One of the strangest phenomena of our time, is the widely spread tendency of feminists to not associate themselves with the non-Western, Africa and non-white population in general. Add to this the Muslims as well (of all things!). Gay activists also adhere to this occasionally. On the praag website, we came across two outspoken ex-South Africans who had settled in the Netherlands and who would defend anything as long as it was not white, manly or Cristian.
In the last few decades a strong joint discourse developed in which women, non-whites, non-Christian, homosexuals and the disabled are all stereotyped as disadvantaged. This discourse naturally got a strong injection from the existence of deconstruction, which created a convenient terminology of the One and the Other. Although this theory holds a certain academic legitimacy - it for example had a strong influence on the Afrikaans literature - it also lends itself to a strong pseudo-intelectualism.
All that lives and breathes now think that they are making an impression when they stand up for some or other "oppressed" and when they show their "openness" to the "Other". In practice, they normally use "safe" targets, such as the legitimate politically correct. There are several examples of this. Journalists like Christi van der Westhuizen and Hannelie Booysens know that their work will be published, when they challenge Dan Roodt, Afrikaners, the church, the USA, Capitalism and all the other suspects - and praise the leftists.
'Of course it would be far easier to moan about "Calvinism", than ask the question of whether the rape of babies is becoming a cultural phenomenon under the black population."
Leftist feminists conveniently avoid the real threats to women. We find, for example, that true feminist critique of Jacob Zuma and his crude patriarchal practices, shine in his absence. Personally, I would think that it would be a priority to make mince of a polygamist who has been accused of violent rape and in who's language a term for this violence never existed prior to the arrival of the whites. Not even referring to his charming habit of impregnating every woman that crosses his path.
Strangely enough, there is also an unwillingness to confront the Islam. On an international scale, we see the same thing. Earlier this year, David Cameron was in hot water because he dared say the dreaded word to an emotional member of the Labour Party: "My dear, please calm down." What a gruesome violation of human rights! Stalin would have been jealous! It is naturally easier to take on the silly Cameron than the ajatolla of the Iranian Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt. The media of the world also fell for Putin's retraction of explicit gay rights, while gay people are murdered in Zimbabwe and black lesbians are subjected to "corrective rape" in townships.
'...it is truly time that feminists realize how Western they actually are'
I naturally have little sympathy with Cameron and I don't fully agree with Putin's stance. This phenomena however involves more than mere double standards. Leftist feminists have become so used to the privileges that the first wave of feminists (I'm referring to the 18th century theorists to the activists for women's education) brought, that they have forgotten that they themselves are a product of the Western Enlightenment, which again is rooted in Christian Humanism (a unique appreciation for all humans before God). Of course there are other traditions that are reconcilable with what we understand women's right to be today, but it is truly time that feminists realize how Western they actually are. It is a privilege to live in a culture where such utterances are not only tolerated, but seriously debated.
When one looks in detail, it is clear that feminism only originated from countries that had a heroic tradition with its culture of glorifying women, ie Western Europe. See for example the quote from Goethe, Das Ewig-Weibliche Zieht uns hinan, or rather: "The eternal female we exalt" by Dan Roodt in his article from August 9. The first wave of feminism which originated from there, also achieved what it wanted to, namely basic fair opportunities for women, in that ideas that were regarded as radical in the 1890s, are now regarded as being natural. Simone de Beauvoir's ideas seeming old-fashioned today, is evident of how it has normalized. And a lot of the ideas from Europe that were regarded as being revolutionary, were perceived as normal in South Africa. As Dan Roodt also points out, women owning land was something considered very normal in the Netherlands-Afrikaans tradition. While Jane Austen had to worry over the loss of housing, it was not a problem for Afrikaner women.
Different from what may be believed, pioneering communities are more susceptible for strong women, since a merciless environment makes it critical to acknowledge every person's input. It is also an equally big myth that conservative Western cultures are characterized by misogyny. When one looks deeper, conservative parties have a better record of women in leadership than leftist parties do. Except for figures such as Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir, there are more successful women in the Republican Party, than the Democratic Party in the USA. Feminists missed a big victory in the 2008 elections. Had they stopped their hysteria over Obama, they would have seen that it was truly significant that the lower class Republican was more than willing to vote for, Sarah Palin, a woman. And that without her having too much merit, and without them being subjected to too much gender theory. Just as the Afrikaner male could have voted for a female mayor during the Great Depression.
No culture is truly perfect, including the Afrikaner traditions. There are however few groups that had to own up to their sins like the Afrikaner male, and it is now the time to let them out of the accused dock. It may be an interesting exercise to read Simone de Beauvoir's Le deuxième sexe (The second sex) to see how the position of whites, men in particular, correspond with that in which the woman finds herself according to de Beauvoir's famous feminist piece.
The big mistake which feminists make, is to immediately associate with the leftist project. I am convinced that this is where the stereotypical feminist finds its existence. I stand under correction, but before Hanoi (Jane Fonda), the feminist was rather regarded as a legitimate intellectual, part of Europe's sophisticated, a discourse wherein the intellectual man could also participate. (I've got a friend with a HNP-background who is also very familiar with the work of Virginia Woolf). This is how I have always thought of feminism and I have to express my disappointment with the behaviour of the French intellectual Hélène Cixous. I will never read her work again. (That's the French for you, as soon as you expect the best from them, they shock you with their worst).
What also offends the current feminism, is the forced association with the third world, socialism and even crime. If feminism has a future, supporters rather have to position themselves to the Right and address the true problems. The first step would be to acknowledge the Western civilization which gave birth to it, as well as white men that acknowledge and protect the value of women.
Further, there is still space for feminism, but it is Africa and the Middle-East that is in need of this. In the West, it can prosper as academic discourse and criticize phenomenons such as Fifty Shades of Rubbish. Or better, let it ask the question of how Women's Day can be celebrated when a woman is raped on a farm and set alight, without an outraged outcry in the country. Hélène Cixious may have the philosophical name, but in my opinion, it is Sunette Bridges who truly deals with political integrity.
Dr. Louis Mabille is a lecturer at the University of Pretoria. This column represents her own views and not that of the Department of Philosophy, or any other body of the University of Pretoria.
