Palin feminism as permission for nationalism

September 30 2008

Discussion of Sarah Palin's upcoming debate with Joe Biden demonstrates once again MIM's thesis that Amerikan so-called feminism is mostly a by-product of Amerikan nationalism, not authentic feminism. The media discussion veered between saying Palin should go home to pay attention to her family or unleash herself as a pit bull.(1) We suspect she will zing Obama in debate and we will find that she has not followed Biden's interview strategy because McCain-Palin are running against the media. The discussion is probably a tactic to goad the media to keep the issue hot.

Joan of Arc had to have permission to be a passionate nationalist. The permission would be called feminism today.

Likewise, Phyllis Chesler wrote a book called Women and Madness again exploring the boundaries of permission for females. Chesler has openly advocated that feminism does not mean anything except attacks on other countries such as Iran where Amerikans would be averse to the sexual culture.

Andrea Dworkin was another who became a white nationalist (Zionist) before becoming feminist. So again the desire was to be active in nationalism, and this required a kind of permission interpreted as "feminist."

MIM does not take any of the above seriously as feminism for our times. The reason is that we never hear any of them comparing the situation for wimmin in socialist China with the situation for wimmin in Taiwan, southern Korea or even Japan after Mao's revolution in 1949. Nor do we hear any discussion of the status of wimmin in Turkey compared with that in neighboring Soviet territory, because the purpose of Western so-called feminism is not really feminism in terms of substantive discussion of wimmin's status. The whole point of Western feminism is solely to grant permission to oppressor nation patriotism. Once that task is completed, according to none less than Phyllis Chesler, even pro-choice or anti-choice stands could both be feminist.

For the most part, one would think that political activists would realize that feminism-as-permission-for-bourgeois-nationalism should be the preferred property of the Republican Party. Yet, we can point to three more organizations using the Republican Party model of so-called feminism.

Even the organization NOW has as its bumper-sticker "peace is patriotic." We are left wondering if NOW would pitch peace if it had to be internationalist.

We also pointed to "Theoretical Review"'s less-than-half-a-page dismissal of socialist experience and wimmin in an article supposedly discussing Marx and gender. When so-called feminists are not discussing the intersection of class and gender, we should be left wondering what if anything they are discussing. The "Theoretical Review" took the lead in attacking a pre-MIM Philadelphia organization that attempted to teach people the meaning of "principal contradiction."

Even more awesome is the worked out example of an organization claiming it was "Maoist." Never having understood Mao on the "principal contradiction" since forming as an organization in 1975, this organization is still at this moment covertly and de facto pushing that religion or gender is the principal contradiction, in struggle against Islamic regimes that they say need defeating by U.$. imperialism.

Anti-religious movements have their contexts. In one context, anti-religious struggles are not racist or national chauvinist. In another, they can be. In the following context there is a generalized advance for atheism:

"The most dramatic was the violent anti-clericalism following France's 1789 revolution that stripped churches of their riches, transforming them into 'temples of reason' in the service of the new secular republic. Churches were razed; stained-glass windows broken; altarpieces and statues smashed; tombs emptied; church bells melted to make cannons; gold chalices sent to the mint.

"The remains of St.-Geneviève housed in St.-Étienne-du-Mont were burned, as was the celebrated library of St.-Germain-des-Prés; St.-Joseph-des-Carmes was turned into a prison for insubordinate clerics who were massacred just outside. Notre Dame Cathedral was so badly defaced and desecrated that by the end of the 18th century, radicals called for its demolition."(2)

After some episodes like that, if a Muslim shows up in France and the plebians ask her not to use the headscarf, MIM is not going to say anything. No one is going to be able to make an argument about specifically anti-Third World prejudice in that situation.

Today, the U.$. Cheney lackeys protesting Islam belong in another category. They know darn well their beloved "white working class" is not razing any churches, except maybe Black ones in the 1960s. In that situation, trying to export anti-clericalism or importing pro-Cheneyists from Iran is a totally different matter than anti-clericalism in 1789.

The McCain campaign had to pull rank by having Palin undo her comments on Pakistan in which she echoed Obama on attacking Al Qaeda inside Pakistan, regardless of the wishes of the Pakistan government.(3) It was the stance of both McCain and opponent Mitt Romney that attacking nuclear-armed Pakistan was not a good idea. It was an example of something that could have happened with a white male running mate, but the climb down received extra added scrutiny via so-called feminism.

As if MIM did not have enough problems with Euro-Amerikan "anti-terrorist" codewords for chauvinism, MIM has some critics who irresponsibly refer to MIM line as "militarized," when they are not objecting to a particular armed struggle or set of armed struggles but clarity of organization and line. McCain pulled rank on Palin, but perhaps our critics think it was a bad idea.

The correct terminology for MIM's organizational line is "formal structure," not "militarization." Now, it is probably true that military people are more likely to defend and carry out formal structure than civilians.

Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell found themselves sidelined in a civilian setting of the National Security Council discussing Gitmo trials. That was an informal network for chauvinism. On the other hand, in two military situations involving informal networking, there was push-back by military people who were very clear what their responsibilities were.

When the struggle in the party arose that opposed militarization of the party, the leaders of the dissident line had not the experience of recruiting females and minorities to political life that proponents of the so-called militarized line had. What is even more remarkable is that knowing what they knew about gossip and rumors, the Liberals favored relaxed organizational structure.

It is not the case that informal structure among communists gives rise to real feminism and covert internationalism as the converse of Palin-style bourgeois patriotism. The same problems discussed in other contexts above also affect the vanguard party under capitalism. Believing otherwise is lifestyle oasis politics, a mistaken belief that the party rises above society.

McCain clamped down on overenthusiastic patriotism by Palin against Pakistan. The vanguard party does not magically escape such conflicts by calling itself "left" or by taking up relaxed organizational rules. If MIM's in-house critics had thought about it a few minutes, they would have realized that informal networks have always had disproportionate chauvinist and sexist impact. A little "militarization"--a.k.a. formal structure--at the right time can save a lot of anti-chauvinist struggle later.

Notes:
1. Kathleen Parker's 26Sept2008 "National Review" article received the most re-quotation
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=
See also Kathryn Jean Lopez, "Free Sarah Palin!" http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTUzNTM3MDk0MmI3ZWM1N2ZkZDAwZTFmMjA5Nzk3MWM=
2. http://travel.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/travel/07churches.html
3. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/29/eveningnews/main4487826.shtml