France, Coordination of Anarchist Groups Lyon - Article of
the collective Stop Masculinism dating from January 2015 (fr)
[machine translation]
The masculinist coming out parts and labor (PMO) ... ... From the critique of technology
to the reaffirmation of the patriarchal order ---- For several years, we try to
understand, the better to fight one of the forms of anti-feminism that developed in
France: the "Masculinism". We denounce the rise of groups that defend the interests of men
and whose ideology is built around a fantasy that can be summarized as follows: feminism
has gone too far, the company has "feminized" and women took power. masculinity is in
"crisis" and the "real" men have become losers. ---- Symbolically castrated, they lost
their identity markers and their place in society. ---- Masculinists do not just deny the
existence of patriarchy as a social system of domination, arguing that equality between
men and women is "already there". Their overflowing imagination goes further, producing a
fiction: the "matriarchal" society like symmetrical to the patriarchal society; a society
in which women and called feminine values enslave men. Contrary to what one might think,
this worldview is not only defended by some macho activists.
In the current reactionary context, it spreads by transcending traditional divides "right"
/ "left." And right now, masculinism "left" is doing well. No need to get lost on the
forums of "perched fathers," or even to fader 540 pages of the latest bestseller Zemmour.
On the left of the left, specifically in some libertarian circles, anti-industrial and
radical environmentalists, the worst of what the masculinist ideology can produce.
Recently, an example has touché.es us close. "Political people" Grenoble Parts and
labor[1] (which will shorten here "PMO") published an anti-feminist text content,
homophobic and transphobic not gone unnoticed in militant circles. Entitled "This is not a
woman. About queer twisted ", that derogatory text is a violent charge against individuals
and groups (women, lesbians, gay, trans, intersex ...). Ill-concealed behind a critic
sophisticated appearance Queer[2], this pamphlet is in reality nothing but an attack on
the foundations of contemporary feminist thought has highlighted the fact that the
naturalization of "differences" between women and men used to justify the domination of
the latter. If anti-feminism PMO was for many an open secret, this text marks a further
step in its reactionary drift. Unfortunately, touch the bottom does not always help to
rise to the surface.
In this text, the No. 1 enemy of PMO so this is the "twisted queer." This would lead the
world alongside its allies transhumanists.[3] "Born of middle Homo New York universities,"
it would be only a "scion of the bourgeois technocrats" who "despise and crush the people
from below". This people, the "crooked queer" would want to "re-educate", hence "its
infiltration efforts in education, from kindergarten to university".[4] Also in this text,
PMO lambasted and denounced: the transsexuel.le.s / transgender, that "surgeons equip or
dispose as appropriate, of a hated or desired penis' intersex (" We are not all intersex,
just as we are not all club feet "), the" LGBT lobby "and" gay and lesbian elite "that
would have a stranglehold on the world of fashion and would" impose homonormalité ". The
list of citations of this ilk would be too long. We invite the most courageux.ses to form
their own opinion by reading "This is not a woman." We know that parts and labor has made
a habit of disseminating provocative and insulting texts, fun to watch the reactions of
un.es and other scientists as they fight observe guinea pigs in a cage. This game does not
amuse us. Our intention is not to take to remove the point by point, the entire contents
of the text as confused as despising, which reveals a profound ignorance of the issues
raised. We wish however to focus on the excerpts that sign the masculinist coming out of PMO.
There will no longer: women took power, men dominated.
"What is it that drives men? Forcing them to stand out, to succeed, to fight (them), to be
strong, beautiful, rich, clever, wise, funny, artists, etc. ? Why do they have to prove
their value, or failing invent anti-values? The humor, sensitivity, casually? (Sartre,
Gainsbourg, Woody Allen) Why do they have to be brave? That earned them this value in the
end? A situation. A position in the pack. Access to women. In reproduction. In sexual
satisfaction for those who are not crazy ephebes or misogynist terrified of the dreaded
vagina dentata. "P.16
So enter the heart of the matter with a distressing idea according PMO it is women who
create competition between men and "forcing[s] to fight (them)." Halfway between
anthropology counter and animal documentary, PMO offers us an updated version of the
stereotypical scenario of amorous conquest pitting enterprising men and women spectators
male rivalry. Thus, for PMO, if a certain number of men act silly and violent manner that
is "access" to women, objects of desire (for the "reproduction" and "sexual
gratification"). If they were not there, nothing would justify such behavior. So it's
their fault. By this logic, men kill thousands because women, drive too fast because women
drink too much alcohol because women, etc. They would simply not choose to do otherwise.
Make women responsible male behavior caused by patriarchy falls within the typical process
masculinist: reverse the sense of responsibility and justify violence of the kind of
system. But unless defy logic, which derives from a system designed by and for men can not
reasonably be blamed on women.
"From a feminist perspective, today born man is born guilty, if mortify continually and
mitigate this original sin by contrition of life and perpetual humility bidding. Women now
make the master role, power, while men must find new ways to show them their value. "P.17
In this excerpt, the main idea of the masculinist discourse is explicit: man is now a
victim (women who now have the "master role, authority"). It is understood that feminist
(whatever that matter) they do expect men rug ("humility overbidding") feel guilty of
being born men, and repent forever ("a contrition of life "). This is of course a cliché
in this anti-feminist discourse that seeks two things: getting feminists for torturers and
prevent men to be aware of the privileges granted to them by the mere fact of being born a
man in a patriarchal society. To demonstrate this thesis masculinist, PMO advance "proof".
Women have the power, at least for power, and not least power in love relationships.
"Today, as yesterday, it is not men who place their favor - or not (...) A popular cliché
says: 'The men propose, women have'. If there is an area where 'the asymmetry of the
categories' determines a hierarchy, it is in loving relationships, one of the major
business, otherwise the big deal humans. One area where Love is king, where you will be
queen. Where men will always be the knights-servants of their mistresses-women
(dominated), following the model of courtly literature extended to the whole of society.
Passionate slaves; enthusiasts of voluntary servitude; masochists (Sacher Masoch. Venus in
Furs) "p.17
As an argument, it was only right by a glorification of the "popular cliché" which
unfortunately die hard. PMO takes up the patriarchal myth of courtly love which wants men
/ female relations are governed by the codes of the gallant seduction that put man in a
position of vassal the most devoted lovers - not to say Submitted - its beautiful, and
that alternates between frustration and total availability. It must be well understood,
says so trivial, that women "hold men by the balls." Whatever the reality, eventually. No
matter that women are pressured to give in to male demands and to be sexually available.
Never mind that women's sexuality is often constrained sexuality and female desire is
still largely subordinate to male desire, as shown in the sexual practices studies[5]. PMO
seems to ignore this reality. Yet a simple attention to sexual interactions of his
contemporaries could have shed light on the subject. While still too often men needed, how
to afford to say that "women have"? This kind of clichés masculinist is twofold: 1.
obscure the cause of most sexual violence: the injunction against women to satisfy male
desire, and 2. clear the violent men who have "not been able to" bear their sexual
frustrations. PMO against fantasies about men "passionate slaves," we must remember the
systemic nature and extent of male violence against women? 83,000 women are victims of
rape and attempted rape every year in France. In 70% of cases, the victim knows the
perpetrator (spouse, ex, relative ...). One woman dies every 3 days at the hands of her
husband.[6] Knights-servants, you say?
It was better before: the nostalgia of a virile time when women were submitted.
"Our society where technology devalue virility and promote the emancipation of women, it
is no longer to marvel at women drivers drones and bombers, scientists, computer
scientists, executives, entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors, journalists, politicians, etc.
Paternal authority abolished, women, key to eighteen years old, free to study, work,
sexuality, having children or not, flip gradually in all areas and at all levels of the
hierarchy, male supremacy. "P.16
What you have to understand this passage? PMO spends his time criticizing the technology.
But PMO told that these same advances lead to devalue virility and promote women's
emancipation. Should we conclude that these developments are, PMO, negative? The real
values, masculine values are threatened: that even a classic theme masculinist. As for
women, they take a little too much freedom - this is probably due to technocapitalism and
machinery (washing machine, perhaps?).
This is worrying, we should worry about it. We understand that these changes are negative.
We deduce that should defend sexual chacun.e social order that remains in place and we do
not lose our benchmarks. Rest assured that PMO. The "male supremacy" is not about to be
reversed. As the dominant group, men still have the social power and power over women.
Suggest that male supremacy gradually disappears to deny the problem and delegitimize
those (and those) who continue to struggle against patriarchy. This is the very reason for
the myth of "equality already there." PMO feeds the anti-feminist myth making his list of
professions that are now sufficiently feminized so we no longer more into "raving". Recall
that the bomber pilots women are not legion. Underrepresented in most cities and business
functions (IT, business leaders ...), they are statistical anomalies, exceptions to the
rule (in France: 17% of engineers and 10% of students in schools of computer. 6% of the
leaders of CAC40 companies, 3% of fighter pilots).
Most paying jobs, prestigious activities, and reporting functions are always male
sanctuaries. And when a business is "feminine" is because men are deserting and he loses
his social prestige. As for the glass ceiling, it is not a myth, as opposed to "equality
already there." One more raves before the bad times PMO. Noted only that this rhetorical
notes of a classic strategy masculinist: Putting the margin for the center, the
exceptional case for the standard. We hear a woman fighter pilot: and suddenly, women are
everywhere, they are the ones who have the power.
In our case, we do not want there to be more women company directors or bomber pilots. We
want a society without domination. But not to recognize that inequality between men and
women persist is a serious positioning. Than women (especially if they are not white and
paper) up the bulk of the poor battalion menial jobs and suffered partial times does not
seem to bother too busy PMO to convey his fantasies about women in power . What to say,
finally, about the passage on "the abolition of paternal authority? PMO regret it the good
old days of the reign of Pater familias and education the hard way? If indeed paternal
authority, as a legal term has disappeared in favor of "parental authority" in fact
paternal dominance over women and children persists. The patriarchal ideology wants this
man who embodies authority in SA family and sets the framework for SES children.
Masculinists tell us that without the presence of man and of his authority "natural"
children become delinquents, drug addicts, or worse, homosexuals.[7] This ideology
continues to justify certain forms of violence by enclosing men in this image of the
bogeyman, better able to deliver blows to give love. Is it this that PMO feels nostalgic?
Save the men (heterosexual): The male, only bulwark against the lack of differentiation of
the sexes and sexualities.
"But of course,[artificial reproduction of the human] also allow androphobes, révulsées by
the ignoble phallus perfossor, make girls without men appeals. "P.23
For PMO - and masculinist - men are to be pitied. The women took their places and
traditional male values are disqualified and ridiculed by feminists ("phalus perfossor").
But the worst is yet to come. The men could eventually simply be benched in the
reproduction process. Exit the male! Through reproductive technologies (Medically Assisted
Procreation, or "LDC") and the complicity of the bio-medical power, women (and queers!)
Would have the power to have children together or alone. Males happen to procreate, this
is an anxiety PMO shares with the defenders of the patriarchal order and the "traditional"
family. This fight against the "artificial reproduction of the human" (conducted
contemporaneously with authors more or less in the same line of thinking, such Alexis
Escudero[8] or Hervé Le Meur[9]) fits indeed in this masculinist imagination. We would
understand that women now have the means to respond "to the old desire of men to make son
without recourse to women." For them to do girls without men, it would become possible;
the perfect opportunity for feminists well supported by technology, for revenge, somehow.
PMA would be criticized because it removes the power to men in reproduction: after women's
access to contraception and abortion, access to all LDCs would complete the process. The
men would lose definitely control the fertility of women. That is what is properly
unbearable for masculinist like PMO.
"Where we see that the agro-chemical industry does not manufacture that obese and not
feminine as fish and crocodiles. "P.10
This passage clearly refers to chemical pollution (including hormonal) that could cause
the "feminization" or the "emasculation" of human males. This idea (which is also found in
Alexis Escudero) is based on scientific studies purporting to show the increase in sexual
abnormalities and increased fertility decline in advanced industrial societies: decrease
in the number and average sperm quality , sexual development problems of the embryo,
reduce testicular size ... The "endocrine disruptors," these molecules affect hormonal
balance and found in certain chemicals (phthalates or bisphenol A) present in packaging,
cosmetics, etc., would be the main culprits. If it should not underestimate the
seriousness of the problem, some as PMO suggests that possible "feminization of the case"
is the main threat. The worst to come would not be the end of humanity, but the arrival of
a humanity without male. A humanity in which all humans are women? horror! The issue of
reproductive disorders here serves to feed the fantasy of the disappearance of males. A
misogynist and masculinist vision underlies indeed this critique of "agro-chemical
industry" and our lifestyles.
"The male chromosome is" small "," thin "," Fragile "," weak and perhaps ephemeral "; he
keeps losing genes for 180 million years - the fact remains it 3%. It could disappear
within a few million years - or even faster if queer geneticists take charge of the
development and improvement of the human species. "P.11
"And the geneticist Jenny Graves to conclude" that the Y is no longer necessary to perform
these functions "male". "Good riddance, here! ... And take it in the balls, old
patriarchal heteronormative chromosome! "P.11
"This remains true to this day, only the union of male and female gametes, were it in a
test tube, can lead to the formation of an embryo. This perhaps will soon, if the feverish
research to produce embryos from gametes exclusively male or female bear fruit. Seen leap
for mankind which can then potentially get rid of one or other of its halves away with
sexual reproduction, develop a separate gender following limits society impose
homonormalité etc. "P.14
For PMO, the problem of the feminization of the species is not only the fact of the
industry. It would also be the result of evolution. This text takes us into a story of
very poor science fiction whose background is always the disappearance of the male. No
matter that it is loosely estimated in 3 million years, the key is to shudder. For PMO,
there would be a convergence of interests and views between different players: queers who
want to erase the boundaries between male and female, and between male and female;
agro-chemical industry that pollutes the environment; and transhumanists who dream of
augmented humans. In other words, we would be facing a mysterious alliance of
"androphobes" (masculinist other authors prefer to use the term "misandres" to describe
this supposed hatred of men) have in common hatred of life and nature. But this common
front is a fabrication.
If the end of the male remains a fiction, which by cons is real in these writings and
spirit of the authors, this is the panic of sexual differentiation, the old patriarchal
scarecrow. In other words, the enemies of MMS are those that promote gender confusion and
questioning the heterosexual norm. What is at stake is not the drama which one would have
us believe, that the destruction of the species, but the decline of a current radical
critique on the defense of male dominance.
[1] http://www.piecesetmaindoeuvre.com
[2] In English, "queer" means "shady", "weird." Originally used to insult people who do
not fit into the heterosexual norm (gay, lesbians, trans ...), the word has been reclaimed
by the latter to claim and assert that social position.
[3] The transhumanist lobby working to make the immortal human, through hybridization with
the machine.
[4] It is interesting to note that this idea is shared by partisan.es of "AKI for all":
the school would be invaded by the "LGBT lobby."
[5] Women are much more likely than men to say they have had sex just to please their
partners. They also opt for more likely to give pleasure to their partners than themselves
positions. See especially the book survey on sexuality in France, Bajos, Bozon (eds), La
Découverte, 2008.
[6] Sources: Letter from the National Observatory on Violence against Women, "sexual
violence and domestic violence, how many victims? "November 2013, and" Key figures -
Violence against Women - Ministry of Women's Rights, 2014 edition. "
[7] This is one of the theses defended by Guy Corneau in the book with the evocative title
Father missing, missing son, Les Editions de l'Homme, 1992.
[8] Escudero Alexis Artificial propagation of the human, the world upside down, 2014.
[9] Hervé Le Meur, "Should we change the nature of filiation? "Environmentalist 40, 2013
and was www.piecesetmaindoeuvre.com
Collective Stop Masculinism, January 2015
Article du collectif Stop Masculinisme datant de janvier 2015.
http://stop-masculinisme.org/?p=133
http://cgalyon.ouvaton.org/spip.php?article116
