| |
(These views are hosted here because of their
philosophical interest. They do not represent the views of the New Zealand
Equality Education Foundation or -- probably -- of any member of the
New Zealand Equality Education Foundation. Because the author is not
a native-speaker of English, and because he sent his essay in as a handwritten
letter, his meaning has at times been interpreted by the editor (Peter
Zohrab).)
My opinion is as follows: there are three
main directions in the heterosexual Men's Movement (there is also a
strong men's homosexual movement, but we are not referring to this)
:
- Patriarchalistic;
- Masculinistic; and
- Misogynistic.
They can cross each other and combine, but they are different from
each other.
The first direction (Patriarchalistic)
is against any "women's rights". There are two subdivisions here:
- Muslim;
- Hellenic.
The Muslim strand considers that the modern
Western World is abnormal, states that Equality
is arithmetical, and wrongly considers that the Muslim woman has all
the rights which she should have according to Nature, and so on ...
The Hellenic strand considers that women
are by nature lower in a spiritual and intellectual sense and that they
can't have equality with men for this reason... I can say that I'm a
Patriarchalist in the Hellenic sense...
The second direction is Masculinism, which
is not against women's rights, but just wishes to achieve Equality.
And the third direction is Misogyny, when
you simply feel some kind of hatred for the female sex, and so on ...
It's worth pointing out that this third direction usually appears in
the context of Feminists' insulting men and of the generally unfair
activities and behaviour of Feminist women...
In the days whe the Feminist movement began, everybody spoke about
Men's Monopoly in Politics, Economy, &
Culture... But nobody mentioned that there were some Women's
Monopolies -- in the Ideal of (heterosexual) Beauty, Rights over
children in the family and in society, and, for example, freedom from
obvious military service... So this problem
of the existence of Women's Monopoly is a real one in the modern world...
I'd like to pay attention another time to the problem of the Ideal
of Beauty: this does not mean the problem of homosexuality. No, the
fact is we don't think only lesbians speak about women's Ideal of Beauty,
so why must we think only gays speak about men's Ideal of Beauty ?
I think this is a "mixed" problem, which could be taken up by gays
(and they do so), and by heterosexual men, too... We shouldn't adore
only Venus of Melos, but also Apollo of Belvedez; and a man shouldn't
be shy of his nudity, but should be proud of his naked body -- no less
than a woman. And, by the way, he should have the opportunity to earn
money through it ...
We must remember, after all, that the Best Culture
in the World -- the Ancient Greek culture -- considered Men's
Beauty higher than women's, and it was precisely the Ancient Classical
Greeks culture which was the most Patriarchalistic,
though not in an Islamic sense.
Moreover, women, having got 50% of the rights in some
areas, started practising discrimination against men,
wishing to get even more than 50%... and in some lands and in some areas
they have got 70%, 80%, and even 90%. For example, in secondary schools.
And, lastly, there is the problem of women's privileges
... There are plenty of little, tiny privileges which they have had
up till now and don't want to lose... I mean everything from "polite
behaviour in the presence of a lady" to talk of their being the "weaker
sex", and so on...
So I see now three main problems for our
struggle: Women's monopoly, Discrimination against men, and women's
privileges. But, generally, our time is the time of a mortal struggle
for men's right to preserve the true Culture and Civilisation which
we men have created ... fight against the coming barbarity of the degenerate
sex of women, which created nothing, but would like to use everything
and, even, to dominate... But we'll win !
As regards the situation in modern Russia, I'd say as follows: Russia
in the period of the USSR was ruled by dictators, but the situation
was "de facto" (not officially and not "de jure", of course) Patriarchalistic,
in all areas of society... At any rate, no feminists existed... Feminism
was considered "bourgeois" and was not allowed in the anti-bourgeois
USSR... And, as you see, it was objectively better
for masculists and even for patriarchalists... There weren't any feminist
or masculinist groups.
Now there is a democratic republic... And what is the new situation
? The "de facto" patriarchalistic situation in all areas of society
has begun to disintegrate... There are plenty of feminist groups all
over the country ... plenty of feminist magazines and newspapers, and
there are rather many feminist programmes on national TV... By the way,
the staff of Russian TV is now 75% female, so even at this moment men
are oppressed...
On the other hand, no masculist group has appeared during the long
period of ten years of democracy ... So, it could perhaps be termed
"selective" democracy ... Except, maybe, one single group -- the so-called
"Black Knight" (?)... about the existence of which I've got to know,
mostly, not from the Russian, totally feminist, mass media, but from
a German Russian-language radio programme ... I've got to know, too,
that this group tried to speak on TV and to stand up for men's rights,
but was not allowed ...
We haven't so far got our own magazines, newspapers, or TV programmes,
though some attempts at TV programmes have been made . There have been,
at any rate, two (masculinist, essentially) programmes, which have since
been closed down:
- "Club of Frank Men". Its producer Komissarov
now runs a TV programme on the second Russian state TV chanel, but
it's an absolutely neutral one, called "My Family", dealing with family
problems, and so on...
- Another programme was "Men's Club", and
its producer was Krupenin -- now this programme,
too, has been closed down...
Perhaps, the reason they were closed down was financial, rather than
ideological, but in view of the entire nature of modern Russian TV,
which has been described above, and the enormous presence of feminist
TV programs, this is not likely to have been the case...
On the other hand, the financial question is another very important
aspect of Masculism and Patriarchalism in Russia... Although the feminists
have got a whole lot of business enterprises through and in so-called
little or small businesses, and hold their feminist business conferences
on various questions relating to the "development of women's business
initiatives", and so on, Masculism in Russia hasn't got anything similar...
By the way, Russian feminists in the first half of the '90s even
got their own faction in the National Parliament, but, God bless, they
lost it in 1995... Russian women, who supported them before, didn't
continue to do so in the second part of the '90s...
As to a Masculist political faction in the National Parliament, it
exists only as a dream...
Now, I'd like,to say a little about events in Central Asia. They
are very important for all masculists and patriarchalists... Afghanistan
was the single, 100% patriarchalist state in the world... There are
some tribes and little nations which have the same level of patriarchalism
(some in Oceania, Africa, and maybe Latin America), but they have not
got supreme political power as the Taleban had... Even Iran is only
50% patriarchalistic, because the real patriarchalists have got one
half of political power there...
I see Mullah Omar as some sort of Trotsky of Islam... I'll explain
... Trotsky said that the Russian Revolution had to become some sort
of brushwood for the World Fire of Revolution ... Lenin said that the
Bolsheviks had to make their conquests in one single country... Mullah
Omar wished to spread his style of Islam all over Central Asia and lost
his State... I think this Omar was a silly person... and he is responsible
for the collapse of what was maybe the first completely patriarchalist
state in the modern world... In practice, he acted as the dictator of
Afghanistan, as a stool-pigeon. At any rate, his activity appeared provocative.
As to terror, it's not effective -- it leads to nothing. You always
need to have millions of people rise up if you wish to change something...
Michael Nicolai Motorin,
Poste Restante Department,
Central Telegraph,
Moscow 13009,
Russia
|
