Viewport width =
August 6, 2007 | by  | in Opinion |
Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

R.I.P. – The Feminazi

She who never was yet is nevertheless feared shall now be proclaimed – deceased.

It is time to sound the death-knell to a phantom image of matriarchy, created by those men who are too lazy to compete in a world in which a woman, who is more capable or qualified than them, is allowed to compete for “their” jobs. And, well, because: a woman who doesn’t laugh at a sexist joke is going to INVADE POLAND!

Nazi analogies are immensely popular today. Back around 1900, a little boy being taught The Stories about the world would be taught the Old Testament, in which Good and Evil do battle with no clear winner; and the New, in which God is crucified but triumphs. A century later, when I was taught about the world, I too learned tales: WWI, in which “us” and the Hun fought with no clear winner; and WWII, in which “humanity” triumphed over the Nazis despite its dual crucifixion, via the gas chamber and the A-bomb.

The Holocaust is the greatest single act of cruelty ever perpetrated by man, and to ensure that it never happens again, folks have taken to condemning anything resembling Nazism. This gives rise to the logical fallacy “Reductio ad Hitlerum”: an argument of the form “Hitler liked X (vegetarianism, motorways, watercolours, etc); you like X; therefore you are BAD.” There is a similar cyberspace version of the reductio, “Godwin’s Rule of Nazi Analogies”, which states: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving the Nazis or Hitler approaches one.” Or as Trey Parker and Matt Stone put it, “that sounds like something Hitler would say.”

Now, despite Godwin’s law and the reductio, there is indeed some value in making Nazi analogies. Given that the Nazis were pretty awful, we want to avoid people who consistently act in a thoroughly Nazi-esque manner – but in order to avoid the above fallacies we need to look at the actual character of the Nazis before labeling anyone a Nazi. Unfortunately, there is little consistency among Nazis. Hitler was a puritanical vegetarian clean-freak, who pursued “racial cleanliness” to its logical conclusion. Göring, head of the Luftwaffe, loved to hunt Polish Bison like he hunted people, decked to the nines in furs, with an attendant to carry his bowl of diamonds in case he ever felt like stroking them after a kill.

Propaganda minister Goebbels publicly stated that the Aryan race was a “myth” he had made up, but that this was okay as long as the myth made Germany strong.

Leaving these differences aside, the fear of the Feminazi seems to come from the fact that “feminazis” supposedly use state power to oppress others because they feel (incorrectly) victimised. So let us take this definition as defining Nazi and ask, is this an accurate description of a hardcore feminist, or does it apply more accurately to the misogynists who use the term feminazi?

Many feminists do turn to state power in an effort to fight violent men. For example, using the police to prevent rapists from roaming the streets. However, unlike the Nazis, whose fear of the Jews was completely out of proportion to reality, feminists’ fear of male violence is largely justified. Many women throughout history have held influential positions of power, and many individual women are able to unfairly manipulate men. But the power men hold over women, and the violence perpetrated by men against women continues to vastly outweigh that which flows in the opposite direction. Feminazis have never existed, because the fear of male power can be justified, whereas the fear of the Jew was a paranoid delusion.

This is not to deny that there have been feminists whose hatred of men is out of touch with reality. Around 1980, a number of women-only communes existed in New Zealand in which even roosters were banned for being male. Believing that all men are bad is an overreaction, but an overreaction to actual wide-spread injustices – and the best critiques of this overreaction have come from within feminism itself, from Nietzschean feminists such as Anna Yeatman, a fact which anti-feminists will never acknowledge.

Furthermore, to count as fascism, this overreaction would have to be enforced by state power, which it never has been. Now, anti-feminists often cite the fact that some men are falsely accused of rape as demonstrating that The Feminazi controls the government. This is patently bollocks. Given that our legal system believes a man is “innocent until proven guilty”, and given the lack of evidence left by most rapes, the majority of rapists are never convicted.

The state continues to favour men over women, while the violence perpetrated by men against women continues to predominate.

If we had to point to one group who attempts to enforce their paranoid delusions, who will it be – the feminists attempting to redress actual injustices but occasionally letting their rhetoric carry them away, or the misogynists who cannot accept that some women are now able to hold positions of power?

So remember, if those who live in glass houses insist on throwing stones, they must accept that their paranoia will eventually shatter around their feet. Either that, or we will sic our doberpersons onto them.

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Pin on PinterestTweet about this on Twitter

About the Author ()

Tristan Egarr edited in 2008. He threw a chair once.

Comments (1)

Trackback URL / Comments RSS Feed

  1. David says:

    I can think of two ways in which some feminists could be (but probably shouldn’t be) compared to nazis. One is obviousely the type of feminist that truely thinks that women are superior to men. I’m not sure how common this type of feminist is, but I do know that they exist. Of course, extremists can be expected in any group, but I have yet to see any feminists condemn these extremists and many raise them up as heros to the cause. I would like to also include in this group feminists that think that most or all men are somehow bad. For example, the “all men are rapists” crowd. Yes, some men think that they are superior to women and they could be compared to nazis also, but then again they don’t have a prominent voice in the media. Which brings me to my next nazi-like feminist, the kind of feminists that attack, belittle, dismiss, or censor anyone who objects to their ideology. Not exactly the gas chambers I know, but discussions of gender issues should be able to take place civilly with many viewpoints discussed respectfully and without attack. I realize that mens groups activists can be just as guilty of this but since this discussion is about “feminazis” I don’t feel the need to adress them. Anyway, those two types of feminists are, in my experience, what most people mean when they say feminazi.

Recent posts

  1. An (im)possible dream: Living Wage for Vic Books
  2. Salient and VUW tussle over Official Information Act requests
  3. One Ocean
  4. Orphanage voluntourism a harmful exercise
  5. Interview with Grayson Gilmour
  6. Political Round Up
  7. A Town Like Alice — Nevil Shute
  8. Presidential Address
  9. Do You Ever Feel Like a Plastic Bag?
  10. Sport
1

Editor's Pick

In Which a Boy Leaves

: - SPONSORED - I’ve always been a fairly lucky kid. I essentially lucked out at birth, being born white, male, heterosexual, to a well off family. My life was never going to be particularly hard. And so my tale begins, with another stroke of sheer luck. After my girlfriend sugge