fuck, and women served it--it did not serve women (Dworkin, 1983: 91-92).
In truth, it did not serve Anglo women’s deep rooted sexual elitism. That is the plain and simple truth of the matter. To her credit, Dworkin does make some attempt to address this, even identifying the keystone of Puritanism in Anglo-American female attitudes:
Noxious male philosophers from all disciplines have, for centuries, maintained that women follow a biological imperative derived directly from their reproductive capacities that translates necessarily into narrow lives, small minds, and a rather mean-spirited Puritanism (Dworkin, 1983: 13).
Interestingly, Dworkin is blind to the cultural specificity of female ‘mean-spirited Puritanism.’ After all, French, Swedish or Japanese men do not excoriate females for Puritanism, as men in the Anglosphere do: they have no need to. French, Swedish or Japanese women are not mean-spirited puritans: Anglo American women are. Not once is the stilting influence of Anglo culture mentioned in any of Dworkin’s writings, yet it is the sole cause of these differences. To make such an admission would be to concede the establishmentarian nature of Anglo feminism, however: and this is something Dworkin cannot endure.
Dworkin also famously advocated a universal ban on pornography. Her position, predictably, was that pornography ‘causes’ rape (Dworkin, 1990). Unfortunately, no evidence has ever been presented to prove this. Additionally, countries with high levels of pornographic liberation have relatively low rates of sex crime and high rates of female representation in politics:
The facts about pornography are depressingly few. Some experiments have been carried out with students, but it is difficult to find any incontrovertible connection between pornography and, say, violence against women (Pickstone, 1996: 210).
Of course, the Anglo feminist hatred of pornography is merely a modern expression of the Puritans’ hatred of art and beyond that, life itself. Puritans detested the sensual grace of stained glass and free-spirited, quasi-pagan carvings adorning Old English churches. The glow of visual freedom disgusted their frigid sensibilities: so they smashed it. In the same way, Anglo feminists loathe pornographic depiction of the beautiful human form, however stylised or elegant: hating the sensual world and life itself, they feel obliged to ban it. Swedish feminism is about advancing women’s rights: Anglo feminism is about restoring New England Puritanism. Modern Anglo feminist ‘art’ presents bloated female bodies menstruating or defecating, degrading the female form to its basest level. The ideological conviction underpinning this ‘art’ is a Puritanical loathing of physical life.
Dworkin also famously argued that sexual intercourse itself was a patriarchal ‘crime’ against women (Dworkin, 1997). The penetrative, possessive nature of the activity is, in her view, indistinguishable from rape itself.
However, intercourse is not a social phenomenon, loaded with political value: it is merely the means by which most land animals reproduce their kind. Male spiders and mantids are often devoured by the female during intercourse. How, then, can the sexual act itself be automatically an act of male oppression? Again, the greater female involvement in young-bearing merely reflects the biological fact that the female’s body houses and nurtures the young, not that of the male. It is not a social construction but the expression of physiological necessity. The same gender-distinction is true for almost all land animals. It is not a function of oppressive patriarchy but, like intercourse, an organically predestined and unavoidable reality. Only those with an insane rage against reality itself could label intercourse and its products as patriarchal tyranny. Clearly, the views of radical Anglo-American feminists are more than ridiculous: they are frequently psychotic.
Despite their frequent lapses into dementia, some of Dworkin’s ideas can actually enrich the Anglobitch thesis. In Right Wing Women (1983) she claims conservative women hate homosexuals because homosexuals inherently threaten their sole biological function with superfluity. In exactly the same way, foreign women threaten the Anglobitch and are detested and feared by the latter for this reason.
As an interesting postscript, if we turn to consider what the broad masses of people were experiencing in the vaunted Sixties extolled by ‘radical’ feminists, the picture is invariably completely different to the model presented as a norm by writers like Dworkin. The entire ‘if you can remember the Sixties you weren’t there’ routine unthinkingly extolled in books, films and documentaries founders completely when we consider accounts of the period referring to mass experience, not just that of urban sophisticates:
He also became a familiar figure at Gloucester’s ‘Private Shop’ – its one licensed outlet for sex aids and pornography and so on. The Private Shop also used to be close to Cromwell Street. It used to be on Barton Street for several years. But the pressure of public opinion eventually moved it to the outskirts of the city. The move was resisted by Darker Enterprises, the shop’s owners. But in 1987 they finally gave in and moved to a premises on St Oswald’s Road, part of the South Wales-Birmingham ring road, well away from the town centre. The Private Shop now occupies a cabin in the cattle market (Burn, 2001: 158).
So, in a large English town we have one licensed sex shop to indulge the Sixties ‘wave’ of liberation. ‘Public opinion’ forcefully drives the Sex Shop to the outskirts of the city. Finally, the business is effectively closed, shrinking to a seedy, marginalized venue where coarse men trade and butcher cattle. It is difficult to see much liberation in this sordid saga: rather, sexuality plainly retains its illicit, pariah nature right through the 1960s into the modern era. These events briskly debunk the myth of Swinging London: plainly, British people in the provinces remained completely untouched by events in the metropolis. And this distinction was maintained in the Anglo-American world throughout the Sixties into the contemporary era.
• Racism
• Classism
• Elitism
• Hypocrisy
• Repression
• Inconsistency
• Intolerance
Anglosphere feminism wants the best of all possible worlds: rights without responsibilities; privileges without obligations. As we have seen, Anglo-American feminism emerged among upper class English women in the late Nineteenth Century. It embodies all the faults associated with that type.
Virginia Woolf – Racist
Virginia Woolf is universally proclaimed as the radical proto-feminist icon among modern Anglo-American feminists:
Virginia Woolf, the most splendid modern writer, told us over and over how awful it was to be a woman of creative intelligence. She told us when she loaded a large stone into her pocket and walked into the river; and she told us each time a book was published and when she went mad – don’t hurt me for what I have done, I will hurt myself first, I will be incapacitated and I will suffer and I will be punished and then perhaps you need not destroy me, perhaps you will pity me, there is such contempt in pity and I am so proud, won’t that be enough? (Dworkin 1983: 45)
This ridiculous passage presents Woolf as victim – when a cursory glance at her background and attitudes shows her clearly to be a victimiser. Like most modern Anglo feminists, Wolff was racist, classist and elitist.
Astonishingly, Woolf is actually considered some sort of revolutionary ‘radical’ by the Anglo feminist establishment. Let’s see just how ‘radical’ she was, brimming over with philanthropic thoughts for her fellow-men. On Sat 9th Jan 1915, Woolf gave full vent to her eugenic and classist beliefs:
On the towpath we met & had to pass a long line of imbeciles. The first was a very tall young man, just queer enough to look twice at, but no more; the second shuffled, & looked aside; & then one realised that every one in that long line was a miserable ineffective shuffling idiotic creature, with no forehead, or no chin, & an imbecile grin, or a wild suspicious stare. It was perfectly horrible. They should certainly be killed (Woolf, 1979: 13).
On May 17th 1925 Woolf describes her instinctive reaction to non-white people:
...passing a nigger gentleman, perfectly fitted out in swallow tail & bowler & gold headed cane; & what were his thoughts? Of the degradation stamped on him, every time he raised his hand & saw it black as a monkey's outside, tinged with flesh colour within (Woolf, 1981: 23).
There is also a sickening anti-Semitic outburst in a Feb 1940 diary entry, which for reasons of good taste is not included here.
These outrageous views should not surprise us. They (or attenuated versions of them) are endemic in modern Anglo feminism. Those who consider Anglo-American women to be morally superior (and a large number do) should consider these statements carefully. As John Carey and others have shown, the Modern movement in literature and the arts was characterised by rabid racism and elitism (Carey: 1992). Anglo-American feminism hails from the same patrician culture and embodied similar values from its inception. For example, many early feminists were racists and eugenicists (Nathanson and Young, 2001).
Virginia Woolf (1882-1941) was the daughter of Julia Jackson Duckworth of the Duckworth publishing family, and Leslie Stephen, a literary critic. She grew up at the family home at Hyde Park Gate. Her mother died when she was a teenager. When her brother Toby died in 1906, she had a prolonged mental breakdown.
In 1912 she married the political theorist Leonard Woolf (not a farm hand or labourer, take note) and published her first book, The Voyage Out in 1915. With To the Lighthouse (1927) and The Waves (1931) Woolf established herself as a leading modernist. She developed innovative literary techniques in these works to find an alternative to ‘patriarchal’ views of reality. Of course, it never occurred to her, that patrician, privately-tutored women’s experiences are equally irrelevant to the vast majority of women. An excerpt from ‘Mrs Dalloway’, one of Woolf’s most challenging works, underlines the rarefied patrician tone:
What a surprise! In came Richard, holding out flowers. She had failed him, once at Constantinople; and Lady Bruton, whose lunch parties were said to be extraordinarly amusing, had not asked her (Woolf, 2000: 129).
A Room Of One's Own (1929) is Woolf’s piece de resistance, at least for Anglo feminists. This is seen as a proto-feminist ‘statement’ describing how a woman’s creativity can blossom when she has financial and personal independence. Here we can see the early, eccentric lines of modern Anglo-American feminism: a narrow preoccupation with elite experience, sexual repression and gendered isolation. Moreover, Wolff was a fanatical upholder of her traditional ‘privileges’ as a patrician female even while she clamoured for new ‘rights’.
Other highlights of her career include Three Guineas (1938), which examined the necessity for women to strive for their own history and literature. Orlando (1928), a rambling fantasy novel, traced the polymorphous career of an androgynous protagonist from the Elizabethan court to 1928. Woolf was also a prolific essayist, publishing some 500 essays in periodicals and collections.
After a final attack of insanity she loaded her pockets with stones and drowned herself near her Sussex home on March 28, 1941.
The prevailing theme of modern Anglo-American feminism – that women are united by gender above all other considerations, especially class – begins with Woolf and her acolytes. This essential problem still hinders Anglo feminism: In one breath, they want responsibility and autonomy. The next moment, they cling to their traditional prejudices like limpets. Vast contradictions riddle their arguments.
The greatest absurdity in Anglo feminism is its arrant class blindness. In lectures, books and articles, contemporary Anglo feminists continually conflate international bridge-playing females with char-women and five-dollar call-girls as if they all shared common interests. As we have said elsewhere, Anglo-feminism is rather like nationalism or racism, an attempt to inveigle disenfranchised women into subordinating their claims as an oppressed class in favour of an arbitrary gender link with their oppressors. It is faux revolt.
Contemporary feminists claim that disenfranchised males are just as much ‘oppressors’ as men from Andover or Eton. Can the patrician origins of Anglo feminism explain this absurd position?
Because early Anglo feminists were all upper class (indeed, most still are) they knew nothing about mainstream social experience. ‘Ordinary’ women never entered their thoughts, except as objects of domestic labour. ‘Ordinary’ men were mere beasts of burden. Consequently, their ideas were absurdly skewed: while claiming to be ‘revolutionaries’ they unthinkingly retained their traditional prejudices.
These characteristic contradictions can be seen in all subsequent Anglo feminists: Greer (a ‘revolutionary’ who hates working class women); Dworkin (a ‘revolutionary’ who favours censorship); Hite (a ‘revolutionary’ who ardently supports monogamy); Paglia (a ‘revolutionary’ who accepts men are biologically superior); Julie Burchill (a racist, nationalist ‘revolutionary’). Of course, all ‘liberal’ Anglo feminists remain committed to such bourgeois anachronisms as marriage to wealthy men and the protective platitudes of organised religion. These absurd inconsistencies have a long pedigree, dating back to the earliest origins of Anglo feminism, exemplified by the classist, racist Woolf.
Whatever they say, Anglo feminists are natural allies of the authoritarian right. The key lines of Anglo feminist thought were set when Anglo-Saxon society was still pre-democratic and the broad masses little better than serfs. Hence arrogant elitism pervades this brand of feminism, something quite absent from the partnership feminism of Continental Europe. Since Anglo men have begun to reject the Anglobitch for women with traditional virtues, this intolerance has reached feverish levels (‘Oh, those China/Hispanic/Russian Dolls!’).
Andrea Dworkin Deconstructed
Dworkin is one of the most prolific Anglo feminist writers. Her work illustrates amply the follies of feminist thought. In Right Wing Women, she writes:
It is white women who have become who have become poor and extraneous with old age; they are taken from mainstream communities where they are useless and dumped in nursing homes. It is important to keep them away from those eager, young, middle-class white women who might be demoralized at what is in store for them once they cease to be useful (Dworkin: 1983:155).
This ridiculous conflation of the degrading treatment meted out to the elderly in modern society with feminist issues is pernicious and insulting. Dworkin seems to think that elderly males are being feted with steak and champagne while elderly females eat bread and water. Perhaps her distorted views reflect the fact that, their numbers thinned by overwork, unequal divorce settlements, military service and general vilification by the Anglo-American cultural establishment, too few men survive into old age for a meaningful picture of post-work male experience to be drawn.
It is in her discussion of the Sixties and the rise of the Anglo-American feminist movement that the true flaws in her thinking are revealed:
The sixties in the United States, repeated with different tonalities throughout Western Europe, had a particularly democratic character. One did not have to read Wilhelm Reich, though some did. It was simple. A bunch of nasty bastards who hated making love were making war. A bunch of boys who liked flowers were making love and refusing to make war. These boys were wonderful and beautiful. They wanted peace. They talked love, love, love, not romantic love but love of mankind (translated by women: humankind). They grew their hair long and painted their faces and wore colorful clothes and risked being treated like girls. In resisting going to war, they were cowardly and sissies and weak, like girls. No wonder the girls of the sixties thought that these boys were their special friends, their special allies, lovers each and every one (Dworkin, 1983: 89).
Firstly, let us put things in perspective, here. The Sixties’ counterculture did not embrace everyone, especially in Anglo Saxon cultures. It was overwhelmingly an upper middle class phenomenon. Most people – the poor, routine white-collar workers, the traditional middle class – were entirely unaffected by countercultural values. Secondly, American males in this counterculture were never at risk of going to war. As members of the elite, and thus educated and privileged, they all had college deferments. Finally, most women (‘girls of the sixties’) were entirely contemptuous of men who rejected traditional masculine gender roles. Women who embraced the counterculture were overwhelmingly upper middle class and completely unrepresentative of the female population as a whole.
Dworkin reveals this prejudice in the following passage:
They decried the stupidity of their mothers and allied themselves on overt sexual terms with the long-haired boys who wanted peace, freedom, and fucking everywhere. This was a world vision that took girls out of the homes in which their mothers were dull captives or automatons and at the same time turned the whole world, potentially, into the best possible home (Dworkin, 1983: 90).
In assuming that all women were cocooned ‘in the home’ Dworkin reveals her bourgeois and wildly unrepresentative origins. In truth, the vast majority of women have always worked. In the Sixties and before, those women who could afford not to work were middle class women, period. Yet here she assumes that such women were the norm: they may have been so in the women’s movement, but certainly not in society at large.
But it is when she moves on to the reasons why women rejected the sexual revolution that unpleasant realities stand revealed:
In the sexual-liberation movement of the sixties, its ideology and practice, neither force nor the subordinate status of women was an issue. It was assumed that--unrepressed--everyone wanted intercourse all the time (men, of course, had other important things to do; women had no legitimate reason not to want to be fucked); and it was assumed that in women an aversion to intercourse, or not climaxing from intercourse, or not wanting intercourse at a particular time or with a particular man, or wanting fewer partners than were available, or getting tired, or being cross, were all signs of and proof of sexual repression. (Dworkin, 1983: 92).
Tellingly, Dworkin does not elaborate on why ‘a particular man’ should be so offensive to a woman’s sexual sensibilities. A good guess might be because he was working class, uneducated, black, or in some other way offensive to the ingrained sexual elitism of the Anglobitch. This was surely the real reason why Anglo women rejected the sexual revolution: it was too revolutionary for them.
The sexual revolution, in order to work, required that abortion be available to women on demand. If it were not, fucking would not be available to men on demand. Getting laid was at stake. Not just getting laid, but getting laid the way great numbers of boys and men had always wanted--lots of girls who wanted it all the time outside marriage, free, giving it away. The male-dominated Left agitated for and fought for and argued for and even organized for and even provided political and economic resources for abortion rights for women. The left was militant on the issue (emphasis mine). (Dworkin, 1983: 95)
As well it might be. After all, equality relates as much to sexual as to economic matters. Dworkin’s italicised phrase is eerily significant: giving it away free. Fundamentally, this is what Dworkin finds problematic about the sexual revolution: as an Anglobitch, giving sex away free is almost a crime. For her, sex is something to be used as a weapon to injure or manipulate men, not a sacrament of freedom.
The men refused to change but even more important they hated the women for refusing to service them anymore on the old terms--there it was, revealed for what it was. The women left the men--in droves. The women formed an autonomous women's movement, a militant feminist movement, to fight against the sexual cruelty they had experienced and to fight for the sexual justice they had been denied (Dworkin, 1983: 96-7).
The women left in droves because authentic liberation left them cold. Being Anglo females, and thus sexually elitist, they felt better than black men or poor men, and consequently did not want to have sex with them. And the women in the main did not form an autonomous women’s movement – they moved on to marry business tycoons, movie moguls and the like – in other words, they turned away from radicalism back to traditional Anglobitch sexual parasitism because it suited them better than ‘free love’. Jane Fonda is a stellar example of a ‘radical’ Anglo feminist who saw fit to marry a string of millionaire media moguls rather than street sweeps (Ted Turner, founder of CNN, being a prime example).
They discovered the utter irrelevance of their own individual, aesthetic, ethical, or political sensitivities (whether those sensitivities were characterized by men as female or bourgeois or puritanical) in sex as men practiced it. The sexual standard was the male-to-female fuck, and women served it--it did not serve women (Dworkin, 1983: 91-92).
In truth, it did not serve Anglo women’s deep rooted sexual elitism. That is the plain and simple truth of the matter. To her credit, Dworkin does make some attempt to address this, even identifying the keystone of Puritanism in Anglo-American female attitudes:
Noxious male philosophers from all disciplines have, for centuries, maintained that women follow a biological imperative derived directly from their reproductive capacities that translates necessarily into narrow lives, small minds, and a rather mean-spirited Puritanism (Dworkin, 1983: 13).
Interestingly, Dworkin is blind to the cultural specificity of female ‘mean-spirited Puritanism.’ After all, French, Swedish or Japanese men do not excoriate females for Puritanism, as men in the Anglosphere do: they have no need to. French, Swedish or Japanese women are not mean-spirited puritans: Anglo American women are. Not once is the stilting influence of Anglo culture mentioned in any of Dworkin’s writings, yet it is the sole cause of these differences. To make such an admission would be to concede the establishmentarian nature of Anglo feminism, however: and this is something Dworkin cannot endure.
Dworkin also famously advocated a universal ban on pornography. Her position, predictably, was that pornography ‘causes’ rape (Dworkin, 1990). Unfortunately, no evidence has ever been presented to prove this. Additionally, countries with high levels of pornographic liberation have relatively low rates of sex crime and high rates of female representation in politics:
The facts about pornography are depressingly few. Some experiments have been carried out with students, but it is difficult to find any incontrovertible connection between pornography and, say, violence against women (Pickstone, 1996: 210).
Of course, the Anglo feminist hatred of pornography is merely a modern expression of the Puritans’ hatred of art and beyond that, life itself. Puritans detested the sensual grace of stained glass and free-spirited, quasi-pagan carvings adorning Old English churches. The glow of visual freedom disgusted their frigid sensibilities: so they smashed it. In the same way, Anglo feminists loathe pornographic depiction of the beautiful human form, however stylised or elegant: hating the sensual world and life itself, they feel obliged to ban it. Swedish feminism is about advancing women’s rights: Anglo feminism is about restoring New England Puritanism. Modern Anglo feminist ‘art’ presents bloated female bodies menstruating or defecating, degrading the female form to its basest level. The ideological conviction underpinning this ‘art’ is a Puritanical loathing of physical life.
Dworkin also famously argued that sexual intercourse itself was a patriarchal ‘crime’ against women (Dworkin, 1997). The penetrative, possessive nature of the activity is, in her view, indistinguishable from rape itself.
However, intercourse is not a social phenomenon, loaded with political value: it is merely the means by which most land animals reproduce their kind. Male spiders and mantids are often devoured by the female during intercourse. How, then, can the sexual act itself be automatically an act of male oppression? Again, the greater female involvement in young-bearing merely reflects the biological fact that the female’s body houses and nurtures the young, not that of the male. It is not a social construction but the expression of physiological necessity. The same gender-distinction is true for almost all land animals. It is not a function of oppressive patriarchy but, like intercourse, an organically predestined and unavoidable reality. Only those with an insane rage against reality itself could label intercourse and its products as patriarchal tyranny. Clearly, the views of radical Anglo-American feminists are more than ridiculous: they are frequently psychotic.
Despite their frequent lapses into dementia, some of Dworkin’s ideas can actually enrich the Anglobitch thesis. In Right Wing Women (1983) she claims conservative women hate homosexuals because homosexuals inherently threaten their sole biological function with superfluity. In exactly the same way, foreign women threaten the Anglobitch and are detested and feared by the latter for this reason.
As an interesting postscript, if we turn to consider what the broad masses of people were experiencing in the vaunted Sixties extolled by ‘radical’ feminists, the picture is invariably completely different to the model presented as a norm by writers like Dworkin. The entire ‘if you can remember the Sixties you weren’t there’ routine unthinkingly extolled in books, films and documentaries founders completely when we consider accounts of the period referring to mass experience, not just that of urban sophisticates:
He also became a familiar figure at Gloucester’s ‘Private Shop’ – its one licensed outlet for sex aids and pornography and so on. The Private Shop also used to be close to Cromwell Street. It used to be on Barton Street for several years. But the pressure of public opinion eventually moved it to the outskirts of the city. The move was resisted by Darker Enterprises, the shop’s owners. But in 1987 they finally gave in and moved to a premises on St Oswald’s Road, part of the South Wales-Birmingham ring road, well away from the town centre. The Private Shop now occupies a cabin in the cattle market (Burn, 2001: 158).
So, in a large English town we have one licensed sex shop to indulge the Sixties ‘wave’ of liberation. ‘Public opinion’ forcefully drives the Sex Shop to the outskirts of the city. Finally, the business is effectively closed, shrinking to a seedy, marginalized venue where coarse men trade and butcher cattle. It is difficult to see much liberation in this sordid saga: rather, sexuality plainly retains its illicit, pariah nature right through the 1960s into the modern era. These events briskly debunk the myth of Swinging London: plainly, British people in the provinces remained completely untouched by events in the metropolis. And this distinction was maintained in the Anglo-American world throughout the Sixties into the contemporary era.
A Few Good Men: Anglo Feminism and the Mythical ‘Man Shortage’
Let us consider the dust-jacket blurb on the back of Barbara Dafoe Whitehead’s ‘Why There Are No Good Men Left: The Romantic Plight of the New Single Woman’ (2003):
‘A double revolution is at work in modern American love. A revolution in higher education has created the most independent generation of young women in history, and a revolution in mating has created a prolonged search for Mr Right. Through extensive research and interviews, Whitehead documents the new social climate in which the demands of work, the rise of cohabitation, the disappearance of courtship, and the exacting standards of educated women are leading them to stay single longer and to find the search for a mate even harder when the time is right.’
This ‘man shortage’ has been a staple of Anglo-American pop-feminism since the early Seventies. Whitehead admits early on there is in fact no ‘man shortage’ at all: among American 30-34 year olds, there are four never-married men (30%) for every three never-married women (20%) (Whitehead, 2003: 10). Indeed if we accept Whitehead’s figures, there is obviously a ‘woman shortage’, confounding her whole thesis. Yet the rest of the book skirts this fact, focussing on such red herrings as cohabitation and the decline of courtship.
The only obvious solution to this conundrum is that white, middle-class women reflexively dismiss men of low socio-economic status as potential mates, giving them the false impression there is a ‘man shortage’. At a deeper level, it is obvious that middle-class, post-feminist white women retain traditional expectations of ‘marrying up’ in the midst of their new rights and freedoms. Traditional female privileges have been squared with new rights to create impossible expectations: and this is the broad error of Anglo-American feminism. It is an unstable conceptual hybrid, completely unworkable in practice.
Sex is the pivotal female weapon for manipulating men, and it is not in women’s interests to ever yield their power of sexual barter. Women will always ration sex to the highest bidder, whatever rhetoric of ‘liberation’ they care to espouse. Indeed, so ingrained is the female expectation of marrying a male of high income and status that men without resources are literally transparent to them. When ‘a shortage of men’ is translated correctly as ‘a shortage of men with more wealth than most women’ the true, vulpine values of post-feminist Anglo-American women are revealed.
Of course, a genuine feminist revolution would have ensured that women became indifferent to male income and other trappings of ‘patriarchy’. However, in the Anglosphere the retention of Puritanism with its attendant ‘Pedestal Syndrome’ neutralised any such possibility, allowing the Anglobitch to square her new rights with archaic expectations and privileges.
Nina Farewell: Spokesperson for the Ugly Sex
Nina Farewell’s The Unfair Sex views all males as stooges, cads and fools:
No genuine full blooded male is trustworthy (Farewell, 2004: 11)
This onerous book, published in 1953, is invaluable in that it probes Anglobitch attitudes and values, without the distorting filter of Sixties liberal rhetoric. Here we see the true Anglobitch attitudes towards sex, men and relationships:
Do not fall into a careless attitude of self-confidence in the foolish belief that you have no Mating Instinct, or that if you have, yours is under perfect control. As resolutely as you defend yourself from Man, you must defend yourself from the enemy within (Farewell, 2004: 51)
Made giddy by the altitudes of abstract discussion, flustered by his continual praises, she mechanically echoes his every word, oblivious of where he is leading her. Suddenly she finds herself agreeing as he scoffs at the conventions, the taboos, the restrictions that strive to strangle the Man-Woman relationship…
…She is no petty bourgeoise, no, no. She is a pseudo-intellectual noodle who will trade her birthright for a brief moment of cerebral glory (Farewell, 2004: 68).
Note that female sexual favours (and all associated benefits) are viewed as a ‘birthright,’ a license to status, wealth and privilege. Female sexuality is entirely economized, commercialized and disassociated with pleasure or humanity. In a psychological sense, it seems bizarrely divorced from the persona of its ‘possessor’, rather like an inanimate possession such as a Porsche, bungalow or potted plant. We are reminded of the hysteria that beset Anglo women in the absurdly puritanical Victorian era. Never was the link between female sexuality and objective economic factors in the Anglo-American context more self-apparent than in this polemic.
Farewell is especially keen to stress the dangers that seethe forever in foreign lands:
Even girls who speak several languages fluently are susceptible and easily won by men of other lands. Perhaps these linguistic young ladies think differently, when they converse in an alien tongue (Farewell, 2004: 102).
This is a telling insight into the problems of Anglo-American culture. Since the limits of language are the limits of thought, behaviour and its limits are inevitably shaped by linguistic factors. The entire Anglo-Saxon cultural ensemble hinges on language above all else (due to its dour Reformation origins).
Anglo females are supremely mono-dimensional. This mono-dimensionality is the key to the Anglobitch personality. It can be tersely described as a narrow urge to barter sex (or the promise of sex) in return for material advantage. The entire mind, personality and presentation are narrowly geared to this purpose: since language limits a person’s conceptual horizons, it is only to be expected that discoursing in another language will allow new concepts and behaviours to infiltrate the subject’s mindset. Anglo females who learn foreign languages are invariably softened and improved by the experience, whether or not they engage in erotic discussions with foreign males. It would seem that the English language embodies a particular value system that reinforces the Anglobitch mentality.
It is known that Anglo females are encouraged in polite and passive forms of speech:
Other writers have probed more deeply than this rather random selection of instances, and have argued that girls may be encouraged to use a more deferential and hesitant form of language than men. Some evidence suggests they may experience subtle pressure to use more ‘proper’ variants of language than men, as part of a general social pressure to render themselves more socially correct because they are women (Downing, 1980:109).
Most European languages have a defined distinction between intimate and official forms (the sie/du distinction) and it is inviting to think that confusion over this issue is what facilitates an unaccustomed ‘openness’ among Anglo-American females speaking a foreign tongue. Discourse in English, with which they are intimately familiar, allows them to retain the manipulative initiative viz a viz the studied nuances of speech. They can effortlessly maintain the well-attested ‘wall’ against intimacy and sexual abandon that defines all their interactions with men. Foreign speech throws them off balance into a maelstrom of intimate, expressive humanity entirely alien to Anglo-American females.
Indeed, this may be a universal phenomenon and could partly account for the apparent pliability of foreign women to Anglo males. Although this substantially derives from the cultural factors discussed in Anglobitch, it is to be observed that males all over the world extol the warmth of foreign women over their own (no doubt with good reason). Even the Anglobitch has her aficionados, especially in the Latin world.
Also, the Anglo female, in speaking an alien tongue, automatically discards the conceptual shackles associated with her usual role. Her conception of social reality - its values, rehearsals and assumptions - are embedded in the English language. When speaking an alien tongue she has no recourse to traditional concepts of sexual manipulation typical of Anglo culture. Notions like ‘taking’, ‘prick-teasing’ or ‘possessing’ are not embedded in foreign tongues, at least not in terms readily formulated by the Anglobitch. Without psychological recourse to these terms and the manipulative concepts that underpin them, she is bereft of conceptual defences to her natural instinct toward physical intimacy.
In particular, the Anglobitch association between sex and class is confounded by discourse in foreign tongues. The equations normally clicking away at the back of her mind (wherein she objectifies men as disposable meal-tickets, as mere resources to be manipulated by the promise of sex) are dispelled by the novelty of speaking in an alien vernacular. Language is a conceptual ensemble embracing attitudes and values as much as vocabulary and grammar. The Anglobitch is thus shorn of the conceptual weapons she habitually uses to manipulate men when deprived of her native tongue. This is ultimately why engaging in conversation with foreigners throws her off-balance into the arms of unaccustomed passion.
Consider also that foreigners seldom express themselves verbally alone: their speech is augmented by gestures, postural changes and, most of all, by touching. Touching in Anglo Saxon culture (especially England) is comparative rare, with connotations of close intimacy entirely alien to Latins (or indeed, anyone else). The stiff, formal undertone of the culture inhibits any kind of sensual self-expression. English people have the largest physical comfort zone in the world. This well-observed difference between puritanical Anglo Saxons and other peoples renders the Anglobitch susceptible to unfamiliar physical overtures from foreign males, which disorientate her and expose her to sexual infiltration.
Let us return to Farwell’s exegesis:
Flirting is the royal road to matrimony. It is the means by which you can so possess a man that he will crave more and more of you – and, in fact, all of you – which, of course, you are much too clever to give, except in exchange for a wedding ring (Farewell, 2004: 163-4).
The official sanction of Marriage highlights the link between Anglo-American cultural authority and Anglobitch privileges – which we shall now consider in greater detail.
The Circle Closes
The US Government has recently taken steps to prevent American men from marrying foreign women. In the US, at least 60% of marriages fail, with the woman receiving the lion’s share of all financial proceeds. By contrast, marriages between American men and foreign women are far more successful, with a lower divorce rate (15% at most). The titular reason for this ban is that several foreign women have been murdered in such marriages (the vast confirmed total of three since 1995). Even the 1999 INS (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service) report that underpinned the legislation admits that less than 1% of abuse cases can be clearly attributed to the international mail order bride industry (USCIS 2007). Hence this excuse holds no water since, proportionally, far more American women are murdered within abusive relationships. But statistical realities count for little when Anglo-American feminism needs to prevent the ‘Bountification’ of American men:
Such tragedies make for powerful headlines and fine political oratory, and in January, with Washington State, Missouri, Texas, and Hawaii all having already passed laws aimed at protecting foreign brides, President Bush signed the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005, or IMBRA. Under the new law, which a marriage broker is challenging in court, IMBs (International Marriage Bureaus) falling under U.S. jurisdiction would be required to provide prospective brides with detailed information on any client requesting their information, including a search of federal and state sex-offender registries and a copy of the client’s stated marital and criminal background (Garin, 2005).
IMBRA is part of the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) and the signature legislation of an official feminist organization rather worryingly called ‘Legal Momentum’. Their whole opposition to foreign dating agencies hinges on the argument that international brides are subject to violence, exploitation and abuse by ‘violent’ and ‘dysfunctional’ American husbands. The only scientific study of foreign marriages conducted by Dr Robert Scholes for the INS in 1999 discredited these assumptions: men who seek foreign brides are typically highly educated, professionally successful, socially adept and politically conservative (USCIS 2007). They desire a traditional marriage, with a lower Divorce risk. All studies unwillingly concede that such men do not fit the stereotype of a lonely, abusive alcoholic routinely trotted out by Anglo feminists. And most mail-order brides are evading poverty and exploitation: emigration to the United States typically represents escape from feral males, prostitution and violence.
Of course, the real feminist animus against foreign marriages lies elsewhere. Simply put, those who frame such legislation know perfectly well that Anglo-American women are no longer acceptable marriage partners for solvent males. They also know that, given a choice, large numbers of American men would marry traditionalist foreigners rather than American women:
A few of the men paired off in animated, earnest conversations about life, marriage, women. “I’m not going to spend every bit of my life in America,” one was saying. “Because I am sick and tired of being blamed for everything – the white man, you’re all responsible for everything. And American women are just rude, obnoxious. I won’t marry another American woman. I won’t do it. I’ll stay single first.” (Garin, 2005)
With no rational reason for the ban, we must conclude that the US authorities are dimly becoming aware that American men prefer foreign womanhood to the Anglobitch. But why should this be such a problem to them?
Throughout this study we have generally accepted that the Anglobitch phenomenon is somewhat ‘accidental’, having been shaped by chance historical events. Here, however, we have clear proof of Anglo-American political authorities actively seeking to maintain the Anglobitch’s stranglehold. The authorities in Anglo-America are ‘on the run’: their misguided policies have alienated men to such an extent that they now resort to coercion, lies and other terror tactics to ‘ration’ men’s relationships away from traditional foreign women towards Anglobitches alone. And Anglo feminists themselves are central to this agenda: they recognize that expanding the erotic choices of males across the Anglosphere will weaken their own monopoly on sex, overthrowing the puritanical social contract and truly liberating men for the first time. The whole Anglobitch sense of entitlement, contempt and casual misandry – in short, ‘the pedestal syndrome’ – faces imminent obliteration. Is it any wonder that Anglo feminists now stoop to underhand tactics to fight the influx of foreign brides?
Another strand in the feminist assault on international dating agencies is the unsubstantiated claim that they informally traffic sex-workers into the country (Naraya, 1995). Even this specious argument is motivated by self-interest. Anglo-American women derive their privileges from sex being ‘rationed’: if sex lost its scarcity value their accustomed pedestals would be removed. This explains the feminist hysteria about ‘sex-trafficking’: their concern is not for the women trafficked as sex workers, but losing their own privileged status. All the rhetoric about international dating agencies exploiting the power disparities between rich and poor or men and women is just a smoke-screen to maintain this status. Anglo feminism in any case has a long history of racism and elitism, which utterly discredits feminist statements on these issues.
Mila Glodava and Richard Onizuka’s study, Mail Order Brides: Women for Sale (1994) is often cited by the authorities as a ‘scholarly’ source of justification for IMBRA. This feminist polemic’s contribution to the debate largely focuses on how foreign dating agencies create ‘unrealistic’ romantic aspirations for the participants. Well, if that were the case (and it is by no means proven, only asserted) why not ban the whole of the Anglo-American media? Michael Medved shows that the American film industry has a consistent preoccupation with the upper-middle class, libertines and ‘young people’ – a wildly unrepresentative sample of the American population, at best (Medved, 1993). American TV shows seldom depict the average middle or working class family: enormous emphasis is placed on the fabulously rich and impossibly beautiful, alternative sexual lifestyles, wealthy career criminals and, of course, ‘young people’. The elderly, the poor and the conventional are conspicuous by their near total absence. All these media products surely erect far more ‘unrealistic expectations’ than the most imaginative foreign dating agency: why, then are they not banned? Or do the Anglo-American authorities like to pick and choose their ‘unrealistic’ objects of censure?
Speaking of arrant hypocrisy, the United States prides itself as the world’s most consistent capitalist nation. If American men choose a foreign bride over an Anglobitch, is this not merely capitalist freedom of choice? Why should capitalism be allowed to operate in the field of consumer goods, but not in bride-selection? If a consumer prefers a Porsche over a Ford Mercury, that is his privilege as a free consumer. Why should his elective autonomy be compromised when choosing a wife?
Aside from a reflexive desire to defend the existing order, is there any practical reason for the U.S. authorities’ rabid opposition to foreign dating agencies?
Divorce is part of a redistributionist economic policy enacted against Anglo-American men. Men who undergo divorce essentially have to sign over 70% of their assets to the female. In this manner, most wealth in the US has passed into women’s hands. In a very real sense, the Anglobitch and the institutions that support her are an underhand taxation policy that takes wealth from the hardworking and astute and gives it to the idle and spendthrift. In itself, this should have little economic impact, in that wealth would ultimately be redistributed by taxation anyway. However, Divorce prevents males from ever achieving financial independence, guaranteeing their indebted labour for life. Divorced males are the most prone to ill-health, suicide and abbreviated longevity. This is little wonder, as they are essentially highly productive, indentured slaves. This is the difference made by Divorce to the Anglo-American economy, shackling men to support needless over-consumption and over-production on the part of parasitic ex-partners.
Hence the Anglobitch issue is economic as much as it is cultural or political. Anglo-American Governments must necessarily inhibit the sexual or marital options open to males in order to sustain themselves. A sharp drop in the Divorce rate would have enormous repercussions on the US economy and its rapacious ethos of ‘infinite growth’.
Let us consider the dust-jacket blurb on the back of Barbara Dafoe Whitehead’s ‘Why There Are No Good Men Left: The Romantic Plight of the New Single Woman’ (2003):
‘A double revolution is at work in modern American love. A revolution in higher education has created the most independent generation of young women in history, and a revolution in mating has created a prolonged search for Mr Right. Through extensive research and interviews, Whitehead documents the new social climate in which the demands of work, the rise of cohabitation, the disappearance of courtship, and the exacting standards of educated women are leading them to stay single longer and to find the search for a mate even harder when the time is right.’
This ‘man shortage’ has been a staple of Anglo-American pop-feminism since the early Seventies. Whitehead admits early on there is in fact no ‘man shortage’ at all: among American 30-34 year olds, there are four never-married men (30%) for every three never-married women (20%) (Whitehead, 2003: 10). Indeed if we accept Whitehead’s figures, there is obviously a ‘woman shortage’, confounding her whole thesis. Yet the rest of the book skirts this fact, focussing on such red herrings as cohabitation and the decline of courtship.
The only obvious solution to this conundrum is that white, middle-class women reflexively dismiss men of low socio-economic status as potential mates, giving them the false impression there is a ‘man shortage’. At a deeper level, it is obvious that middle-class, post-feminist white women retain traditional expectations of ‘marrying up’ in the midst of their new rights and freedoms. Traditional female privileges have been squared with new rights to create impossible expectations: and this is the broad error of Anglo-American feminism. It is an unstable conceptual hybrid, completely unworkable in practice.
Sex is the pivotal female weapon for manipulating men, and it is not in women’s interests to ever yield their power of sexual barter. Women will always ration sex to the highest bidder, whatever rhetoric of ‘liberation’ they care to espouse. Indeed, so ingrained is the female expectation of marrying a male of high income and status that men without resources are literally transparent to them. When ‘a shortage of men’ is translated correctly as ‘a shortage of men with more wealth than most women’ the true, vulpine values of post-feminist Anglo-American women are revealed.
Of course, a genuine feminist revolution would have ensured that women became indifferent to male income and other trappings of ‘patriarchy’. However, in the Anglosphere the retention of Puritanism with its attendant ‘Pedestal Syndrome’ neutralised any such possibility, allowing the Anglobitch to square her new rights with archaic expectations and privileges.
Nina Farewell: Spokesperson for the Ugly Sex
Nina Farewell’s The Unfair Sex views all males as stooges, cads and fools:
No genuine full blooded male is trustworthy (Farewell, 2004: 11)
This onerous book, published in 1953, is invaluable in that it probes Anglobitch attitudes and values, without the distorting filter of Sixties liberal rhetoric. Here we see the true Anglobitch attitudes towards sex, men and relationships:
Do not fall into a careless attitude of self-confidence in the foolish belief that you have no Mating Instinct, or that if you have, yours is under perfect control. As resolutely as you defend yourself from Man, you must defend yourself from the enemy within (Farewell, 2004: 51)
Made giddy by the altitudes of abstract discussion, flustered by his continual praises, she mechanically echoes his every word, oblivious of where he is leading her. Suddenly she finds herself agreeing as he scoffs at the conventions, the taboos, the restrictions that strive to strangle the Man-Woman relationship…
…She is no petty bourgeoise, no, no. She is a pseudo-intellectual noodle who will trade her birthright for a brief moment of cerebral glory (Farewell, 2004: 68).
Note that female sexual favours (and all associated benefits) are viewed as a ‘birthright,’ a license to status, wealth and privilege. Female sexuality is entirely economized, commercialized and disassociated with pleasure or humanity. In a psychological sense, it seems bizarrely divorced from the persona of its ‘possessor’, rather like an inanimate possession such as a Porsche, bungalow or potted plant. We are reminded of the hysteria that beset Anglo women in the absurdly puritanical Victorian era. Never was the link between female sexuality and objective economic factors in the Anglo-American context more self-apparent than in this polemic.
Farewell is especially keen to stress the dangers that seethe forever in foreign lands:
Even girls who speak several languages fluently are susceptible and easily won by men of other lands. Perhaps these linguistic young ladies think differently, when they converse in an alien tongue (Farewell, 2004: 102).
This is a telling insight into the problems of Anglo-American culture. Since the limits of language are the limits of thought, behaviour and its limits are inevitably shaped by linguistic factors. The entire Anglo-Saxon cultural ensemble hinges on language above all else (due to its dour Reformation origins).
Anglo females are supremely mono-dimensional. This mono-dimensionality is the key to the Anglobitch personality. It can be tersely described as a narrow urge to barter sex (or the promise of sex) in return for material advantage. The entire mind, personality and presentation are narrowly geared to this purpose: since language limits a person’s conceptual horizons, it is only to be expected that discoursing in another language will allow new concepts and behaviours to infiltrate the subject’s mindset. Anglo females who learn foreign languages are invariably softened and improved by the experience, whether or not they engage in erotic discussions with foreign males. It would seem that the English language embodies a particular value system that reinforces the Anglobitch mentality.
It is known that Anglo females are encouraged in polite and passive forms of speech:
Other writers have probed more deeply than this rather random selection of instances, and have argued that girls may be encouraged to use a more deferential and hesitant form of language than men. Some evidence suggests they may experience subtle pressure to use more ‘proper’ variants of language than men, as part of a general social pressure to render themselves more socially correct because they are women (Downing, 1980:109).
Most European languages have a defined distinction between intimate and official forms (the sie/du distinction) and it is inviting to think that confusion over this issue is what facilitates an unaccustomed ‘openness’ among Anglo-American females speaking a foreign tongue. Discourse in English, with which they are intimately familiar, allows them to retain the manipulative initiative viz a viz the studied nuances of speech. They can effortlessly maintain the well-attested ‘wall’ against intimacy and sexual abandon that defines all their interactions with men. Foreign speech throws them off balance into a maelstrom of intimate, expressive humanity entirely alien to Anglo-American females.
Indeed, this may be a universal phenomenon and could partly account for the apparent pliability of foreign women to Anglo males. Although this substantially derives from the cultural factors discussed in Anglobitch, it is to be observed that males all over the world extol the warmth of foreign women over their own (no doubt with good reason). Even the Anglobitch has her aficionados, especially in the Latin world.
Also, the Anglo female, in speaking an alien tongue, automatically discards the conceptual shackles associated with her usual role. Her conception of social reality - its values, rehearsals and assumptions - are embedded in the English language. When speaking an alien tongue she has no recourse to traditional concepts of sexual manipulation typical of Anglo culture. Notions like ‘taking’, ‘prick-teasing’ or ‘possessing’ are not embedded in foreign tongues, at least not in terms readily formulated by the Anglobitch. Without psychological recourse to these terms and the manipulative concepts that underpin them, she is bereft of conceptual defences to her natural instinct toward physical intimacy.
In particular, the Anglobitch association between sex and class is confounded by discourse in foreign tongues. The equations normally clicking away at the back of her mind (wherein she objectifies men as disposable meal-tickets, as mere resources to be manipulated by the promise of sex) are dispelled by the novelty of speaking in an alien vernacular. Language is a conceptual ensemble embracing attitudes and values as much as vocabulary and grammar. The Anglobitch is thus shorn of the conceptual weapons she habitually uses to manipulate men when deprived of her native tongue. This is ultimately why engaging in conversation with foreigners throws her off-balance into the arms of unaccustomed passion.
Consider also that foreigners seldom express themselves verbally alone: their speech is augmented by gestures, postural changes and, most of all, by touching. Touching in Anglo Saxon culture (especially England) is comparative rare, with connotations of close intimacy entirely alien to Latins (or indeed, anyone else). The stiff, formal undertone of the culture inhibits any kind of sensual self-expression. English people have the largest physical comfort zone in the world. This well-observed difference between puritanical Anglo Saxons and other peoples renders the Anglobitch susceptible to unfamiliar physical overtures from foreign males, which disorientate her and expose her to sexual infiltration.
Let us return to Farwell’s exegesis:
Flirting is the royal road to matrimony. It is the means by which you can so possess a man that he will crave more and more of you – and, in fact, all of you – which, of course, you are much too clever to give, except in exchange for a wedding ring (Farewell, 2004: 163-4).
The official sanction of Marriage highlights the link between Anglo-American cultural authority and Anglobitch privileges – which we shall now consider in greater detail.
The Circle Closes
The US Government has recently taken steps to prevent American men from marrying foreign women. In the US, at least 60% of marriages fail, with the woman receiving the lion’s share of all financial proceeds. By contrast, marriages between American men and foreign women are far more successful, with a lower divorce rate (15% at most). The titular reason for this ban is that several foreign women have been murdered in such marriages (the vast confirmed total of three since 1995). Even the 1999 INS (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service) report that underpinned the legislation admits that less than 1% of abuse cases can be clearly attributed to the international mail order bride industry (USCIS 2007). Hence this excuse holds no water since, proportionally, far more American women are murdered within abusive relationships. But statistical realities count for little when Anglo-American feminism needs to prevent the ‘Bountification’ of American men:
Such tragedies make for powerful headlines and fine political oratory, and in January, with Washington State, Missouri, Texas, and Hawaii all having already passed laws aimed at protecting foreign brides, President Bush signed the International Marriage Broker Regulation Act of 2005, or IMBRA. Under the new law, which a marriage broker is challenging in court, IMBs (International Marriage Bureaus) falling under U.S. jurisdiction would be required to provide prospective brides with detailed information on any client requesting their information, including a search of federal and state sex-offender registries and a copy of the client’s stated marital and criminal background (Garin, 2005).
IMBRA is part of the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) and the signature legislation of an official feminist organization rather worryingly called ‘Legal Momentum’. Their whole opposition to foreign dating agencies hinges on the argument that international brides are subject to violence, exploitation and abuse by ‘violent’ and ‘dysfunctional’ American husbands. The only scientific study of foreign marriages conducted by Dr Robert Scholes for the INS in 1999 discredited these assumptions: men who seek foreign brides are typically highly educated, professionally successful, socially adept and politically conservative (USCIS 2007). They desire a traditional marriage, with a lower Divorce risk. All studies unwillingly concede that such men do not fit the stereotype of a lonely, abusive alcoholic routinely trotted out by Anglo feminists. And most mail-order brides are evading poverty and exploitation: emigration to the United States typically represents escape from feral males, prostitution and violence.
Of course, the real feminist animus against foreign marriages lies elsewhere. Simply put, those who frame such legislation know perfectly well that Anglo-American women are no longer acceptable marriage partners for solvent males. They also know that, given a choice, large numbers of American men would marry traditionalist foreigners rather than American women:
A few of the men paired off in animated, earnest conversations about life, marriage, women. “I’m not going to spend every bit of my life in America,” one was saying. “Because I am sick and tired of being blamed for everything – the white man, you’re all responsible for everything. And American women are just rude, obnoxious. I won’t marry another American woman. I won’t do it. I’ll stay single first.” (Garin, 2005)
With no rational reason for the ban, we must conclude that the US authorities are dimly becoming aware that American men prefer foreign womanhood to the Anglobitch. But why should this be such a problem to them?
Throughout this study we have generally accepted that the Anglobitch phenomenon is somewhat ‘accidental’, having been shaped by chance historical events. Here, however, we have clear proof of Anglo-American political authorities actively seeking to maintain the Anglobitch’s stranglehold. The authorities in Anglo-America are ‘on the run’: their misguided policies have alienated men to such an extent that they now resort to coercion, lies and other terror tactics to ‘ration’ men’s relationships away from traditional foreign women towards Anglobitches alone. And Anglo feminists themselves are central to this agenda: they recognize that expanding the erotic choices of males across the Anglosphere will weaken their own monopoly on sex, overthrowing the puritanical social contract and truly liberating men for the first time. The whole Anglobitch sense of entitlement, contempt and casual misandry – in short, ‘the pedestal syndrome’ – faces imminent obliteration. Is it any wonder that Anglo feminists now stoop to underhand tactics to fight the influx of foreign brides?
Another strand in the feminist assault on international dating agencies is the unsubstantiated claim that they informally traffic sex-workers into the country (Naraya, 1995). Even this specious argument is motivated by self-interest. Anglo-American women derive their privileges from sex being ‘rationed’: if sex lost its scarcity value their accustomed pedestals would be removed. This explains the feminist hysteria about ‘sex-trafficking’: their concern is not for the women trafficked as sex workers, but losing their own privileged status. All the rhetoric about international dating agencies exploiting the power disparities between rich and poor or men and women is just a smoke-screen to maintain this status. Anglo feminism in any case has a long history of racism and elitism, which utterly discredits feminist statements on these issues.
Mila Glodava and Richard Onizuka’s study, Mail Order Brides: Women for Sale (1994) is often cited by the authorities as a ‘scholarly’ source of justification for IMBRA. This feminist polemic’s contribution to the debate largely focuses on how foreign dating agencies create ‘unrealistic’ romantic aspirations for the participants. Well, if that were the case (and it is by no means proven, only asserted) why not ban the whole of the Anglo-American media? Michael Medved shows that the American film industry has a consistent preoccupation with the upper-middle class, libertines and ‘young people’ – a wildly unrepresentative sample of the American population, at best (Medved, 1993). American TV shows seldom depict the average middle or working class family: enormous emphasis is placed on the fabulously rich and impossibly beautiful, alternative sexual lifestyles, wealthy career criminals and, of course, ‘young people’. The elderly, the poor and the conventional are conspicuous by their near total absence. All these media products surely erect far more ‘unrealistic expectations’ than the most imaginative foreign dating agency: why, then are they not banned? Or do the Anglo-American authorities like to pick and choose their ‘unrealistic’ objects of censure?
Speaking of arrant hypocrisy, the United States prides itself as the world’s most consistent capitalist nation. If American men choose a foreign bride over an Anglobitch, is this not merely capitalist freedom of choice? Why should capitalism be allowed to operate in the field of consumer goods, but not in bride-selection? If a consumer prefers a Porsche over a Ford Mercury, that is his privilege as a free consumer. Why should his elective autonomy be compromised when choosing a wife?
Aside from a reflexive desire to defend the existing order, is there any practical reason for the U.S. authorities’ rabid opposition to foreign dating agencies?
Divorce is part of a redistributionist economic policy enacted against Anglo-American men. Men who undergo divorce essentially have to sign over 70% of their assets to the female. In this manner, most wealth in the US has passed into women’s hands. In a very real sense, the Anglobitch and the institutions that support her are an underhand taxation policy that takes wealth from the hardworking and astute and gives it to the idle and spendthrift. In itself, this should have little economic impact, in that wealth would ultimately be redistributed by taxation anyway. However, Divorce prevents males from ever achieving financial independence, guaranteeing their indebted labour for life. Divorced males are the most prone to ill-health, suicide and abbreviated longevity. This is little wonder, as they are essentially highly productive, indentured slaves. This is the difference made by Divorce to the Anglo-American economy, shackling men to support needless over-consumption and over-production on the part of parasitic ex-partners.
Hence the Anglobitch issue is economic as much as it is cultural or political. Anglo-American Governments must necessarily inhibit the sexual or marital options open to males in order to sustain themselves. A sharp drop in the Divorce rate would have enormous repercussions on the US economy and its rapacious ethos of ‘infinite growth’.
Citations
Burn, Gordon (2001): Happy Like Murderers. Faber and Faber, UK.
Carey, John (1992): The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Prejudice Among the Literary Intelligentsia, 1800-1939. Faber and Faber.
Dworkin, Andrea (1983): Right Wing Women: The Politics of Domesticated Females. The Women’s Press Ltd., London.
Dworkin, Andrea (1997): Intercourse, Free Press, US.
Carey, John (1992): The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Prejudice Among the Literary Intelligentsia, 1800-1939. Faber and Faber.
Dworkin, Andrea (1983): Right Wing Women: The Politics of Domesticated Females. The Women’s Press Ltd., London.
Dworkin, Andrea (1997): Intercourse, Free Press, US.
Dworkin, Andrea (1990): Pornography: Men Possessing Women. E P Dutton; Reprint edition., US
Farewell, Nina (2004): The Unfair Sex, Icon Books, UK
Available from United States Customs and Integration Services: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=9ba5d0676988d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=2c039c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD [accessed 5th May 2007].
Farewell, Nina (2004): The Unfair Sex, Icon Books, UK
Available from United States Customs and Integration Services: http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=9ba5d0676988d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD&vgnextchannel=2c039c7755cb9010VgnVCM10000045f3d6a1RCRD [accessed 5th May 2007].
Garin, Kristoffer A (2006): A Foreign Affair, Harper’s Magazine, June 2006.
Glodava, Mila, and Richard Onizuka (1994) Mail-Order Brides: Women for Sale. Fort Collins, Colorado: Alaken, Inc.
Narayan, Uma (1995) Male-Order Brides: Immigrant Women, Domestic Violence, and Immigration Law. Hypatia, 10:1 (Winter): 104-120.
Glodava, Mila, and Richard Onizuka (1994) Mail-Order Brides: Women for Sale. Fort Collins, Colorado: Alaken, Inc.
Narayan, Uma (1995) Male-Order Brides: Immigrant Women, Domestic Violence, and Immigration Law. Hypatia, 10:1 (Winter): 104-120.
Pickstone, Ibid
Woolf, Virginia, edited by Anne Olivier Bell (1979): The Diary of Virginia Woolf, Vol. I: 1915-1919, Harcourt.
Woolf, Virginia, edited by Anne Olivier Bell (1981): The Diary of Virginia Woolf, Vol. 3: 1925-1930, Harvest/HBJ Book.
Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe (2003): Why There Are No Good Men Left: The Romantic Plight of the New Single Woman. Broadway Books, NY, USA
Woolf, Virginia (2000): Mrs Dalloway, Penguin, UK.
Woolf, Virginia, edited by Anne Olivier Bell (1979): The Diary of Virginia Woolf, Vol. I: 1915-1919, Harcourt.
Woolf, Virginia, edited by Anne Olivier Bell (1981): The Diary of Virginia Woolf, Vol. 3: 1925-1930, Harvest/HBJ Book.
Whitehead, Barbara Dafoe (2003): Why There Are No Good Men Left: The Romantic Plight of the New Single Woman. Broadway Books, NY, USA
Woolf, Virginia (2000): Mrs Dalloway, Penguin, UK.
Posts
It is important to keep them away from those eager, young, middle-class white women who might be demoralized at what is in store for them once they cease to be useful (Dworkin: 1983:155).
ReplyDelete..............................................
The future for the modern Anglobutch isn't gonna be a nursing home if the economy and inequality become severe. Young men might round up the expired wombs and do some damage; or Russia & China might invade the G7 cuntries and liberate the oppressed sub8 men.