Gender update: Clinton, Reese Witherspoon and Pakistan

  • See our gender page.

    Hollywood star Reese Witherspoon and the State Department sponsored a new website for gender bureaucratic leadership in Pakistan on domestic violence, rape and humyn trafficking. The entire content of the website would have fit into the footnotes of this article, so I was going to say that it is a perfect example of a “false flag” operation.

    When we read a website with so little substance, we should be on the look-out for false flag recruiting or disinformation. In this case, it is wrong to call it “false flag,” because the State Department seal appeared right on the website. So there is nothing being hidden. It turns out that the media uses the people involved to deliver Aesopian messages, so we should not just take the leadership project at face-value.

    If we were to take the new Clinton initiative for women’s leadership at face-value, we’d have to say it was another effort to sell Hollywood films in the Third World.(1) There was no argument, say against MIM, that if the State Department(2) is so horrified by patriarchy in Pakistan it should give all the females there a visa to the United $tates, problem solved. (Now ask yourself when you see any pseudo-feminist groups calling for that kind of solidarity? The reason we never see it–Amerikkkan nationalism is the real substance of pseudo-feminism.)

    Hollywood movie star Reese Witherspoon will tower above everything else in the Clinton initiative. She is an example of a top gender aristocrat being turned into a gender bureaucrat, a leader in political explanations of gender.

    It turns out that even the motivation of selling more Hollywood films is over-simplified. The source of money is a cosmetics company. Avon is a cosmestics company with $10 billion in annual revenue.(3) According to itself “The Avon Foundation for Women ( is the world’s largest corporate-affiliated philanthropy focused on women’s issues.”

    In the rich countries today it is ONLY the MIM line attacking the mutual reinforcement of class and patriarchy. Without MIM’s theory of gender privilege creating a gender aristocracy and gender bureaucracy, we are not attacking the Hollywood sales approach to feminism.

    As MIM has stressed since the early 1990s, the pseudo-feminist movement was a reaction against the Black Panthers. The Black Panthers and all anti-racists since have taught that racism is a bad attitude backed by power: ethnocentrism is not enough. Pseudo-feminism did not agree, did not want to talk about power, wanted to avoid responsibility in situations of power and was fine with the occupation of Vietnam. Pseudo-feminism to this day seeks to have it both ways, a pretense of interest in power kept along with a possibility of retreating to non-public child-like status.

    That’s why pseudo-feminism made the subject language and feelings, as a refuge from the attacks of the anti-racist and anti-imperialist movements. If MIM targets lynching for political power and war, pseudo-feminism is sure to point to the use of pornography by over 90% of men under 40. At the same time, pseudo-feminism will do nothing but complain.

    MIM does not disagree with complaining but that complaints should aim at patterns of power that can be changed. There are countries that abolished profit and pornography.

    That’s why we agree with Carrie Hamilton. People who want to go missionary on gender in the Third World should favor the State Department’s opening the borders, completely–something we have said on our gender pages, but we never hear from complainers about humyn trafficking.

    If they are going to complain about general male desire for pornography and models, then pseudo-feminists should be for taking away the rights of females to be models, strippers and prostitutes. Yet we never hear that, because the pseudo-feminists want to have things both ways. They want females to have the rights to do things they are going to complain about the men having.

    In imperialist countries, there will be models, strippers and prostitutes. Believing otherwise is lying to oneself.

    People who don’t like it have to get on board with socialism, making it illegal to make profits and outlawing the “right” and “freedom” to strip etc. Yeah, that includes banning the use of female bodies in billboards and ads.

    We agree with Gloria Steinem(4) that if males were paid the way females are, male sexuality would be in the air. We’re opposed to that approach to equality and instead favor getting rid of capitalism, so we harp on not having things both ways.

    Steinem is also correct that people should get angry instead of depressed. Some people find it hard to relate to MIM’s angry feminism. We try to stress the reason for that is too much fussing with Witherspoons and Drew Barrymores.(5)

    Gloria Steinem did pretty well for herself despite Hugh Heffner. This may cause many doubts about getting too angry, but Steinem does not come off angry by MIM standards.

    Perhaps if one is raised at the right or sheltered schools and then launches into a rarified professional circle, one never witnesses anything to get really angry about, or only very rarely. Yet there is also a Looksetariat. Beyond that, we should try to visualize violence and harassment against Down’s Syndrome children as the substance of feminism, and start from there: it happens and pretty often.

    Yes, we can feel badly for Princess Di and even be angry. To be sure though, it is better to reconceptualize gender and really start at the bottom.

    People who can be paid to be female agents to seduce men are not good examples of gender oppressed people. That’s why it’s better to think about the Looksetariat a little more.

    The gender aristocracy question is also related to class. The Democratic Party campaign coffers, mega-corporation coffers and FBI and CIA coffers can afford to hire gender aristocracy ‘hos to chase after and spy on revolutionary men. The proletariat generally cannot afford to hire ‘hos to chase after the bourgeoisie.

    Another aspect of class is that the world’s majority of females are super-exploited wimmin, who see Witherspoon, Barrymore and Steinem and don’t get angry at the actress, model and pornography angle but think, “that’s a nice job opportunity they got.” It’s reminiscent of the joke I saw by a comic on television who said poor is not having a donkey: poor is seeing a three-legged donkey and wishing one had a three-legged donkey.

    That’s not to leave aside the question of male spies sleeping with females, another kind of oppression of the class system. The British just found some examples of their police sleeping with female political activists while spying.(6)

    Pseudo-feminists are not really aiming to advance the cause of wimmin. They are simply reacting against attacks on the System. They sense that their nation and class privileges are under attack.



  • %d bloggers like this: