Judith Mirville On Feminism and Female Rule

Fantastic. This is the example I was thinking of talking about an African culture where women pretty much run things.

Judith Mirville: There are quite a few traditional cultures like that where all the brainy and managerial work is done by women, and the men keep content with mere physical work and a more childish, happy-go-lucky personality throughout life. That is the case with the Bamileke culture of Cameroon. But these cultures, by their own avowal, never evolve and keep content with a minimalist standard of living. These cultures, though matriarchal in a technical sense, have no use for any form of vindictive feminism or other left-wing ideology.

Women as a rule are conservative, and the societies where they have the highest real say tend to see all form of progress and experimentation as negative. Instead they idolize a mythical past without technical progress.

Women as a rule when having been in power for a few generations tend also to devalue learning in the academic sense. In the societies where they alone access it, learning is devalued except as an utilitarian means of day-to-day economic survival or of social interaction, so such societies prefer to stay backward.

If feminism is to last as a dominant ideology in the West (which supposes it jettisons all references to any resentment-based progressive thought and also to non-standard sexuality), it will turn the countries it rules into underdeveloped ones, so the Winnipeg picture of the women construction business manager with an attaché-case with a construction worker as a servant is a wholly disconnected fantasy.

What you could get instead as a picture of things to come (in the halcyon case everything goes on well for the feminist cause and their beneficiaries grow wise) is a woman open-air market manager with men acting as cowboys in the background (if the Plains of Winnipeg still exist), the only modern businessperson in the further background being a Chinese or Arab. You may also see male tourist adventurers coming to visit Manitoba as a quite primitive country. Whenever women are really at the top for good, they have no taste for construction, and they prefer to look for a greater profit to be made by existing things that require no invention.

Anyway, right now in Winnipeg, construction workers, especially when they are part of criminal organizations and part-time bouncers, make more money and enjoy higher social status than the nerdy people they despise. The bosses they obey are quite often Sicilian ones who have no use for any feminist manager.

That supposes the feminists in question rediscover a morality and also connect to a traditional spirituality approving of their approach. Maybe an Amerindian one, who knows? But that is far from their present-day perspective: these modern feminists are intent on destroying all morality which they resent against as being of male nature. They may be acting at the behest of vested interests who want to establish a dictatorship based on pure corruption.

Once every whiff of past morality is destroyed, all that remains is self-interest, and even feminism ends up waning as all collective identity causes of the past fade away once the elites have effectively succeeded in rooting out all political idealism and no longer need Identity Politics to divide the masses, a kind of late Ottoman imperial regime is installed, and there are no longer state subventions to special interest groups.

Once public ideals are all destroyed, and all what remains is materialistic self-interest, what do these would-be princesses want? Marrying princes or billionaires, preferably from One and  Thousand Nights-style patriarchal countries such as Qatar or Colombia. The fiercest feminists will be the first to revert to pure gangster-style patriarchy. This just like the fiercest Jewish Marxists were the first to turn into the neocons. Most are now before moving even further to the Right as we see in Israel. That country is growing into another Iran or Qatar with a slightly different Semitic religion.

These feminists only object to idealistic men of ordinary revenues doing the kind of non-work they envy like university tenured professors. When they meet gangsters, even of low life, revenue and status, they enjoy having regular sex with them and settle for traditional family life.

Women are also more egoistical by temperament, and feminism can last as long as there is a progressive ideology justifying the cost of their subventions.

But feminism is not as progressive as it seems since normally women don’t side with their less fortunate sisthren. Even the present-day radical feminists don’t object to FGM as practiced in other cultures.

The reality untold is that sexual pleasure itself however carefully mastered is just contrary to any moral decency and ideal. There is such a thing as carnal sin.

13 Comments

Filed under Africa, Anthropology, Cameroon, Canada, Central Africa, Cultural, Culture, Ethics, Feminism, Gender Studies, Labor, North America, Philosophy, Politics, Radical Feminists, Regional, Social Problems, Sociology, Women

13 responses to “Judith Mirville On Feminism and Female Rule

  1. Yee

    Marx explained it with productivity, “Economic base determines the superstructure.”

    Productivity of men decides the society ruled by men. It makes more sense than explaining a society structure with “female characteristic”.

    The author sounds like a fiction writer.

    • YEE

      Females with a dominant personality have fantasies of being “unique” as oppose to power.

      Males understand this-we are of course experts in subtle manipulation to try and get sex-and most males who happen to be trying to get sex from a dominant female will go after this fantasy of uniqueness.

      • Yee

        I was trying to explain the reason for the failure of the matriarchal society in Cameroon described in the article.

        The author blames it on female characteristic, but I believe it was because it’s a males dominated economics but with a female rules.

        This, of course isn’t my invention. I just use Marx’s theory to explain it, “economic base determines the superstructure.” A male economics shouldn’t have a female social system. In Yunnan China, there’s also a matriarchal society, it works just fine, it’s a tourism economy.

        A woman with a dominant personality is often annoying, a shrew. There’re better ways to handle things for a woman, which work as well.

        • YEE

          Yes, shrewish. Clinton encapsulated this quality later in her life.

          Annoying as anything.

          But fantasies of “uniqueness” seem to be a preoccupation in the dominant female as a young woman. Then she becomes cynical, then shrewish, then almost impossible to be around in old age.

        • Yee

          That could be because they want to imitate men.
          I don’t know, I’ve never been in high enough position to order people around.

    • YEE

      Bear in mind that women have ideas of what is masculine and what is not that they inculcate in their male offspring.

      Most women do not want a son who is gay or acts like a girl, inherently. Some of a woman’s own ideas of masculinity that she likes will be projected upon her sons.

      Also there is not the stark difference in modern society because we are past the heavy lifting stage where males did all the hard work and women did the domestic tasks.

  2. JUDITH

    I lived in North Bay Ontario and middle-aged Italian women-their wiry black hair and long faces are a giveaway-mixed up on the low-levels of the mafia are hustlers, really calculating ones. The “hustle” never ends with Italian women from that subculture.

    She was in her forties and I was still slim and attractive in my 20’s so it was probably only sex but she was very manipulative.

    But I digress.

    Male views of sexuality and life tend to be black and white in general. They attempt to impose this on society.

    Female leaders have the advantage of usually entering the post in middle-age or older unlike men in their forties who can get votes on their boyish charm like Clinton or Trudeau.

    I’d add that apart from Palin most cannot fall back on their looks as male politicians like Kennedy or Clinton or Trudeau did…you girlish wiles are gone at 65.

    I’ve lived in countries with female leaders and to be honest the demarcation between their administration-Arroyo-and a male one was not noticeable.

    I don’t believe gender has too much of an effect on the politician or society.

    Thatcher and some other female leaders represented a shift from one political phase to another in society.

  3. JUDITH My Experience with Mob Connected Italian Females

    I knew them in North Bay, Ontario where the Italian mob laundered money for some reason. They owned some pizza places, grocery stores, emporiums.

    Italian women have wiry black hair and features that are easily identifiable. They all look like the woman who played Rocky’s wife.

    My experience with them is that they are hustlers who use charm to get what they want in a male-dominated society.

    The women in her 40’s to 50’s who ran the little skeevy grocery just wanted sex-Italians like younger sex partners as they get older regardless of gender-and she was manipulative.

    Manipulative hustlers. Quite charming.

  4. JUDITH

    One thing you notice as a male is that Alpha women have a bit of a weakness for flattery and sexual attention-but they can turn on a dime with any male who does not constantly inflate their ego.

    Some are gay and some are not gay. In any event they tend to be solipsistic and convinced of a kind of “uniqueness”.

    In addition to run-of-the-mill power Alpha women tend to believe they are particularly special.

  5. Jm8

    This is completely untrue of the Bamileke (it is strange that Mirville would choose them as an example of this). They are actually one of the more successful groups in Central Africa and men do and have traditionaly dominated in trade/crafts/cash crop farming (they are one of the more entrepreneurial groups in the region today) and politically (they are also patrilineal, like most tribes in Cameroon—and many, variably, in West Africa: the other Grassland tribes, the Beti/Fang, the Mandara mountain tribes).

    The Bamileke border Central and West Af, but in many ways (including their Bantu/Bantu related language (like that of the Cameroon grassland region) seem more to belong to the general Central African zone.

    Though in much of the Grassland region (of Cameroon, where the Bamileke—and Bamoum, Bafut, etc live) and and Central Africa, women tended to do more of the agriculture; or at least the more repetative agricultural tasks, and men the harder, heavier ones (whereas in much of West Africa—more than Central Af.—somewhat differently, there often was more of a gender balance in terms of farming tasks/labor, and with traditional farming being more male in some tribes—though this varied).

    And everywhere/most regions (in Africa) American columbian exchange crops had increased womens’ part in agriculture (like Cassava—much easier to grow than other crops—and maize, where native yams and millet had tended more male—or as more in Central Africa, more male/female), with men also later, in some places at least , being diverted more toward (lucrative) cash cropping—esp. in the colonial era, but sometime, a bit before (and more away from their traditional roles in staple food crops).

  6. Regarding feminist opposition or lack thereof to FGM and patriarchal practices in foreign societies: the author is most likely criticizing academic varieties of radical feminism which emerged during the context of the 1960s counterculture. This brand of radical feminism emerged in response to the conformist culture of the 1950s, and so by definition is a form of cultural Marxism in the sense that it is only concerned with the West.

    Behavior resembling radical feminism has been attributed to members of the poor and working class, often for no reason other than the fact that society doesn’t consider them conservative enough to be accepted. This type of feminism is unconcerned with foreign practices for a different reason, and the reason is that they lack the resources to deal with them.

    If reforming foreign societies is your primary goal, neoconservatism is one way to accomplish it, provided that you are willing to bear the cost of foreign military interventions. Progressivism can also accomplish this goal– Theodore Roosevelt wanted to see the expansion of Western culture into non-Western societies, which is why he wanted to keep India and Egypt under British rule.

    Environmentalism goes one step further in the sense that it wants to judge practices within their particular social and cultural context. In other words, what worked on the tropical savannah may not work in a post-industrial economy, and vice versa. This is not the same as relativism, because it acknowledges at least some practices as unacceptable.

    http://www.columbia.edu/saw2156/ReluctantLiberator.pdf

  7. Lesbian Pygmy femenist theory.

    It is true to say that female or male genital mutilation for that matter is ever really on the feminist agenda despite endless talks bout feminism being about equality (male genital mutilation?) or other cultures which practise the female kind but that never bothers feminist in the west either. Feminists have a very limited agenda. But I have to say I love them for their restraint. They are great.

  8. Your enemies practice male circumcision Muslim Indian.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s