This is not a blog you should come to, if you want to encounter a neatly packaged bunch of received political ideas that conform to any convenient label. If you can only stand views that do not offend the “right” or the “left”, or which stay within the confines of the “politically correct”, then go read elsewhere.
Recently I have taken on the shibboleths of ultra feminism, in response to a series of articles published in the Guardian by feminist writers on the Assange and DSK cases, and on Kenneth Clarke’s remarks on rape. The writers in question – including for example Eve Ensler and Zoe Williams – self-describe as feminist writers. I am not applying the description to them.
My views on these matters plainly cross what is viewed as a boundary of acceptable or conventional thought for some of my regular commentators. It is therefore sensible of me to set out those views in a logical form here, so we can identify areas of agreement and disagreement, and try to consider with each other whether any of us wish to reconsider our views.
First, on feminism in general. I recognise that there is a power imbalance in society to the detriment of women. The glass ceiling still is firmly in place. Alpha male behaviour is still overly rewarded by the cutthroat system on which our political economy is organised, to general detriment. We really do have a society where male sociopaths dominate; Tony Blair is its poster boy.
I think that palliative measures on female equality, for example on equal pay, have been a good and important thing. But they have not even achieved their limited objective, nor succesfully tackled the difficulties of women in achieving power and promotion. I do not believe, in any sense, that women’s lack of power in society is because they should rightly be concentrating on subsidiary roles, either as homemakers or in the workforce.
But I believe that palliative measures have done pretty well all they can to improve this situation, and that no fundamental change is possible unless we reform our society itself to one which operates on a more cooperative model and in which consumption, wealth and waste of resources are not the primary goals. Then aggression and selfishness will not be rewarded as they now are.
I do believe that there are differing masculine and feminine personality traits, and that it is true that cooperative and empathectic behaviour is viewed as more feminine. But there is of course massive overlap within male and female populations, and there are many men who are also disadvantaged within the present system by their more societal attitude – just as there are female Rebekah Brooks (Update I can see I am going to have to keep doing this as it is very difficult to reason with feminist ideologues. In response to a comment, I am plainly putting forward Rebekah Brooks here as the female equivalnet of Tony Blair who I cite above, the ultra-succesful sociopath. I am not saying that all career women are like Rebekah Brooks.)- but a balance of disadvantage lies currently with women.
But- when it comes to sexuality itself, I think that sexuality is a wonderful fact of existence, which should be celebrated in full. I applaud any form of pleasure giving cooperation, that does not harm others, between consenting adults. But I do not regard sex as in any way sacred or mystic.
I believe that sexuality is just another human trait which people should be able to use, if they so choose, for economic gain, just as they can use their muscles or intellect in other ways. I therefore have no problem with prostitution, striptease, or advertising images. The coercion and violence which often accompanies prostitution could largely be remedied (as with drugs) by legalisation and regulation. If people wish to sell their sexuality, I believe they have a right to do so.
Nobody should ever be forced to.
Rape is a terrible crime. I believe that it should receive a very long jail sentence indeed. My view is that custodial sentences – as opposed to other punishment – should be reserved only for those who are a danger of committing violence to others. Non-violent crime should be punished in other ways. Rape is a violent crime and society should rightly be protected from rapists by long jail sentences. However, Kenneth Clarke was right; every crime can have aggravating or mitigating circumstances, even murder. There is nothing sacramental about rape that makes it different to murder and mystically unified, incapable of being worsened by use of a weapon, death threats, duration of offence etc.
For some feminists rape is not just a disgusting and violent crime, but a totemic act, indicative of wider male domination of women in society. There is some correlation (though not absolute) between this view, and sex-negative feminism, which views the act of penetration itself as an act of male dominance, and regards feminine heterosexuality as in itself tending to enforce a submissive role in society. This feminist tendency is completely opposed to the use of female sexuality by women for commercial gain, and thus virulently opposed to prostitution, stripping, advertising images, etc.
These sex-negative feminists have what I would call a dog-whistle response to allegations of rape, tending to an immediate presumption that the man must be guilty – this blog has previously pointed to a number of such articles on both Julian Assange and DSK, of which yesterday’s really badly researched article by Liz Willams can stand as an example – in which they are undoubtedly arguing that the man is guilty. They also argue for a lower standard of proof in rape trials than other criminal trials.
I have an extreme aversion to this line of argument. It is extremely unfortunate that rape will always be, in most cases, a hard crime to prove, for reasons which are obvious. But plainly false allegations of rape do exist, and the evil of false conviction is so great we have to continue to give the benefit of doubt to the defendant. If that principle disappeared in rape trials, other categories would soon follow.
The political establishment frequently uses sexual allegations against threatening dissidents to discredit them. That was done against me, it is what was done by Murdoch to Tommy Sheridan, it is being done against Julian Assange, and there is strong reason to believe it may be what is being done against DSK. Here are some facts I did not refer to yesterday.
The suite which Diallo entered after the alleged rape was empty and adjoined DSK’s suite, with a party wall. She had entered it twice with her electronic keycard before going to DSK’s suite, and she entered it again after the alleged rape. She had consistently lied about what she did after the alleged rape, and only admitted she had entered the adjoining suite after shown the electronic keycard record. She then changed her story to say she had returned and cleaned it – which begs the question, what had she done in there the previous two times?
This is important because the keycard records show that the hotel general manager himself had entered, rather surprisingly, that same adjoining suite that morning, before the alleged rape. As the records do not show when someone left, we do not know if he met her in there, or if he was in there during the consensual or forced sexual encounter next door. What we do know is that he telephoned the Elysee Palace before the alleged rape was reported to the police, and briefed Sarkozy’s aides.
Why I get so completely infuriated with the Enslers and Williams of this world is that they don’t stop to think why Assange or DSK or Sheridan might suddenly find themselves exposed to this kind of attack. Has the far left just gained in the Scottish Parliament its most important electoral positions in the UK for decades? Is Wikileaks threatening the whole edifice of US official secrecy, illegal killing and duplicitous foreign policy? Is the IMF being steered gently leftwards at a time of huge currency crises for the West?
The ultra, sex negative feminists cannot even start to consider that they ought perhaps to consider if there is a wider context. If the accusation is sexual then they automatically obey the dog whistle.. Of course the woman is telling the truth! And they fill the columns and airwaves to the delight of the right extablishment, whose obedient attack dogs the ultra feminists have become.
That is, of course, why the allegations are always sexual. They do so much more damage, in so many ways. The strange thing is, that if DSK or Assange had been accused of anything else, like robbing a Post Office (remember Peter Hain?), people like HarpyMarx would be extremely suspicious. But throw in a bit of sex, and the stupid idiots dance immediately to the right’s tune.
MarinaS,
Furthermore your argument that feminists are the experts on rape and thus the only people qualified to comment, is absolute dross.
When I became myself a threat to the establishment, over UK complicity in torture and extraordinary rendition, I was immediately faced with charges of blackmailing visa applicants into sex. I most certainly do know what I am talking about in terms of the state’s use of sexual allegations to denigrate its opponents. The fact you believe that only the alleged victim, and not the alleged accused, is qualified to have a view says all we need to know about you.
In my case the charges collapsed because they had done it in such a hurry, they did not actually have an alleged victim to put forward. But if you believe the state does not do this stuff, you are very naive.
I kind of agree with MarinaS in terms of the way you’re approaching this. I don’t agree with her conclusions but I can see that she’s well versed in feminist gymnastics.
.
You’d be on a much more solid footing were you to call it cultural misandry and work from there.
.
That’s where all the really meaty stuff is and if I may put it like this, stuff much more amenable to the male mind.
“…no fundamental change is possible unless we reform our society itself to one which operates on a more cooperative model and in which consumption, wealth and waste of resources are not the primary goals. Then aggression and selfishness will not be rewarded as they now are.”
Couldn’t agree more. However…
” I … have no problem with prostitution, striptease, or advertising images. The coercion and violence which often accompanies prostitution could largely be remedied (as with drugs) by legalisation and regulation. If people wish to sell their sexuality, I believe they have a right to do so.”
I think there’s a real incompatibility between these two statements. For what it’s worth people (men can be sexually exploited too) do indeed have a sort of libertarian ‘right’ to sell their sexualities. The problem with sexuality being sold is that it becomes a commodity produced by an industry, for profit. Sex workers have rarely made a conscious career choice. Structural poverty feeds this industry, and will continue to do so for as long as production for profit remains the overriding principle governing society. Regulation and legislation do little to ameliorate the conditions of sex-workers. As someone who has lived and worked in Amsterdam’s supposedly regulated Red Light District (in a completely unrelated industry I hasten to add) I can safely say that it is home to some of the most corrupt and vicious big-money criminals in Western Europe, and that the overwhelming majority of prostitutes are coerced into their trade. If prostitution, sex work and sexist advertising still existed in your reformed society, then that reform would have achieved very little.
As for the DSK case, it is absolutely possible that it is dirty trick. On the other hand, rich and powerful people have a habit of worming their way out of trouble. In spite of the dubious credibility of the alleged victim, there is still sufficient evidence to prosecute. It should also be remembered that liars can be raped too. There’s nothing that says crime only happens to nice people. I really think you should hold back on this (and the Assange case) until such time as all the facts are out in court.
Thanks for the link back at ya http://harpymarx.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/thoughts-on-craig-murray/
And another hate-fuelled woman-loathing rant. Twice in a row.
For the purposes of accuracy, Harpy Marx is neither stupid, nor an idiot. She may write from a perspective with which you disagree but your spite is not helpful to any sensible debate. It’s also most unattractive.
BTW, I’ve written in defence of Assange. I was also shocked when you were monstered by the establishment. But the same instincts that led me to believe you are both innocent lead me to believe that DSK is conducting a vile PR campaign making full use of his massive resources to destroy Diallo. And he probably dunnit.
However, we won’t know until this is thrashed out in a court of law. In the meantime, kindly lay off women who are guilty only of defending a woman we believe, for a host of reasons, is being run over by the establishment juggernaut.
Madam Miaow wrote: “In the meantime, kindly lay off women who are guilty only of defending a woman we believe, for a host of reasons, is being run over by the establishment juggernaut.”
.
Not much difference to the ‘establishment juggernaut’ of the family courts, that run over countless British and American fathers, year in, year out; in total secrecy from the press!
.
You Marxist-Feminists are more precious than the Spanish Inquisition.
Madam Miaow
Of course I don’t literally think Harpy Marx is stupid, or an idiot. It’s a polemic. And I certainly am not fuelled by hate. Frustration, yes.
‘You Marxist-Feminists are more precious than the Spanish Inquisition.”
Here we go…….
Any woman who challenges or argues against some bloke’s so-called wisdom stupid comparisons are made which lack analysis and understanding just pure spite and bile.
“Not much difference to the ‘establishment juggernaut’ of the family courts, that run over countless British and American fathers, year in, year out”
Oh right, we all forgot that wife-beaters are victims too.
“in total secrecy from the press!”
So if it’s in total secrecy, where are you getting your ‘secret’ information from?
“In the meantime, kindly lay off women who are guilty only of defending a woman we believe, for a host of reasons, is being run over by the establishment juggernaut.”
.
Hats in the air folks, we have achieved equality between the sexes, Marxist style!
“You Marxist-Feminists are more precious than the Spanish Inquisition”
.
Yes, they’re kinda venerated aren’t they. If you examine this as a cultural phenomenon you’ll make much swifter progress towards conclusion and avoid being waylaid by the siren scream of harpies along the way.
HarpyMarx,
You are very welcome here.
Old Trot wrote: “So if it’s in total secrecy, where are you getting your ‘secret’ information from?”
.
The same place you get all your ‘undocumented’ cases of rape and abuse from. 1 in 4 women [insert what ever victim clarion term here], based on speculative assessments from a feminist sexpert. Only the difference here is that secret family courts actually exist, permanently in camera, like the Star Chamber; an embarrassment to civil liberty, the rule of law, and the aspiration to justice.
tut tut
2 Responses to Thoughts on Craig Murray
Madam Miaow says:
July 29, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Did you leave a comment on the thread? He should hear this perspective. I left one yesterday.
Reply
harpymarx says:
July 29, 2011 at 1:39 pm
Just commented and left another one, more sarcastic one liner on the other referring to my blog. He’s so overrated in the anti-war movement.
Reply
HarpyMarx wrote: “He’s so overrated in the anti-war movement.”
.
So true; he lacks the non-entity status of a proper gobshite.
“elephants have bigger brains than humans but this does not invalidate the hypothesis that brain is an expensive resource” — evgueni
.
Therefore? Maybe I did misunderstand you.
I wasn’t comparing elephants to humans though, I was citing a study that compared humans in one place to humans in another.
.
Look at this, for example:
.
“In primitive societies, men did the hunting, which often took them far from home. Males with the ability to recognize landscapes from different orientations and thereby find their way back had a survival advantage. Men who could process trajectories in three dimensions—the trajectory, say, of a spear thrown at an edible mammal—also had a survival advantage. (8) Women did the gathering. Those who could distinguish among complex arrays of vegetation, remembering which were the poisonous plants and which the nourishing ones, also had a survival advantage. Thus the logic for explaining why men should have developed elevated three-dimensional visuospatial skills and women an elevated ability to remember objects and their relative locations—differences that show up in specialized tests today. (9)
.
“Perhaps this is a just-so story. (10) Why not instead attribute the results of these tests to socialization? Enter the neuroscientists. It has been known for years that, even after adjusting for body size, men have larger brains than women. Yet most psychometricians conclude that men and women have the same mean IQ (although debate on this issue is growing). (11) One hypothesis for explaining this paradox is that three-dimensional processing absorbs the extra male capacity. In the last few years, magnetic-resonance imaging has refined the evidence for this hypothesis, revealing that parts of the brain’s parietal cortex associated with space perception are proportionally bigger in men than in women. (12)
.
“What does space perception have to do with scores on math tests? (13) Enter the psychometricians, who demonstrate that when visuospatial ability is taken into account, the sex difference in SAT math scores shrinks substantially. (14)”
http://www.bible-researcher.com/murray1.html
.
Don’t assume anything about me from the source I’m quoting. I am giving it purely as an example of the kind of discussions that go on (and on and on).
.
One could theorize about all of this till the cows come home. Meanwhile, ‘psychiatry’ involves limited knowledge and much guesswork (and wrongful “condition” labelling and a multitude of harmful prescriptions) and scientists looking at possible “links” between for example, damage to the right frontal lobe and psychopathic tendencies, is, for now, nothing more than examining a tiny (potential) piece of a massive jigsaw. It will be decades before the workings of the brain are fully understood and any meaningful comparisons between male and female brains can be made.
.
Meanwhile, I’m like Ingo and I’m opting out. I find this thread as unpleasant as the last.
BTW, Mary, I agree with you 100% about the media and the fact that they should be kept out until after trial.
@ Dreoilin,
.
Psychiatry and Neurology are making profound and rapid progress, thanks to the new instrumentation available, such as functional-MRI, and on-demand brain interruption from ‘magnetic wands’; its all surging ahead.
.
Read Iain McGilchrist’s magnus opus “The Master and His Emissary”, for a fair round up of the state of play as of 2009.
JimmyGiro
“The same place you get all your ‘undocumented’ cases of rape and abuse from”
You appear to be quoting me for something I never said – making it up as you go along in other words. Still, it’s pretty consistent with the rest of your fact-free diatribes
“You appear to be quoting me for something I never said.”
.
That’s the trouble with Marxist-Feminists, there’s such a huge paucity of meaning to quote from.
Dreolin,
This is evolving into a complex theme, but my initial statement was limited. For clarity I will restate in a condensed form: I object when equality of opportunity is without justification interpreted to mean equality of outcome. Reason one – it has not been shown that men and women always desire the same outcomes. It is rather trivial to show that they do not, the arguments are generally about why this is so (nature versus cultural programming). Reason two – it has not been shown that men and women have the same abilities (here I made a caveat that I am not simply talking about ‘intelligence’, whatever that is taken to mean). I think all of this is uncontroversial so far. Brain size difference is an indication that evolution has shaped men’s and women’s minds differently, not only their bodies. It is an inconvenient fact that cannot be left unexplained by those who wish that equality of outcomes would follow from equality of opportunity. Note I am not assigning any value to the difference – bigger brain does not necessarily mean ‘better’ (elephants are not ‘better’ than humans, but they are different). For instance, the additional volume of men’s brain could represent nothing more than the functional equivalent of a peacock’s tail – an expensive adornment in terms of survival fitness, i.e. the result instead of sexual selection. Regardless of what differences in abilities between men and women are actually discernable, my point is rather limited – that it cannot be assumed by default that their abilities are the same, on average, with regard to specific sets of mental tasks as relevant to a particular career choice for example. Phew…
.
Now to the brain size versus latitude study that you mentioned. It is a small epidemiological study that establishes correlation only, however if the suggested hypothesis is correct then this is another indication that selection pressure impacts on brain size. It in no way invalidates the hypothesis that a difference in brain size between the sexes represents actual differences in mental abilities. That is why I say this study is not relevant to my argument.
.
As for Craig’s presentation of his arguments, I too think he often would benefit from moderating the language he uses. A measured argument is always better received.
“all it measures is your ability to take IQ tests – but I last had mine measured at 187”
.
Forget all that crap!, the most important thing is the one thing no one appears to give a second glance at…Common sense.
As for IQ, in all my years I have found that IQ and common sense rarely come together, nice when they do though.
You’ve certainly put the smoke in the hornet’s nest with this one, Craig. Still it’s healthy, between consenting adults, and you’re not forcing yourself upon anyone. I get the impression HarpyMarx and Madam Miaow have a bit of a thing about you.
I’m probably one of the few regular readers more anti-feminist than you, Craig. For example, your propensity to refer to “alpha male behaviour” and “male sociopaths” as shorthand for reprehensible actions and individuals is quite objectionable.
You acceptance of certain feminist beliefs without support is quite troubling too, the myth of women receiving less pay for the same work, for example.
Feminism certainly seems to lend itself to use by repressive government and corporate actions which, along with my fondness for the God of abstract justice, is the reason for my opposition to it. As a socialist I could not in good conscience have anything to do with feminism.
I should point out that John Goss is wrong in supposing that only men commit rape and other sexual offences, although for physical reasons that’s more common. In fact there’s an internet page somewhere with a gallery of what they call the fifty best looking female sex offenders. Which doesn’t include those copy-cat bobbitts, as their crimes are never accused of motivation by sexist hatred or classified as sex crimes.
To respond to the blog post, I certainly don’t regard women as a disadvantaged class. A class which has lower rates of homelessness, suicide, unemployment and incarceration, has a longer life expectancy, better educational outcomes, majority of new entrants into the professions, majority in university education, get shorter sentences when convicted of the same crime, earn three times as much when busking, and so on, pretty much any measurable and objective statistical measurement, not subjective stuff about glass ceilings and rape cultures and hostile environments. Feminism is therefore an anti-egalitarian movement, certainly not impartial experts on any issue.
Solid copy Stephen.
Most of the post has all the hallmarks of a rather elaborate self-justification-a weird waltz around much of Craig’s labyrinthine mind-his perceptions and personal experiences, to justify his position and express and rationalise his experience of women and sexuality, and accommodate it with an attachment to basic liberal values. (By the way that last bit is not meant as a stealthy rebuke).
However one senses that a lot of the post reflects such a distinctive perspective, created by the trauma of suffering a assault on his basic beliefs concerning personal relations and intimacy, that it is somewhat less than balanced.
For instance-he expresses the idea that prostitution and selling of sex is perfectly OK, provided it is done without coercion and is the free choice of the individual. All very libertarian and a (sort of) simple logic.
Unfortunately, my experience of ‘sex for sale’ is that it is virtually always related to people who are depleted, exploited, physically and mentally harmed or traumatised , undeveloped (educationally), mentally unstable, or vulnerable, or poverty stricken.( or any mixture of these).
For instance, I went to the Black sea (Bulgaria) in the nineties, on holiday, and met a woman at a cafe, in slightly odd circumstances. It turned out she was a teacher,( and looked like one) but since the collapse of industry in the eastern soviet bloc, she had eventually been left with little economic option except to start stalking the black sea resorts for clients. ( the salary for teaching had been decimated by the influx of desperate people from other industries).
She most emphatically was not ‘true to type’. She was in a desperate economic situation. Her actions were far from a free choice’ even in the absence of any association with some organised criminality or ‘sex industry’. She made the decision purely on her own bat, but would never have been there if she could have made a living some other way.
(I want to add that our interaction went no further than a friendly discussion, after she had approached me).
I don’t think anyone who is fully equipped with a properly developed mind and a reasonable living, within a socially viable context, which provides economic options, will ever adopt prostitution ‘freely’ (or will be so rare as to be of only marginal). Prostitution and the sex industry is irredeemably intertwined with personal degradation and exploitation and inevitably reflects the inherent absence of balance in power, in relations between men and women, a reflection itself of the fundamental nature of the disadvantage placed on women by the biology of reproduction.
It seems quite clear to to me that we are dealing with yet another example of the Faustian bargain, created by the advance of technology, and its impact on social and personal relations and social structures based upon long established belief systems.
An interesting (key) aspect of the Norwegian situation is Breivick’s perception that the Muslim population , with a highly improbable birth rate of 1.2 children per annum, was going to swamp the indigenous population, the poor victims of ‘cultural marxism’-those sorry feminist-leaning western women were turning to career and childless lives.
Interestingly the same fear of being bred out of existence seems to be very prevalent within the Israeli political mentality.
Again i would question the situation of why would women choose to be childless. How ‘free’ is that choice? Personally
I suspect that is very largely an economic choice, although it must have a number of other attractions. Women work because modern western life is well nigh impossible without their income, as well as because it offers an escape from the distinct risk of the type of drudgery , social isolation and shrunken opportunities that a (traditional) women’s role often represents.
However I would add that a review of the property/financial crisis reveals that it was closely connected to the
impossibility of getting on the property ladder without two salaries. ( another can of worms opens up here).
The post gets more interesting when it discusses near the end, the way modern life has been sexualised and rather curiously, as people have become more free to make decisions related to their personal life, we seem to have remained very susceptible to shock and disapproval of people who behave in sexually libertarian ways, permitting the smearing of notable people.
Why is Tommy Sheridan so discredited in our eyes because he allegedly indulges in activities which seem to be permitted in law?
The basic and unavoidable aspect is that many of us have a reflexive attitude that a person with an unusual interest in sex is less controlled, and less able to deploy other aspects of his or her mental resources. It is (almost) OK if a footballer is a shagger but not a politician (or an ambassador), who is often under under stress to make judgements that may have far reaching consequences. However I wonder how many people actually thought that Max Moseley was in some way intellectually reduced by his attachment to S and M.
There is little doubt that there are deep associations of sexual licentiousness being associated with various degrees of social dysfunction and one might speculate that there is a great residual fear of the consequent impact on survival, of a group, caused by the destabilising effects of the activities of someone who does not conform to social sexual mores of the group.
One can only wonder if S and M, or even sex clubbing, is really a way for patrician (and other) types of AVOIDING the very confusing complexities of a more intimate and conventional personal interaction. A financial interaction relieves people of the obligations that intimacy has always represented. In that way they seem rather deficient in their humanity.
For Mary. re ‘Peckerdillo’ – and the associations that the word invites . In the early sixties, women who had had their children were beginning to move into the workplace, especially in the ‘light, sunrise’ industries of electronics that were encouraged at the time.
My mother’s friend got a job with a company making transistors and diodes.
After a couple of shifts working in her new job, she popped in one evening to recount her experiences and described how she was making dildos. My mother was slightly surprised (to say the least) but of course she had no idea what a diode was, and could hardly make the verbal connection.
A rather strange conversation ensued, until I was called in to offer my new found knowledge from Physics classes. So my mother knew what a dildo was, but not a diode. I knew what a diode ( a semiconductor device, made from tiny pieces of p-type and n-type germanium or silicon, that permitted electrons to flow in one direction only) was, but not a dildo, and Mrs P, the worker, hadn’t a clue what either a dildo or a diode were, although I think she may have heard the word ‘dildo’ before and simply conflated the words. Anyway i was very happy to correct Mrs P.
Unfortunately there was a communication gap between my mother and myself-sharing our understanding to mutual benefit was simply not possible in those much more innocent times.
Stephen Morgan, I didn’t know that! You’re never too old to learn!
If the concern is that the decision to join the sex trade, like all decisions in our society, is influenced by coercive economic factors then the remedy is to ensure a more equitable distribution of wealth. Criminalising prostitution will only exacerbate any damage caused by economic necessity.
Lots to think about.
.
The Guardian product , values, etc…
Suyayl Saadi wrote: “But you haven’t explained how this all relates to Karl Marx, the C19th man with a long beard and an effective critique of capitalism.”
.
Marxist-Feminism has precisely bugger all to do with Marx. It has evolved like a pernicious retro-virus, to further the aims of the likes of the Fabian society. After all, do you only define Christianity exclusively according to the beliefs and actions of Christ; or do you take into account the many types of Christian sects, and measure Christianity according to what Christians say and do?
.
Will you challenge “HarpyMarx” for her predilections to Duck Soup, or Animal Crackers?
.
Marxist-Feminists are to be defined by what they say and do, for that is the product of what they believe. They should not be defined according to the dictionary definition, for that ultimately is a manifesto of hope or pretext; therefore all practising religions should be judged by what they say and do.
.
Marxist-Feminism is not the opposite of capitalism, it is orthogonal to it, and is therefore free to enter a symbiotic partnership with capitalism. The arrangement being: Marxists control the state-bureaucracy, and the capitalists control the nations income. The symbiotic bridge being filled by us, the people, who will ultimately be the slave labour of work-house Britain Incorporated.
.
The Feminist suffix will only be temporary, since feminism is merely the Trojan Horse to destroy the family and other heterosexual sheet-anchors of old culture. Once the feminists have caused cultural collapse (education becomes relativist drivel, families become objects of suspicion, compulsory state run nurseries, male management eradicated, etc), the ensuing crisis will allow the state leviathan to take executive control, and provide the eager corporations with desperate and willing slave labour. The feminists, once used, will themselves be betrayed, and ordered into the work columns, so they will finally get their equality, and they will hate it as much as the men. But there will be no rebellion, because the state nomenklatura will control the food; and reword good work with permission to have sex.
.
Of course, I might be wrong. 🙂