In 1993 the 4 Non Blondes had a huge international hit with their song titled ‘What’s
up?’ Linda Perry, the vocalist and songwriter, sings in the first phrase: ‘I realised
quickly when I knew I should that the world was made up of this brotherhood of man
for whatever that means…” The song’s chorus furthers asks the pivotal question:
what’s going on? The question is obviously rhetorical but moreover a statement of
discontent.
Linda Perry became a songwriter mostly after her band split up and she was the
person behind Christina Aguilera’s hit song ‘Beautiful’ which in its music video had
the theme of self-acceptance and portrayed the two gay men kissing and the
transvestite. The conclusion is obvious – acceptance of the fringe, acceptance of the
‘other’.
I fear that in terms of acceptance we are starting to take one giant leap backwards.
And by ‘we’ I mean the so-called men’s movement.
There seems to be a phenomenon rearing its evil head. All around the world men
lead by other self-appointed preachers and moral leaders are revolting against
feminism and claiming back their god ordained place in society as head of the house
et cetera all under the auspices of religious dogma. They call this the so-called men’s
movement. Amongst these self-appointed moral leaders are James Dobson in the
USA and Angus Buchan in South Africa. Now with Angus I have still some sympathy
but with Dobson I have none.
This resurgence and revolt against feminism is proliferating at a rapid speed and I
fear that in terms of human rights we will be back in the dark Middle Ages.
The patriarchy thinks in terms of binary oppositions or dichotomies depending on
which nomenclature you prefer: Male versus female or the ‘one’ versus the ‘other’.
I was always flabbergasted when heterosexual people always wanted to know the
butch and femme in homosexual relationships. It is just a manifestation of the
obsession with dichotomies and the patriarchy’s utter disregard for equality and the
notion of the subservience of the female. Certain heterosexuals and of course the
patriarchy par excellence continue to impose these constructs upon everyone else to
simplify their lives. This is also known as old-fashioned stereotyping.
As James Dobson was quoted in the New York Times “tolerance and its first cousin
diversity is almost always code for homosexual advocacy.” It seems the patriarchy
has a huge gripe with tolerance and diversity. It just doesn’t quite fit into their strict
dichotomies.
Now more about James Dobson, he is the founder of the Focus on the Family
Foundation and has been spitting out conservative drivel since 1977. Note that
James Dobson is no reverend/priest/minister or religious scholar but a psychologist
with a very clear ulterior motive. Note also that the Focus on the Family Foundation
produces ready-to-play radio programmes an almost prêt-à-porter of the broadcast
industry. And also note that the vast majority of South African community radio
stations naively broadcast these conservative drivel much to the astonishment of the
liberal community.
Our nation is built on tolerance and diversity; our coat of arms says ‘unity in
diversity’ after all. Now why do these radio stations propagate division?
James Dobson also went on the most illogical tirade about the innocent and very
likable cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants. He was widely quoted that said
character was a product of the pink agenda (inferring gay mafia connotations) and
maintains that SpongeBob SquarePants will pollute the minds of the young and feed
them pro-homosexual messages.
***
The feminists and the LGBT community had a common enemy in the patriarchy and
its utter disregard for the rights of the 'other', this 'other' being everyone except the
heterosexual male.
I did a simple Google search on 'the evils of the patriarchy' and to my astonishment
most results lead to websites that proclaim the evil of feminism and the foundation
of their dislike is 'the bible tells us so'.
Ever since the advent of the modern constitutional democracy there has been the
vital and clear separation between church and state. Otherwise politically we would
be back in the Middle Ages.
The problem with the patriarchy is that it is the basis of many cultures and it is
sanctioned by religious texts hence it still being in practice today. The Patriarchy
imposes their strict dichotomies on everyone else thus subverting the rights of
everyone but the heterosexual male. The Patriarchy also has no tolerance for
equality and firmly believes in the subservience of the 'other' (historically the
female); they thus also regard women and the LGBT community as lesser persons
and would not grant them equal rights.
Then came 20 July 2008 and the Sunday Sun, a Media24 publication, with the now
infamous article by Jon Qwelane called ‘Call me names, but Gay is NOT okay...’ In an
instant not only the LGBT community was utterly insulted and disgusted but also
women in general. The article is the most ignorant factually incorrect drivel that was
printed in a long time. It seems that Jon Qwelane had no respect for historical fact,
as he couldn’t even get his facts straight regarding King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn.
The article is just another manifestation of the patriarchal notions of inequality since
in that same article he called for the constitution to be amended so that gay rights
would be taken away. That article prompted a massive flood of letters as have never
seen before to the Press Ombudsman and the South African Human Rights
Commission and countless people are now boycotting Media24 and cancelling
subscriptions, and not all of them are gay.
Then there are also the tragic stories of Sizakele Sigasa, Salome Masooa, Zoliswa
Nkonyana and Eudy Simelane. They all were brutally murdered, some raped and
tortured for no other reason but their sexual orientation. What they have in common
is that they were all female homosexuals, thus a double NO from the patriarchy.
Here we have the dichotomy of the ‘one’ versus the ‘other’ again, and obviously the
rights of the ‘other’ have fallen by the wayside; moreover the ‘other’ has been the
victims of attack as exemplified by the xenophobic attacks of 2008 and the brutal
murders of these four women.
I was fortunate enough to be introduced to Eudy Simelane’s mother at Joburg Pride
2008 at the wall of remembrance. When I tried to console her she said: ‘what can we
do?’ Powerful question in itself, and I think also a statement of discontent.
Louise Reardon, activist, writes the following:
“Adam and Eve. Two of our oldest and most intertwined human roots are organised
religion and patriarchy. The most evident and convenient way to ensure a man's
position in the patriarchal family image was to dictate and confine a woman's sexual
behaviour. Thus, man fulfilled his basic biological need – to “invest” in his own
children. This control was justified by the suggestion women were inferior, not to
mention, sexual temptations designed to corrupt men.
This ‘moral justification’ was – and is – masked and enforced in organised religion,
disguising it as sacred and divine laws, stating a woman's proper place is quietly at
home, hidden from the “man's world,” out there. These patriarchal, religious
structures inevitably spill over into how our societies function today. What has been
created is a male-dominant culture biased in its thinking and actions. Thus, such an
environment restricts and inhibits the equally important beliefs, roles and
contributions of women.
‘Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to
teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first
formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was
in the transgression.’ – 1 Tim. 2:11-14
Should we blame Eve entirely for stepping out in a search for truth, independence,
knowledge and free will? And, should Adam be absolved of all wrongdoing because
he was a mindless and submissive follower?”
Marilyn Twink, a devout LGBTIQ rights activist writes:
“Isn’t that how religion has always worked? Read the book, obey the book, believe
the book, and hit other people over the head with the book if they don’t believe it
too? If they don’t believe it, hate them and even kill them? Life by the book, death
by the book. Very intelligent indeed.”
Rosemarie Putnam Tong, author of Feminist Thought, writes the following:
“Simone de Beauvoir provided an ontological-existential explanation for women’s
oppression. In The Second Sex, one of the key theoretical texts of the twentieth century feminism, she argued that woman is oppressed by virtue of her otherness.
Woman is the other because she is not-man.”
Tong also further states that: “They claim woman’s otherness enables individual
women to stand back and criticise the norms, values, and practices that the
dominant male culture (patriarchy) seeks to impose on everyone, particularly those
who live on its periphery”
Amelia Jones, author of Feminism, Incorporated. Reading “postfeminism” in an antifeminism age, has the following to say: “The recent resuscitation of this patriarchal fantasy by the right – under the guise of ‘family values’ – is a symptom of the massive anxiety of the patriarchal system, a reaction formation against the
threatening incursion of women into the work force and, more recently, the political
arena.”
Jones continues: “With the cultural authority of anglo masculinity becoming
increasingly bankrupt as gay, feminist, and non-white cultures insistently articulate
counter-identities to this imaginary norm, the patriarchal commodity system urgently
seeks to reinforce predictable stereotypes of femininity... The properly postfeminist
woman shores up the crumbling infrastructure of conservative American ideology
during a time of economic crisis and confirms the ‘rightness’ of Republicanism, with
its moralizing intervention in personal relations and the destruction of the civil rights
of women, lesbians, gays, blacks, and others.”
Jones then explores the heart of this topic: “The other side of the postfeminist coin is
the so-called ‘men’s movement.’ Inspired by Robert Bly’s book Iron John (1990) the
men’s movement appropriates and perverts the rhetoric of feminism to urge the
contemporary American male to ‘find a voice of [his] own’ as a ‘Wild Man.’ Bly
laments the feminization of the American male at the hands of his female caretakers,
and calls for the extirpation of this spineless femininity through primitivist histrionics
and rituals of male bonding. The “Wild Man” immerses himself in mother nature and
beats the appropriated drums of his “primitive” brothers with big sticks to prove to
himself that, while he may be a ‘minority’ – as one xenophobic Time article argues,
referring to competition for jobs from non-white, non-male workers in ‘Get Set: Here
They Come!... White, U.S.-born males are a minority’ – his ability to dominate is
intact. As with the frantic declarations of the supposed death of the feminist subject,
the fact that masculinity (again, aggressively heterosexual and almost exclusively
anglo and upper middle-class) needs to be shored up proves again how intense is the
threat the vast numbers of working women of all sexual, racial, and class identities
currently pose to the patriarchal system (not to mention the threat posed by the
increasingly powerful identity politics of the non-heterosexual male).”
Just as these excerpts explain the situation in the USA, so these notions have shown
up here in South Africa as well. Think of the “Mighty Men” conferences. Sad and
immensely frightening and utterly detrimental to the egalitarian society we want to
build here.
And lastly, now I want to ask that anthem of a question that Linda Perry asked about
fifteen years ago: what’s going on?
References:
Jones, A. (Ed). 2003. The Feminism and Visual Culture Reader. Routledge
Tong, R. P. 1998. Feminist Thought. A more comprehensive introduction. Westview Press
up?’ Linda Perry, the vocalist and songwriter, sings in the first phrase: ‘I realised
quickly when I knew I should that the world was made up of this brotherhood of man
for whatever that means…” The song’s chorus furthers asks the pivotal question:
what’s going on? The question is obviously rhetorical but moreover a statement of
discontent.
Linda Perry became a songwriter mostly after her band split up and she was the
person behind Christina Aguilera’s hit song ‘Beautiful’ which in its music video had
the theme of self-acceptance and portrayed the two gay men kissing and the
transvestite. The conclusion is obvious – acceptance of the fringe, acceptance of the
‘other’.
I fear that in terms of acceptance we are starting to take one giant leap backwards.
And by ‘we’ I mean the so-called men’s movement.
There seems to be a phenomenon rearing its evil head. All around the world men
lead by other self-appointed preachers and moral leaders are revolting against
feminism and claiming back their god ordained place in society as head of the house
et cetera all under the auspices of religious dogma. They call this the so-called men’s
movement. Amongst these self-appointed moral leaders are James Dobson in the
USA and Angus Buchan in South Africa. Now with Angus I have still some sympathy
but with Dobson I have none.
This resurgence and revolt against feminism is proliferating at a rapid speed and I
fear that in terms of human rights we will be back in the dark Middle Ages.
The patriarchy thinks in terms of binary oppositions or dichotomies depending on
which nomenclature you prefer: Male versus female or the ‘one’ versus the ‘other’.
I was always flabbergasted when heterosexual people always wanted to know the
butch and femme in homosexual relationships. It is just a manifestation of the
obsession with dichotomies and the patriarchy’s utter disregard for equality and the
notion of the subservience of the female. Certain heterosexuals and of course the
patriarchy par excellence continue to impose these constructs upon everyone else to
simplify their lives. This is also known as old-fashioned stereotyping.
As James Dobson was quoted in the New York Times “tolerance and its first cousin
diversity is almost always code for homosexual advocacy.” It seems the patriarchy
has a huge gripe with tolerance and diversity. It just doesn’t quite fit into their strict
dichotomies.
Now more about James Dobson, he is the founder of the Focus on the Family
Foundation and has been spitting out conservative drivel since 1977. Note that
James Dobson is no reverend/priest/minister or religious scholar but a psychologist
with a very clear ulterior motive. Note also that the Focus on the Family Foundation
produces ready-to-play radio programmes an almost prêt-à-porter of the broadcast
industry. And also note that the vast majority of South African community radio
stations naively broadcast these conservative drivel much to the astonishment of the
liberal community.
Our nation is built on tolerance and diversity; our coat of arms says ‘unity in
diversity’ after all. Now why do these radio stations propagate division?
James Dobson also went on the most illogical tirade about the innocent and very
likable cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants. He was widely quoted that said
character was a product of the pink agenda (inferring gay mafia connotations) and
maintains that SpongeBob SquarePants will pollute the minds of the young and feed
them pro-homosexual messages.
***
The feminists and the LGBT community had a common enemy in the patriarchy and
its utter disregard for the rights of the 'other', this 'other' being everyone except the
heterosexual male.
I did a simple Google search on 'the evils of the patriarchy' and to my astonishment
most results lead to websites that proclaim the evil of feminism and the foundation
of their dislike is 'the bible tells us so'.
Ever since the advent of the modern constitutional democracy there has been the
vital and clear separation between church and state. Otherwise politically we would
be back in the Middle Ages.
The problem with the patriarchy is that it is the basis of many cultures and it is
sanctioned by religious texts hence it still being in practice today. The Patriarchy
imposes their strict dichotomies on everyone else thus subverting the rights of
everyone but the heterosexual male. The Patriarchy also has no tolerance for
equality and firmly believes in the subservience of the 'other' (historically the
female); they thus also regard women and the LGBT community as lesser persons
and would not grant them equal rights.
Then came 20 July 2008 and the Sunday Sun, a Media24 publication, with the now
infamous article by Jon Qwelane called ‘Call me names, but Gay is NOT okay...’ In an
instant not only the LGBT community was utterly insulted and disgusted but also
women in general. The article is the most ignorant factually incorrect drivel that was
printed in a long time. It seems that Jon Qwelane had no respect for historical fact,
as he couldn’t even get his facts straight regarding King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn.
The article is just another manifestation of the patriarchal notions of inequality since
in that same article he called for the constitution to be amended so that gay rights
would be taken away. That article prompted a massive flood of letters as have never
seen before to the Press Ombudsman and the South African Human Rights
Commission and countless people are now boycotting Media24 and cancelling
subscriptions, and not all of them are gay.
Then there are also the tragic stories of Sizakele Sigasa, Salome Masooa, Zoliswa
Nkonyana and Eudy Simelane. They all were brutally murdered, some raped and
tortured for no other reason but their sexual orientation. What they have in common
is that they were all female homosexuals, thus a double NO from the patriarchy.
Here we have the dichotomy of the ‘one’ versus the ‘other’ again, and obviously the
rights of the ‘other’ have fallen by the wayside; moreover the ‘other’ has been the
victims of attack as exemplified by the xenophobic attacks of 2008 and the brutal
murders of these four women.
I was fortunate enough to be introduced to Eudy Simelane’s mother at Joburg Pride
2008 at the wall of remembrance. When I tried to console her she said: ‘what can we
do?’ Powerful question in itself, and I think also a statement of discontent.
Louise Reardon, activist, writes the following:
“Adam and Eve. Two of our oldest and most intertwined human roots are organised
religion and patriarchy. The most evident and convenient way to ensure a man's
position in the patriarchal family image was to dictate and confine a woman's sexual
behaviour. Thus, man fulfilled his basic biological need – to “invest” in his own
children. This control was justified by the suggestion women were inferior, not to
mention, sexual temptations designed to corrupt men.
This ‘moral justification’ was – and is – masked and enforced in organised religion,
disguising it as sacred and divine laws, stating a woman's proper place is quietly at
home, hidden from the “man's world,” out there. These patriarchal, religious
structures inevitably spill over into how our societies function today. What has been
created is a male-dominant culture biased in its thinking and actions. Thus, such an
environment restricts and inhibits the equally important beliefs, roles and
contributions of women.
‘Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to
teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first
formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was
in the transgression.’ – 1 Tim. 2:11-14
Should we blame Eve entirely for stepping out in a search for truth, independence,
knowledge and free will? And, should Adam be absolved of all wrongdoing because
he was a mindless and submissive follower?”
Marilyn Twink, a devout LGBTIQ rights activist writes:
“Isn’t that how religion has always worked? Read the book, obey the book, believe
the book, and hit other people over the head with the book if they don’t believe it
too? If they don’t believe it, hate them and even kill them? Life by the book, death
by the book. Very intelligent indeed.”
Rosemarie Putnam Tong, author of Feminist Thought, writes the following:
“Simone de Beauvoir provided an ontological-existential explanation for women’s
oppression. In The Second Sex, one of the key theoretical texts of the twentieth century feminism, she argued that woman is oppressed by virtue of her otherness.
Woman is the other because she is not-man.”
Tong also further states that: “They claim woman’s otherness enables individual
women to stand back and criticise the norms, values, and practices that the
dominant male culture (patriarchy) seeks to impose on everyone, particularly those
who live on its periphery”
Amelia Jones, author of Feminism, Incorporated. Reading “postfeminism” in an antifeminism age, has the following to say: “The recent resuscitation of this patriarchal fantasy by the right – under the guise of ‘family values’ – is a symptom of the massive anxiety of the patriarchal system, a reaction formation against the
threatening incursion of women into the work force and, more recently, the political
arena.”
Jones continues: “With the cultural authority of anglo masculinity becoming
increasingly bankrupt as gay, feminist, and non-white cultures insistently articulate
counter-identities to this imaginary norm, the patriarchal commodity system urgently
seeks to reinforce predictable stereotypes of femininity... The properly postfeminist
woman shores up the crumbling infrastructure of conservative American ideology
during a time of economic crisis and confirms the ‘rightness’ of Republicanism, with
its moralizing intervention in personal relations and the destruction of the civil rights
of women, lesbians, gays, blacks, and others.”
Jones then explores the heart of this topic: “The other side of the postfeminist coin is
the so-called ‘men’s movement.’ Inspired by Robert Bly’s book Iron John (1990) the
men’s movement appropriates and perverts the rhetoric of feminism to urge the
contemporary American male to ‘find a voice of [his] own’ as a ‘Wild Man.’ Bly
laments the feminization of the American male at the hands of his female caretakers,
and calls for the extirpation of this spineless femininity through primitivist histrionics
and rituals of male bonding. The “Wild Man” immerses himself in mother nature and
beats the appropriated drums of his “primitive” brothers with big sticks to prove to
himself that, while he may be a ‘minority’ – as one xenophobic Time article argues,
referring to competition for jobs from non-white, non-male workers in ‘Get Set: Here
They Come!... White, U.S.-born males are a minority’ – his ability to dominate is
intact. As with the frantic declarations of the supposed death of the feminist subject,
the fact that masculinity (again, aggressively heterosexual and almost exclusively
anglo and upper middle-class) needs to be shored up proves again how intense is the
threat the vast numbers of working women of all sexual, racial, and class identities
currently pose to the patriarchal system (not to mention the threat posed by the
increasingly powerful identity politics of the non-heterosexual male).”
Just as these excerpts explain the situation in the USA, so these notions have shown
up here in South Africa as well. Think of the “Mighty Men” conferences. Sad and
immensely frightening and utterly detrimental to the egalitarian society we want to
build here.
And lastly, now I want to ask that anthem of a question that Linda Perry asked about
fifteen years ago: what’s going on?
References:
Jones, A. (Ed). 2003. The Feminism and Visual Culture Reader. Routledge
Tong, R. P. 1998. Feminist Thought. A more comprehensive introduction. Westview Press
