Is Liberalism Really Anti-Authoritarian?

While this post is less explicitly feminist than others, it does deal with egalitarianism, a core theme of this blog. It also relates to the rationalist ideas from the last post.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction

Liberals sometimes use the term “authoritarian” to describe both conservatives as well as non-liberal leftists (including feminists) and to imply that all who oppose their highly permissive ideology want total control over all aspects of peoples’ lives. They view all their opponents as part of the same totalitarian, “sexually repressive” force.

I believe that it is possible to reject liberalism without buying into an authoritarian world view. In fact, this post will argue that the relativistic, liberal viewpoint, that anything goes with regard to behaviour and that no action (or belief) is ever right or wrong, is just another, highly individualistic, brand of authoritarianism. If the idea that extreme permissiveness is authoritarian seems strange to you, please read on. I encourage readers to consider my arguments and leave thoughtful (though not necessarily uncritical) comments, instead of just dismissing me as a dictatorial monster.

What Is Authoritarianism? 

Authoritarianism is the belief that one should rely on authorities to determine what is right or wrong, with regard to claims about both reality and moral goodness. For now, I will focus on the application of authoritarianism to moral claims (authoritarian approaches to understanding material reality may be discussed in another post). 

Authoritarians believe that there is an entity out there whose moral claims should be believed blindly, due to the entity’s supposed infallibility. Any action that the authority figure disapproves of is assumed to be morally wrong, while those which are not disapproved of are deemed morally acceptable and those which the entity commands are deemed obligatory. When authoritarians encounter rational arguments or experience inner intuitions that tell them not to obey a certain order, they will often force themselves obey it anyway. 

Liberals assume that all moral claims (or at least, all that involve labelling behaviours as “immoral”, “anti-feminist” or otherwise objectionable) are authoritarian and that the more moral claims a person puts forward, the more authoritarian they are. However, if one uses the more precise definition of authoritarianism that I provided above, it becomes clear that not all moral statements are authoritarian. A moral statement (whether it encourages or discourages controversial behaviours) is only authoritarian if it is justified purely through references to an authority (e.g. “you should not do this because the authority figure said not to”.)  

Those who attempt to support their moral statements (or claims about the world) through rational arguments, evidence and a concern for the welfare of humanity are not practising authoritarianism. This does not mean their positions are always right, but they cannot be accused of being unthinking sheep or dictators who command blind obedience (unless, of course, they are arguing for such things.) Nor should those who are perceived as making too many moral claims (or labelling too many actions as “immoral) be labelled authoritarians. The authoritarianism of a person or ideology is not determined by how many moral statements are made, but by how those statements are justified. 

It should also be stated that the strictness of a moral claim does not determine how authoritarian it is. I define a strict moral claim or rule as one that does not have many exceptions. For example, the belief that violence should never be used by progressive movements is a strict moral claim. The recognition that violence is generally wrong, but may be morally justified in cases where its use is necessary to achieve worthwhile aims (e.g. repelling a military invasion) is a less strict claim.  

While stern, difficult to follow rules are associated with authoritarian institutions (e.g. conservative churches) there may be valid reasons for making strict moral claims. I cannot think of a realistic circumstance in which the use of pornography will have significant benefits (either for individuals or society as a whole) thus I take a strict stance against it. I also refuse to make exceptions for milder versions of pornography (e.g. sexualised depictions of women in mainstream media). Though I recognise that milder practices are, in general, less harmful than the alternatives, their prevalence may encourage the more extreme practices. In either case, my strict positions are not justified through references to authority figures and thus are not authoritarian. 

Is Permissiveness always Anti-Authoritarian? 

Being permissive means refusing to lay down rules or moral principles and instead allowing people to obey any whim that occurs to them. Liberals believe that permissiveness is the opposite of authoritarianism. In reality, authoritarianism can be used to justify both excessive permissiveness as well as excessive strictness.  

A dramatic example of this is the “just following orders” defence, famously invoked by Nazi officers during the Nuremberg trials. Nazi Germany is often perceived as a strict society and to an extent this claim is accurate. However, the Nazi state also allowed and encouraged things that modern Western society often does not (such as blatant racism in the mainstream culture and unregulated, physical fighting among young males). In any case, the “just following orders” argument attempts to use the commands of an authority figure (in this case, the state) to excuse actions, rather than condemn them. It is thus an example of authoritarianism in the service of permissiveness. 

Fascists are not the only ones who believe that the state determines right from wrong. Anyone who argues that an action is morally acceptable, because it is legal, is guilty of applying authoritarianism. A non-authoritarian understanding of ethics leads one to realise that laws should be determined by moral principles, not the other way around. Liberals rage against the state when it condemns or outlaws behaviours or institutions which they like (such as the sex industry), but in cases where the state approves of or allows a practice, such approval is perceived as proof that the behaviour is ethical. Since liberals have more political influence than their “sex-negative” feminist opponents, liberals who appeal to the law are to some extent appealing to their own power. Thus equating power with moral rightness is a feature of liberal, as well as reactionary, thought. 

Another example of permissiveness coexisting with authoritarianism is liberal Christianity. The term “liberal Christian” is often applied to any Christian who is not conservative. I use it specifically to refer to Christians who believe that gay relationships, pornography consumption, promiscuous sex and other behaviours (wrongly or rightly) condemned by traditional Christianity are in fact morally acceptable, because their supposed god permits them. They say things like “God does not judge” and “God has forgiven me”. Whatever annoying cliché they decide to invoke, their argument can be summed up as “this behaviour is okay, because God thinks it is okay or, at least, will not punish people for it.”  Many argue that liberal Christians are less authoritarian than conservative Christians. I disagree. The belief that an action is permissible, because an authority said so, is no less authoritarian than the belief that it is wrong, because an authority said so. In either case, the words of an authority are viewed as the standard of moral goodness. 

Thus I do not believe that permissiveness is the opposite of authoritarianism, rather it is the opposite of strictness (as defined above). To reject authoritarianism, is to base all moral claims (including claims about the acceptability of a behaviour) on something other than an appeal to the statements of authority figures, such as concerns about the harms caused by allowing or disallowing particular actions. I do not know of an English word that properly conveys the opposite of authoritarianism (if you think of one, tell me in the comments), but I am pretty sure that “liberalism” and “permissiveness” are not it.  

Is Individualism Anti-Authoritarian? 

Not all liberals worship a god and few would admit to worshipping the government. Does this mean they are not authoritarian? No, they still can be. Conservative Christians accuse less religious people of making themselves into gods. I do not believe that this accusation applies to all non-religious people, but it does accurately describe liberals. While most liberals do not literally believe that they have god-like powers, they do view themselves as perfect authorities with regard to “their truth”. They also believe that any action they practice or permit another to practice upon them is acceptable, because they chose it. Thus liberals perceive themselves as infallible authorities (or metaphorical “gods”) with regard to their choices and their personal, so-called "reality".

One problem with this relativistic approach is that it cannot account for changed minds or regret. If everyone were a perfect authority on what was good for them (practically or morally), no one would ever willingly do something and decide afterwards that what they did was unwise. To change one's views or regret an action is to contradict one’s previous beliefs. If infallible beings actually existed, they would never contradict themselves.  

Liberals respond to this problem by claiming that remorse is always (emphasis on “always”) a product of "hateful", "moralistic", "sex-negative" social norms that infect the mind with “shame”. Of course, when other movements claim that “brainwashing” (or rather indoctrination) occurs in our society, they are accused of “denying agency”. Well, the liberal notion that all regret (or “shame”) is caused directly by social forces and never by a rational assessment of one’s actions (in accordance with common values, like equality and kindness) sounds like an appeal to “brainwashing” to me. That said, I do not belief that all "brainwashing" claims are false. In fact the view that society indoctrinates people into rejecting liberalism or feeling shame might make sense were our culture not dominated with pro-sex and generally individualistic messages. 

Furthermore the belief that every individual is an infallible authority with regard to their own actions, forces people to accept contradictory moral propositions. Two people, in the same exact situation, might make conflicting assessments of an action (one might label it as morally acceptable, while the other labels it as unacceptable.) If everyone were an infallible moral authority, both views would be accurate. Such contradictions can be solved only by employing relativism. Liberals claim that behaviours which may not be right “for you”, are nonetheless right "for him" or "for her" and thus we should not attempt to prevent actions undertaken by others (even if such attempt consists of nothing more than publicly expressing your objections to an act). 

Those who make this argument do not truly understand the nature of a moral impulse. Such impulses usually apply to the actions of humans in general. If a person genuinely believes that an action is severely immoral, they will not want others to carry it out. There is nothing virtuous about passively allowing actions which you recognise as wrong and thus refrain from. While liberals blindly praise “tolerance” and “acceptance” (their new buzzword), the reality is that such traits are only as virtuous as that which is being tolerated or accepted. To tolerate (or “accept”) genuine wrongdoing is to compromise one’s own moral character. Of course, one should tolerate behaviours which are not harmful or immoral (or at least, in the case of gay relationships or marriages, not more harmful than the alternative), but tolerating behaviours, while knowing that they are wrong, is nothing more than cowardice.  

Conclusion 

Liberals and conservatives who read this may wonder, “If I cannot trust the government or the god of Christianity (or any religion) or even myself to make perfect moral judgements, then who can I trust?” If so, they have missed my point entirely. There is no being whose moral judgements are infallible. The better question to ask is not “who”, but “how”. How do we determine right from wrong? This is the part that many liberals and conservatives fear, the part where you have to use your own brain, by which I mean the ability to reason and reflect upon what is in the interests of humanity.  

In spite of the “you view yourself as god” accusation (discussed above), I believe it is possible to reason about morality, collectively and independently, without viewing either ourselves or others as infallible. It is important that we critically examine our own thoughts, intuitions and desires along with those of others and devoid dismissing other people’s criticisms of our views and actions as “personal, subjective truths” which are relevant only to them and not to us. As individualistic as relativism and liberalism are, they are no less authoritarian than conservatism. The only true alternative is genuine critical (including self-critical) thought.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
While I will continue to write about feminism on this blog, I am considering expanding the focus of this blog to cover topics like rationalism, morality, revolutionary socialism and history. Let me know what you think of this idea.

How Pornographic is too Pornographic?

In my last post I explained the difference between pornographic and non-pornographic sex. In this post I will be continuing that theme by discussing how and to what extent the standards I put forward should be applied. 

Usually my posts can be read on their own, even when part of a series, but in this case, the previous post provides important background information, so read it if you have not already.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Introduction

Defenders of pornography and BDSM sometimes wonder just how strictly their opponents want them to apply the principle that sex should be an egalitarian activity, free from dominance and submission. In the comment section of this Feminist Current article, a defender of BDSM, who calls herself “Strongly Submissive” (an Orwellian name, if ever I heard one) raises this topic, by asking “If you are drawing the line at “violence”, what is violence?”. She then lists a number of behaviours and asks whether they count as “violent/aggressive”. Simply put, she is asking “how anti-egalitarian is too anti-egalitarian?”

In my previous post I argued that egalitarianism is one of the key features that distinguish non-pornographic sex from pornographic sex. In this post I will be focussing on this criterion, since I believe it is the most important one, but the general argument I put forward can be applied to my other criteria too. Thus this post is a response to the broader question that is posed in the title. 

Despite what the title may suggest, this post is not about how much sexual content should be allowed in the mainstream media. Rather it about the character of sexual activities, including those featured in the media.  

The Black Jack Metaphor

The game of Black Jack begins with the players receiving two cards each, which always have a combined value of twenty-one or less. The players must then decide whether or not to accept an additional (unknown) card from the dealer. The players’ aim (as well as that of the dealer) is to obtain a set of cards which have a total value of twenty-one (or as close to twenty-one as possible.) The closer one’s score is to twenty-one, the more likely one is to win, so long as one’s score does not go over twenty-one. If your score goes above twenty-one (which is referred to as "going bust") you lose the round. 

Liberal, sex-positive feminists treat sex as if it were a game of Black Jack. In their view the more aggressive, degrading and generally anti-egalitarian a sex act is, the more “subversive”, “liberating” and praiseworthy it is. Sexual acts that lack such elements are deemed “boring”, “conventional” and “vanilla” (as if that were a bad thing.) At the same time, liberal self-proclaimed feminists claim that rape is wrong. Committing rape is the sex-positive equivalent of getting a value above twenty-one in Black Jack. Liberals aim to make their sexual activities as anti-egalitarian as possible, and therefore as rape-like as possible, without actually committing rape. 

If the goal of Black Jack were to get as low a score as possible, no player would ever accept a card from the dealer and thus no player would ever “go bust”, making the game far less interesting. It is the attempt to get as close to a certain “line” as possible without crossing it that makes the game exciting. However, the real life rapes of women are no game. Sex liberalism praises men for approaching the “rape line” (for lack of a better term) by introducing brutal and aggressive power dynamics into their sex acts. Thus liberals create a scenario in which some men will end up crossing the line and committing acts of rape or sexual assault. 

The Elusive “Rape-Line” 

Liberals spend a great deal of time debating the exact location of the “rape line” (they made an entire documentary devoted to it.) They ask questions like “exactly how drunk does a woman have to be before a man who has sex with her can be deemed guilty of rape?” or “how enthusiastic should her consent sound before it can really be considered consent?”. They fail to recognise that such questions would not even come up if our culture did not push the view that sex is an act of conquest and encourage men to mix drunkenness with sex or pursue sex acts which their female “targets” were likely to find horrific and degrading. 

Instead of trying to locate the elusive rape line, a far better approach to combating rape would be to insist that men stay as far away from the line as possible, by ensuring that their sex lives have as little resemblance to acts of rape as possible. This means ensuring that their sexual behaviours do not express a desire to dominate others or have them submit to such domination, for dominance and (unwilling) submission are the defining characteristics of rape.  Thus those who ask “how pornographic is too pornographic?”, “how anti-egalitarian is too anti-egalitarian?” or “how rape-like is too rape-like?” are asking the wrong question. 

Reframing the Question 

I have to admit that my response to the “how pornographic is too pornographic” issue comes from a Christian fundamentalist video series that I used to watch when I was really bored, in order to poke fun at their absurd and reactionary beliefs. It seems I have a strange interest in discussing views I find ridiculous (as evidenced by the current title and contents of this blog.) The episode that (kind of) inspired my answer discussed the question "how far is too far?”, with regard to pre-marital, sexual behaviour (after a long boring segment denouncing the supposed evils of abortion.)The Christians responded to the question by arguing that instead of trying to get as close to committing a sexual sin as possible (without actually committing it), one should try to stay as far away from sin as possible.

I do not believe that there is such a thing as God or sin, nor I do believe that pre-marital sex is inherent immoral, but there are ways of behaving that are immoral. Instead of asking how many morally questionable elements (such as dominance, submission, conquest, superficiality, etc.) one can introduce into their relationships or sexual acts (before these acts become deserving of criticism), we should be aiming to rid our sexual activities of such elements and make them as egalitarian and loving as possible. Applying this principle will mean different things to different people. For some, it will mean rejecting outright sadomasochism. For others, it will mean practising conventional sexual activities (which include kissing, hugging and other forms of “outer course”) more gently. Anything that increases safety and reduces physical pain (particularly if it does so without reducing sexual arousal) is a step forward. 

Liberals will no doubt be outraged that I took an idea from a conservative source and think that I must therefore be a conservative myself. I guess the idea that one should be “open-minded” and try to learn from others does not extend to liberalism’s political opponents. I, however, think that any movement, no matter how vile or right-wing it is, can make claims that are true and useful. Thus we should consider what our opponents say, but that does not mean we have to blindly agree with them or acknowledge that they have “their own truths”. The line between actual critical thinking and mindless relativism can be a tricky one to pinpoint, but at least being on the wrong side of it is not nearly as dangerous as being on the wrong side of the rape line.
-

Conclusion 

To reiterate, I think the best way to approach the question of “how pornographic is too pornographic” when it comes to sexual activities, is to rephrase the question and instead ask “how can we make our sexual activities as loving, egalitarian and non-pornographic as possible?”. Unfortunately, many people (both men and women) have had their sexualities influenced by a thoroughly hierarchical political order (which consists not only of male dominance, but also of capitalism, white supremacy and other hierarchical systems) and resisting these harmful desires while attempting to form new ones will require effort. Some people will need to put in more effort than others, but that should not stop them from trying. 

I think the most effective way to create a world in which egalitarian sexual relationships can flourish, is to create a whole different political, economic and social order (one that rewards those who treat others like equal human beings, rather than resources to be conquered and used), but we should none-the-less attempt to free our sexualities from the short-sighted values of capitalist society, even while we are trapped within it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stay tuned for the final article in my series on egalitarian sex and relationships, in which I address some of the harmful views regarding romance and love that are promoted by mainstream culture.

One Year Anniversary Review

Happy International Women’s Day! It is already the 8^th of March in Australia and a year since I started this blog. This post will be a review of what has been accomplished by the blog in the past year.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

Introduction 

While this blog is still pretty insignificant, it has addressed many important issues and angered some liberals. I have received many views and I am sure I have fans out there (hello, to all my fellow Feminist Current users), but my follower count is a measly three (I thank them anyway.) I believe that one must have a Blogger account in order to follow my blog. Perhaps, many of you do not have one or maybe you think it is pointless to follow a blog is only updated about once a month. I actually think the infrequent updates are an argument in favour of following my blog, since they spare one the need to constantly check if I have posted anything, but you are all free to do as you wish. 

This post will feature statistics, comparisons, the results of my feminism quizzes future plans and a lot of reflection. If that sort of thing bores you and you would rather just read my rants against liberal feminism, feel free to ignore this post. If you are curious about this blog and its audience, keep reading.

General Statistics and Information 

Total Views: 5380 (an average of 14.7 views per day) 
Total Posts: 13 (not including this one, it is a good thing I am not superstitious) 
Numbers of (Official) Followers: 3 
Total Comments: 51 (30 if you exclude my own comments) 
Number of People who have commented: 7 (not including myself) 
Countries from which the blog has been viewed: the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Serbia, Belgium, France, Germany, Brazil, Costa Rica, Greece, Canada, the Philippines, Israel and many more (I can only view the countries which have generated views recently, but I have seen many other countries appear on the list in the past.) 
Country that Generated the most Views: the United States (Australia comes second) 
Viewers’ Favourite Web Browser: Firefox (at least that was the one used to find my blog most often, use of Firefox may be associated with liberalism/progressivism, as this article defines it at least) 
Viewers’ Favourite Operating System: Windows (this one clearly beat out the other options, e.g. Macintosh. I use it myself. I also use Firefox. Great minds think alike?) 
Most Common Traffic Sources: Google and Feminist Current (I also thank all the people who re-blogged my posts, but I no longer have any data on how many views you have generated)

Post Comparisons 

Most Viewed Post: “Why Cultural Relativism is Racist” with 550 views.

I did not expect this post to be so popular, since it was less focussed on gender and sexuality than any of the others. I guess women are interested in topics other than those stereotypically associated with women after all. The fact that this post was controversial (some liberals hated it so much, they wanted to track down my real life identity, because of it) and got re-blogged multiple times probably helped.

My second most popular article at the moment is “Why Mainstream Feminism is Corporate Feminism”, but “The Five Most Common Pro-BDSM Arguments” is catching up. Nevertheless, it seems as though articles which apply feminist thought to other political issues (e.g. class, race and international issues) are my most popular ones. Expect to see more of those next year. 

Least Viewed Post: “The Pink-Blue Switch – What Liberals Do Not Tell You” with 64 views

I probably overestimated the amount of interest surrounding what I call the pink-blue switch (the fact that blue went from being a “girl colour” to being a “boy colour” in the middle of the twentieth century, while the opposite occurred with the colour pink) or maybe people just did not know what the title meant.

I think the post is undervalued. It provides a useful summary of my views on gender and responses to common liberal arguments about gender. It is one of my earlier posts and some of its arguments are repeated in other posts, however it is still the only one that clearly puts forward my version of gender abolitionism. This topic will probably be discussed again (in spite of the risks associated with discussing it in the “wrong” way), but in the meantime, please check out “The Pink-Blue Switch”. It is not as boring as it must sound. 

Most Commented on Post: “The Trouble with Safe Spaces – Part 1” with 15 comments

While seven of the comments on this post are mine, the number of comments not posted by me (eight) is still higher for that post than for any other. “What Type of Feminist Are You? – Part 2” comes second with 12 comments overall and seven if you exclude my comments. I recommend that readers view these posts in order to read the interesting and insightful comments left on them, though perhaps I should not have included comments related to technical issues in my count.

If you are wondering why there is no “least commented on” category it is because there are four posts on my blog with no comments, including “Why Cultural Relativism is Racist”. Yes, as of now, my most popular post has no comments, weird. Maybe that will change now that I have drawn attention to this fact. 

My Personal Favourite: “What Type of Feminist Are You? – Part 1”

While this post is not among my most popular or most discussed, it does a good job of addressing the key points on which liberal and non-liberal feminists differ, including sexuality, beauty practices and political activism. It also integrated discussions about race and international issues into my broader discussion of gender. I feel that integrating different topics together is a better way of approaching them than discussing such issues as though they were completely separate from other topics.

The quiz associated with the post has existed in automated form for over three months now, as has its sequel (the quiz featured in “What Type of Feminist Are You? – Part 2”), this enables me to report on the results of these quizzes, which brings me to the next section of this post.

Quiz Results 

According to the ProProfs website, which I used to create the quizzes, the first quiz (part 1) was taken eleven times, will the second quiz (part 2) was taken ten times. Only attempts made after my latest edits to the quizzes were included on the statistics page. Thus my quizzes were probably taken more than ten or eleven times. If you took the quizzes shortly after they were released, your results may not be included. I took the quizzes myself soon are releasing them to see if they worked, so hopefully those attempts are not included either.

For the first quiz, 18% of takers (two out of eleven) were deemed to be liberal feminists. This means 82% of the quiz’s takers were non-liberals (moderate or radical feminists.) For the second quiz, 80% of takers (eights out of ten) were labelled as radical or pro-radical feminists. It’s good to know I am reaching my target demographic (sorry to the two liberals who may be reading this, but not everything is about you.) Here are some statistics related to particular questions from both quizzes.

Most Agreed with Statements: Questions 5 and 17 on the second quiz

Both of these statements received ten “agree” responses and no “disagree” responses. They came from a quiz that was only meant to be taken by readers who had already been deemed non-liberal, so it probably is not true that all my readers agree with these statements. I guess ten may be too small a sample size to represent my readers anyway, but unfortunately that is all the data I have. 

The fifth question addressed the need to challenge the notion that there was something good about being “masculine” (i.e. aggressive and violent) or feminine (i.e. appearance focussed and obsessed with pleasing others), instead of just liberalising such roles (allowing anyone to take them on regardless of their biological sex.) I expected it to be more controversial. Perhaps the way I phrased it was too biased or people did not read all the way through.

The seventeenth statement was very similar. It dealt with the need to abolish “gender roles”. I might have received a more split response if I referenced the abolition of “gender” instead, but this change would not really have altered the meaning of the question. In any case, it is good to know that my readers do not wish to impose gender norms onto children through toys or other means. 

Most Disagreed with Statement: Question 11 on the second quiz

This statement argued for the abolition of Western medicine, an extreme position that I myself do not agree with (remember I did not score 100 on the second quiz and thus am not 100% radical by my own definition.) I wanted to include both extreme and moderate statements on both my quizzes. Some radical feminist writers are strongly opposed to Western medicine and Deep Green Resistance favours the abolition of civilisation (which includes Western medicine), so I think it is fair to state that this is a position an extreme radical feminist might hold, even though many do not. Bear in mind that “radical” and “extreme” do not mean the same thing (which is not to imply that being extreme is always a bad thing.)

The eleventh and nineteenth questions from the first quiz also received universal disagreement, but they did not receive the full number of responses (a few people who took the first quiz must have stopped part way through). Those questions dealt with sexualised female celebrities and life-threatening sadomasochistic practices, respectively. Sadly, one person thought young girls should be praised for wanting to work in the sex industry (question seven). I was also disappointed to see that three people failed to recognise that a form of BDSM involving white “masters” dominating black “slaves” was racist. How much more blatant can you get? 

Most Controversial Statement: Question 5 on the first quiz

This statement challenged the belief that sex was a human right for males, something that they could not function without. Responds to this question were perfectly split with five people agreeing five people disagreeing. I guess even some non-liberals bought into the idea that men were entitled to sex. Maybe this is a testament to the power of the aggressive, sex-crazed males who dominate the anti-feminist (MRA) movement or perhaps it is a result of our society general obsession with sex and the ability of the sex industry to convince the population that its product is the most important thing in the world.

For a while, I thought the question dealing with religion (the fifteenth question on the second quiz) would be the most controversial one, but in the end six of the quiz-takers took a stand against tradition religion, while four did not. A question dealing with mild beauty practices (the eighth question on the second quiz) received a similar response. For the first quiz, questions dealing with BDSM and general activism philosophy provoked the most amount of controversy. 

Conclusion 

My experiences this year have led me to the conclusion that I should expand the range of topics covered by this blog, by using the principles of radical feminism to address other issues that my readers are interested in (including economics, race and international issues.) I may even change the name of my blog after I get over my bitterness towards liberal feminists (which probably will not happen until I leave university.)

I also think it is important for the feminist movement to challenge the belief that sex is a human right for males, given how much controversy that topic provoked. Expect to see a post on my blog discussing the differences between needs and wants (which will give me a chance to express my socialist views as well as my feminist ones.) In short, expect to see more interesting and controversial content on this blog in the coming year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the near future, I will be addressing the question of what it means to have an egalitarian sexual relationship. Expect to see the first part of a three part series dealing with that issued posted later this month.

Why Cultural Relativism is Racist

NOWSA 2014 is over. Thankfully, I was in London for part of it. I do not think I could have been any further away from their discussions of “feminist pornography”, “gender-fluidity” and [insert pretentious, academic term for a concept that is actually pretty simple here]. I wrote this post back in July, while I was in Paris, where I had to walk through an onslaught of expensive clothing in order to get to anything I needed, but I was still happy to be away from university for a week (I told my parents that the semester started in August, haha.) 

This post was originally going to be part of an upcoming post, but since it references current events I wanted to get it out before it became really outdated. Enjoy! 

  -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introduction

One of the organisers of NOWSA 2014 bragged about making it “the most intersectional one yet”, what I assume the organiser meant is that the conference featured more non-whites and transgender organisers/speakers and involved discussions of race, disability and just about everything except for the problems that women face as a result of being women. Liberals claim that they (unlike all those nasty anti-pornography, anti-BDSM, “white” feminists) are the true opponents of racism and what they term “ethnocentrism”. They argue for something called “cultural relativism”, the notion that all cultural practices ought to be “respected” (which really means that they ought to be blindly praised and never criticised, no matter how much harm they cause to women.)

As the title implies, my aim in this article is to convince you that cultural relativism is in fact a racist, pro-West viewpoint. This post builds upon an idea that I brought up in the comment section of this article. My next article will also be based on it. Feel free to check it out before you continue reading and I should probably give Heretic some credit for mentioning that non-Westerns generally are not big fans of the sex industry and the “sex-positivity” that goes along with it.

1. It Makes Non-White People Seem Like Aliens

Liberals promote the view that nobody who has grown up in the West can ever hope to understand a non-Western culture, at least not without studying it at university for years and giving up thousands of dollars in the process, how convenient, right?

While there are indeed a wide variety of cultures in the world, there are certain patterns as well. The oppression of women is one. Most class-divided societies have some kind of mechanism through which to oppress women. Often this takes the form of a beauty practice like foot-binding or neck rings (which deform women’s collarbones in order to make their necks appear longer) or breast implants or any of the other hundred or so beauty practices that are promoted in the West. Perhaps we are not that different after all. 

Class-divided cultures tend to have supernatural and pseudoscientific beliefs that justify the division of humanity into classes. Judaism, Christianity and Islam claim that there exists a single god who commands the existence of a hierarchical society in which some people are enslaved to others. Hinduism and Buddhism claim that the world is a place of punishment that people are sent to (through reincarnation) if they fail to reach Nirvana and thus making life better for the poor and oppressed would defeat the whole purpose of their existence on Earth. Then you have the so-called “scientists” who argued that black people’s brains were naturally smaller than white people’s and that blacks were thus suited to the role of being slaves. While ruling classes have used all kinds of different ideological mechanisms to keep the oppressed in their place (thus creating that “cultural diversity” thing liberals are so fond of) all cultures which are the product of an economic system that divides people into classes are fundamentally about the same thing, maintaining that class division. 

Cultural relativists ignore these patterns in favour of a narrative that makes non-Western cultures seem so different to the culture of the West that those who belong to the former might as well be aliens. Of course they do not call them aliens, but they do go out of their way to emphasise how different non-whites are to white people and how incapable whites are of understanding non-white people. They also denounce any attempt to point out the similarities between people of different ethnic backgrounds. In doing so, cultural relativists set up a false contrast between the cultures in which women are oppressed by various traditional beauty practices and the Western world in which women are supposedly treated like equals. Then they attack Westerners for wanting to impose their “egalitarianism” onto other cultures which refuse to accept the “Western” notion that women ought to be treated like equals. This whole narrative is of course dependent on the (false) assumption that the West does not do the oppressive things that non-Western societies do. So tell me, who are the racists now?

2. It Makes Non-White Groups Seem Internally Homogenous

If the argument I put forward above is correct, it follows from this that all cultures ought to be subject to political critique. While it is clear that white people are capable of critiquing the cultures they grew up in and being part of movements that challenge Western cultural practices, cultural relativists assume that all non-whites are blind followers of their cultures. Thus criticising a non-white person’s culture is deemed to be highly offensive, because there is absolutely no way that they could be criticising it themselves, right? Non-whites are too dumb for that. 

In case I did not make myself clear enough, that last comment was sarcastic. Non-whites are in fact capable of critiquing the cultures they grew up in, just as white people do. Hence there are radical leftist movements all over the world as well as secularist and moderate religious movements that seek to combat Muslim extremism. There are even feminist movements that fight against the enforcement of harmful cultural practices such as burqa-wearing and female genital mutilation. Cultural relativists ignore the existence of such movements and instead assume that every racial group has some kind of uniform culture that had existed for thousands of years before white people came along and messed things up. White people (or rather, a group of rich, powerful men who claim to speak up on behalf of ordinary white people and sometimes enlist their help in order to impose oppression) have messed things up for non-whites, but not in the way liberals think they have. I will have more to say about that in the next section.

3. It Ignores The Role Of The West In International Affairs

In order to defend practices such as burqa-wearing and female genital mutilation, cultural relativists represent such practices as a natural part of non-Western cultures. Cultural relativists would have us all believe that Arab women have been wearing burqas since the beginning of time. In reality, the Arab world was once the site of intellectual progress and religious tolerance, at least compared to medieval Europe (in which strict adherence to Catholicism was insisted upon.) As I said above, class divided societies tend to have cultures and ideologies that reinforce the status quo and these cultures ought to be critiqued on that basis. The Arabic world of the middle ages should not be exempt from such critique, but the religious extremism and violent misogyny of some Islamic countries in the modern era is at least in part due to the policies of the West. It is not purely a product of traditional Arabic or Muslim culture.

A timely example of this phenomenon is Israel’s recent attack on Gaza. Over 1800 Palestinians (most of them civilians) have lost their lives during the attack and many more had their homes destroyed by bombs. Israel’s occupation of Palestine has been going on since 1967, inspiring much of the contempt for the West that exists within the Middle East and causing the people of Palestine and the surrounding Arab nations to turn to Islamic extremists who promise protection from the influences of the West (which is not to say that anyone struggling to liberate Palestine is automatically an Islamic extremist.)

Another source of contempt is the understandable disgust many in the Arabic world feel towards Western culture. Traditional religion is seen as a means of maintaining order and morality in a world increasingly dominated by the shallow, amoral thinking of the West, and yes, ironic as it is, the very people who are pushing cultural relativism (liberal feminists) are part of the problem. If a group of Muslim extremists, or perhaps even some more moderate Muslims who have not yet totally bought into Western ideology, were to encounter a group of liberal feminists who insisted on “cultural relativism”, “sexual liberation” and the supposed “right to be sexy” the Muslims would see these liberals as an example of everything that is wrong with the West and, to some extent, they would be right.

There are of course numerous other causes of the growth of religious fundamentalism in the Middle East and the conflict between the Arab and Western worlds, including the fact that the US government provided economic backing to extreme Muslim groups during their fight against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s, even though more secular resistance groups existed. If you wish to investigate the issue further, I am sure you will find plenty of people who know way more about the topic than I do. Noam Chomsky is the first person who comes to mind. For now, I think my point has been made. Culture is an ever-changing thing and at this point in history many harmful changes are being perpetuated by the actions of the West. While cultural relativists present themselves as critics of the West and Western centrism, their viewpoint ultimately winds up justifying the harms that the West causes throughout the world.

Conclusion

I hope I have convinced you that cultural relativism is actually a racist worldview that makes the West out to be far better than actually is. Instead of challenging the conservative view that the West is some sort of beacon of enlightenment for the rest of the world to follow, cultural relativists instead try to convince us that there is nothing particularly good about enlightenment and that we only think it is good because we grew up in the “enlightened” West, thus reinforcing the view that the West is in fact enlightened. Instead of encouraging us to see the oppressive nature of our own culture, cultural relativists tell us to be just as uncritical towards other cultures as we are towards our own, thereby ensuring that Western culture remains uncriticised. I daresay that it is not the interests of women or non-Westerns that are being served by this fake and (ironically) highly westernised, anti-racism.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
I would like to offer my condolences to the hundreds of Gaza residents who lost family members during the time that I spent writing this article and I would like them to know that the actions of the Israel government do not represent the desires of all ethnic Jews.

This same article has been posted on my other blog, which I do not use as often nowadays. The other blog deals with my non-feminism related views. Feel free to check it out if you have the time.