Aïe, un supposé allié homme, défenseur des droits humains en Iran et communiste se rèvêle être un pur ennemi du féminisme !

J'aurais même dit un pur diseur d'âneries mais extrêmement blessantes pour TOUTES les féministes, voire dangereuses, sauf pour celles qui seraient masochistes ou qui seraient membres des mouvements masculinistes, je plaisante, donc pour TOUTES !
Excusez-moi c'est en anglais car le post du type nommé Abbas Goya est en anglais aussi. Je copie son post à la fin de ce message avec son dessin très intéressant, que j'ai stoqué comme étant Abbas shit, la merde d'Abbas, qui démontre aussi que des copains dessinateurs l'ont aidé dans cette tâche anti-féministe.
Et si ses copines de son parti et mouvement le couvrent pour cela, moi je les raye aussitôt de ma liste d'amies de même que le parti en question, pas le mouvement pour les droits humains dont ceux des femmes et pour la justice en Iran, pour libérer Sakineh et les femmes, enfin tout le monde là-bas, bien sûr, mais on n'a pas dû comprendre la même chose sur ce qu'on entendait par droits humains.
Même chose en français dans un post à venir, car il s'agit là d'une réaction à chaud, pressée et urgente devant l'ignoble découverte ! Et comme cela, lui et ses amies surtout le reliront en anglais sur mon blog, c'est très bien. Je ne vais sûrement pas laisser passer un truc pareil.

Where a communist and supposed male ally, because human rights defender for Iran and supposedly anywhere else, exposes himself to be a totale (xxxxxxx) ennemy of feminism! Who does it surprise?

I am reacting to this (pasted in bottom of the post in case it would disappear later on)

Offensive post is here:
http://www.abbasgoya.com/376

And here is my comment, that certainly he won't dare to publish, but I don't know yet:

Abbas, I am glad to have found this article and totally appaled about what I just read, about your opinions. I am in no way in solidarity with them. You are totally mistaken and your views are dangerous.
Apparently, although you read stuff about your sphere of interest in the field of feminism, I would rather say feminisms, you miss the point totally. I have participated to and I know the feminist movement from inside and all the different trends. I can disagree with a lot of things with women pretending to be feminist but not with abortion rights for example and I know why even if not concerned myself as a lesbian, I just met women who were concerned with that and I know why it is an evidence. Excuse me but to call feminism a reactionnary, ultra-right trend movement inside capitalism is the most stupid and inaccurate thing I have read so far about feminism, even coming from HIS detractors. I think you know nothing and apply very stupidly a logic that may be worth for communism but is hopeless to women's liberation.
Now that you feel hurted in your male pride that some feminists (and sorry but I am one of these ones) are anti-males because they know for sure that no revolution will ever change some basics, basics that you recognize yourself by telling the oppression of women (battered, raped, mandatorily parasited by men presence) existed even before capitalism existed and this is true, I understand you feel hurted and that you feel, as it is usually the case when it is a male who examines feminism, rejected by some females.
But these females, ok, know, ok, that males, maybe not all males sure, but a lot of them that we will never know who it will be in advance (and should we then put a guard behind any of your males in a communist society?) will rape or beat or impose themselves on women who did not ask for all that.
Then aren't some feminist women who do not love or need men so much or not at all, entitled to say something just right which is men rape, beat, etc.. and we want to protect ourselves, we want to be free.
It does not mean we will kill you, but just separate and accessorily ask for protection or ensure this protection ourselves sometimes.
Just proove me that in an ideal communist society, men won't rape, beat, impose themselves in all cases?
They have always done it in any group, statistics of beaten and raped children and women tells it (1 over 5 female child will be raped by a male relative, anytime, anywhere: FACT) and if they could not do it in public, they had done it in private behind closed doors (rape of children, of their partners), even in lefty yuppies groups, even when education was made by feminists believing men could change, or by communists.
So I am laughing.
Strange that you do not point your finger at monk monasteries, at men's private clubs, jobs or brothels.
And do you know why there is no men's liberation movement?
For reverse reason for which Black people complain so much about racism and White trash!
So I am not laughing at your ugly comment on feminism and you can criticise right-wing so-called feminists as much as you want on right-wing issues, even right-wing being against basic feminism, I have no problems with that, but know that real feminism is in the left by virue of its own nature and this outside of any political calculation.

Also I think you have just lost support of feminists now that you have written that and it is so bad because the fight for Iran (or anywhere else) liberation, the fight for human rights is a good fight.
So bad you can be so mean regarding feminism.

But don't be sad, it is not the first time communist or socialist or anarchist males claim that the plight of women will end thanks to their theory, their movement, but they did not attack feminism as much as you did there, and with so stupid arguments, taking false examples. What happened next is that women inside these movements were more cleaver than the guys and discovered that what they told or promised them was just ordinary bullshit. And they founded feminism, by the way or joined it.

And if Mina Ahadi and Maryam Namazie back you up, they will certainly loose credibility and support of feminists.

Not only the support of right-wing autoproclamed feminists, that to my mind you seldom had, but the support of all the other feminist women, a majority!

You just think and write bad about that issue and it is a shame.
A shame that in a movement, they let a male affirm such opinion which is very common amongst men and very stupid and offensive.

Monique Louicellier

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post of Abbas Goya in www.abbasgoya.com/376

The Great Wall in women’s movement – Feminism vs Women’s movement

The following paragraphs in italic were my status statements on Facebook. They generated a debate around women’s movement and feminism in particular. Considering the limitations for a thorough debate on FB, consider the following as an outline of my points. It requires a lot of elaboration. I’ll make this outline available just as a reference to my stand. This is not a proof of my points.

Feminism is NOT equal to women’s movement even if it claims “Marxist Feminist”. Feminism is the ultra right trend in Women’s movement while socialism is the left of Women’s movement.

Feminism is like reverse racism. Rather than pointing at the suppressing factor of women on the social context, it blames male gender. It tries to ‘prove’ the superiority of women over men. It praises M. Thatcher & Rafsanjani’s daughter & Mousavi’s wife but it finds the raped men in IRI prisons as its enemies. Feminism serves nothing but to keep suppressors in power and to keep the inequality of women maintained

A) Women’s movement is not equal to feminism. Feminism as a matter of fact is the most reactionary section of that movement.

B) Women’s movement is a self-dependent movement, that is, regardless of working class or otherwise other societal movements exists.

C) As much as the movement to gain rights for women is a sef-dependent, there is no homogenous defintion of « feminism » nor solutions. As a matter of fact the differences between trends within the women’s movement is reflective of the class society we live in, The women’s movement that we know of, emerged out of struggles of organized working women. It has since gained a number of formal rights (right to vote, right to equal wages, right to work & equal positions, etc) within the hotbed of socialism.

D) Feminism regardless of its branches has to identify itself. It has chosen to base itself on the superiority of women over men

F) Regardless how feminism is defined by who, feminism is not anymore a subjective concept in 60s that anyone can choose how to define and write a book about it. We’re talking about an objective reactionary trend that has its office next door to the White House and its lobbyists keep getting rewarded by US presidents prize to promote US interests in Afghanisitan/Iran/Suadi Arabia/US and elsewhere.

Feminism, abstracted form prefixes, is nothing but a reactionary, ultra right trend within the women’s movement. Not only it doesn’t serve anything in favor of women, it guarantees the women suppression by pointing at the wrong cause. Like the dominant trend in “black movement” in Norht America that blames “white trash” for racism feminism blames men for women suppression. Like the “black movement” in N. America, feminism is reverse racism.

Like communism is to working class – a trend-, feminism is to women’s movement, a trend. Unlike communism that is a fundamental critique of capitalism, a revolt against the system, feminism is to maintain inequality of women.

Unlike reformism that is a real, live, strong trend in working class seeking a better living under capitalism, feminism lacks a vision for a reform in favor of women as a whole.

I have to elaborate. It is always easier to use mainstream concepts to make a “common sense” statement. I’m therefore asking to bear with me to make my non-mainstream point:

Unlike what Marxist-feminist claims: “private property, which gives rise to economic inequality, dependence, political confusion and ultimately unhealthy social relations between men and women, is the root of women’s oppression in the current social context”, women inequality is not a necessity of private ownership. No where in Marx Capital or else there is such statement that “women must be suppressed in order for capital to exist”. In other words, while capitalism maintains the inequality of women and it has benefits from it (i.e. cheap labor) it must not have the inequality of women in order for capital to function.

In other words, women’s inequality is a) exists in and by itself, under the gender segregation banner b) women’s formal equality is potentially possible to achieve even in a capitalist system.

Gender segregation is a suppression carried out from the pre-capitalist society. Capitalism takes full advantage of that. It however did not create it. It existed and capitalism uses it, reproduces it. We don’t have to wait for a woman cry in order to reply to them. We have to take the equality banner to face the problem. This is basically the main difference between a practical communism and the isolated, ineffective, theoretical communism.

Once as a communist, i.e. a freedom and equal seeking element of society, you are ready to tackle the issue, here is what you face: Feminism says the suppression on women is based on the biological differences between woman and man. Feminism just happens to favor the superiority of woman over the man hence fascist like « studies » about the « higher quality of woman’s brain ». A socialist says the women issue lies in a social context. It is a matter of getting control over the reproduction of human. In the process of the control, the suppressors need to prove the inferiority of women.

The resolution coming out of these two critiques are a world apart.

Feminism is not just about dividing humans into gender enemies but its goal is fitted within the framework of capitalism. Feminism is in accordance to capitlaism needs. When the women workers are needed in the workforce as a result of the need for absolute labor that creats the profit, « all of a sudden » feminism remember that women must work in 60s. Feminism fights and hightlights the need of female soldiers in US army. It doesn’t cross its mind that that army is supposed to suppress us. Feminism is exposed once the meaning of equality is defined. Feminism as its best seeks for equal formal rights within the framework of the current unjust system. However, feminism can not even achieve those formal rights within the law because it is too busy to campaign for « democrats » . It wants to tell us that “law” is determined on the presidential palace, in the parliament house, or in other words in the governing aparathus of capitalism. Feminism is conciously unable to see that law is the current balance between the forces of the opposing classes in society.

Feminism Mecca, i.e. presidential palaces and parliaments are to be fought against, pushed around, not to beg from. No Miss Thatcher, No Miss Hillary Clinton, No Miss Rafsanjani are going to ever favor women even within the framework of law. As a matter of fact they represent suppressors of women and are “up there” as a response to our fights from the bottom.

We socialists are seeking both formal rights for women withing the capitalist society and at the same time striving for the ultimate equality for all. We have no illusions that we must impose the right to vote for women, having maternity leave, equal wages, the right to be represented, rights for equal positions, etc and we know that none of these are achieveble unless by mobilizing the force that can change the law, a political movement backed by or from within the wealth crating workers where majority of women belong to.

Like reverse racism, feminism is to delude women where the issue lies. Feminism does not only represent women’s movement it is to stop it form gaining equal rights in the current system.

As much as women’s suppression is a self-existing issue, the perspectives to address it is not. Like other existing political trends, the forces that address inequality of women are polarized. Bill Clinton’s “Eleanor Roosevelt” award and its feminist branch maintained by presidential feminists is to serve the Karzai anti-women female minister who receives the award. Michaelle Jean, the black female canadian governor, who single handedly operated a quo d’etat in Canada in favor of right wing Harper in December 2008, is the icon of feminism.

Islamic-feminism is a production of “cultural relativism” applied by feminists. Beijing forth world conference on women that hailed Hilary Clinton is dominated by feminists. Feminism hatred toward men does not end there. Feminism has no care for children. Its “pro-choice” policy rather than trying to address an unwanted child – a human – in a civilized manner and under the circumstances created by capitalism, is justified by denying the fact that what you get rid of is a human. Well, the list can go on. It is not possible to get into all details of feminism over these tiny boxes.

Meanwhile never give up the fight for women’s rights.

Posted on a note on Facebook on March 4, 2010