|
Feminism and the Criminalization of
Masculinity
By Aduku Addae
The Feminist Movement has usurped the legal and
political processes to institute "rights" for women
against a non-contending male interest. There has been no
comparable organized “masculinist” movement to safeguard the
“rights” of the other half of society. This is revealed,
most dramatically, in the entrenchment of the concept of
“reproductive rights” in federal and state law.
The feminists have effectively appropriated to themselves the
power to make all decisions about reproduction. The gamut
of legally sanctioned decisions includes the absolute right to
decide to seize the semen of the male non-entity. Hence,
a woman can choose to become pregnant; to carry the pregnancy to
term; to terminate the pregnancy at will; or, to offer the child
for adoption. In contravention of the notion of equity, which
theoretically underpins the principles of law in democratic
society. The male population has practically no say in
deciding these matters.
Concomitant with their disfranchisement, the workingmen of
America have been saddled with the cost of rearing children. In
a most disingenuous fashion, they have inherited the “right of
responsibility,” an imposition which is enforced by county and
state governments with a rigor rivaling the ferocity of the
Salem witch-hunt. Workingmen of the most noble intent, who have
the most intense love for their children and a consuming desire
to see that they are cared for, have been systematically turned
into scapegoats.
Zealots, in the District Attorney offices, (and now the
"Public Defender" in Jamaica), who operate under the
mantra that those persons whose names appear on a sheet of paper
in their docket fall into two categories, bad guys and victims,
have stigmatized them. Where child support is the issue, the
father becomes the bad guy, a proverbial fly to be crushed by
the might of the DA's office.
Very often, this zeal is in the service of calculating
Jezebels whose sole interest in child bearing is in the bounty
that it brings from the welfare on the first and fifteenth of
the month.
Official statistics inform that 27% of households headed by
women are black. The sudden conclusion is that Black Men are
spawning and abandoning their offspring. This is, of course,
consistent with the propagandist point of view, which is
characteristic of the dominant culture.
There is, however, a more fundamental truth at the core of
these statistics. A large proportion of black women who head
households are under-skilled workers. From a purely economist
view point, it is more cost effective for these women,
represented in the statistics, to subscribe to the welfare dole
than to seek employment. Additionally, it is more
expedient to do the former than to commit to a grinding struggle
with a man who barely earns above minimum wage when he can find
employment, and who is the last to be hired and the first to be
fired. The state dole was for a long time a better option than
domestic partnership in the black household.
Generally speaking the social dynamics of 21st century America
has presented an economic disincentive to the continued
existence of the nuclear family among the underclass. Black
people are most severely affected. The critical fact is that 50%
of the prison population is Black and poor (i.e., working
people). For the welfare system which victimizes fathers and
renders them economically redundant, at the same time as
reproductive rights are assigned to women, alienates the male
population and dooms men to antisocial and unproductive behavior
-- hence the epidemic criminality affecting black communities.
The statistical evidence speaks for itself.
The systematic impoverishment of the workingman through legal
expropriation by the state and local governments has driven
significant numbers of the male population underground.
Draconian seizure of large chunks of already low wages before
tax has forced many conscientious fathers into hiding. It is the
simplest expression of the animal will to survive the deathblows
of the bureaucrats. The choice is simple -- escape or die!
The term deadbeat is superbly apt.
The social cost of childrearing has been lopsidedly shifted to
men who are already socially disadvantaged. With a wage
assignment of $482.00 per month (to use a figure with particular
relevance), a workingman is compelled to foot a bill of
$104,112.00 for the rearing of a child up to 18 years.
This is often a child whose conception is not a matter of mutual
agreement, but simply an expression of a woman's "right to
choose," and who, if statistical trends hold, will end up a
complete liability to society. And certainly will not be of any
help to a father in his old age. It is the worst kind of
extortion possible and goes to the heart of the systemic
impoverishment, which afflicts a significant section of the
workingmen in America.
Political disfranchisement (the prejudicial assignment of rights
to one group over another), social alienation, and economic
marginalization of the poorest of the male population are the
principal result of decades of feminist agitation. Social
equality has not been realized for women! The corporate
boardrooms are still enclaves of male domination and these are
the seats of power. Yet, while women have remained
essentially powerless, they have been powerful partners in a
politicizing process, which intensifies the oppression of the
working poor. This movement has been accessory to judicial
and social engineering processes, which systematically dismantle
working class families by setting woman against man.
The concept of reproductive rights is one that is as alien to
the working class experience as is the right to have multiple
organ transplants. The reality of the working class
experience dictates cooperative actions on a daily basis,
especially at work. The stringency of working people's
finances necessitates cooperation between domestic partners,
roommates, carpoolers, and so forth. The idea of choice
based on individualistic pursuit is an ideal which the
workingman or workingwoman cannot experience in reality.
Individual choice for the poor is an illusion and in practice
has dire consequences.
Rights, by definition, subordinate the interest of the
individual to that of the public. Hence one may exercise rights
only to the extent that one's actions do not infringe on the
“rights” of other people. In other words, there are
caveats on all rights, which means in essence that the average
person has very little opportunity for purely individualistic
pursuit. The rich, those who can afford to breach the caveats,
are the only ones who can experience so-called “Individualism.”
The philosophy of rights in general, and of
"reproductive rights" in particular is a rich man's
(rich woman's) concept, which is synonymous to choice.
When this is imposed on the lives of working people there are
bitter consequences. For the wealthy, reproduction is
associated with options including the sperm bank, in-vitro
fertilization, surrogate reproduction, gene manipulation and
cloning.
For the poor, copulation is obligatory (hence a nullified
right -- a non-choice)! And it is hardly individualistic since
it requires the cooperation of another individual.
Reproduction is for the working people a social act and
becomes an individual right only to the extent that
individuals do not participate in it.
Participation is forfeiture of this right.
Hence, in principle a woman has no right over a man, or, over
the child once she becomes part of this process. (It must
be pointed out in this regard that legal abortion is not a
matter of "choice" but state-sanctioned genocide.
Child support orders are not matters of “women's right to
choose.” (For what are women choosing outside of impoverishing
the lives of those who are closest to them?) Child support is an
imposition of the state, a machination to confiscate the
workingman's wages and further impoverish him.)
The idea that the working class woman can choose what to do with
her body is inconsistent with the fact that the body of the
worker (man or woman) is both an instrument of production and a
commodity. The workers in the factories and offices are
merely extensions of the equipment in these corporate environs,
therefore, instruments of production. Workers are even
more dispensable than the equipment! They are bought and
sold on the labor market in much the same way as bread and
cheese are bought and sold. Hence, they are commodities.
The actions of the working people are determined not by
choice but by necessity. Necessity is the driving force
behind the decisions that poor people make. Rich women are
pro-choice because in a practical sense they can make choices.
Workingwomen have to yield to necessity. The feminist
movement is interested in "rights" (read choices) and
privileges, which are buttressed on consumerist notions.
The movement's organizational and agitational efforts are not
directed to realize social equity.
The feminists participate in the putrid political process and
utilize the existing machinery of the state to intensify the
oppression of working people, especially Black and Hispanic
males. In this regard it can be seen that the American
feminist are both racist and sexist.
The feminist revolt is one of privileged women demanding and
receiving a stake in the oppression of the unprivileged of
society. The public alliance with women across the class
line is an incredible fiction which provides a smokescreen for
the wives and sisters of the men of the governing elite to beat
up on working class males who are scapegoats for every social
ill that the elite can think up. Feminism is a philosophy,
which is subversive to the interest of the working class.
It divides along gender lines and stokes and encourages
conflicts at all levels.
The idea of inequality between genders has meaning only in the
ivory towers. The working people are equalized by the
commoditization of labor, and by extension, of their persons.
Persons whose labor commands $8.50 per hour do not have to
philosophize about equality. Their equality is codified in their
price. This realization has been with Black People for
centuries. The female slave who fetched
$300.00 on the auction block was in no doubt of her equality to
the male slave who fetched the same price and
stood daily in the cotton, or, cane rows beside her. Price
is now, as then, the definitive equalizer.
So the notion of equality does not adhere to gender lines. (All
women are not equal.) The notion of equality traverses
these, as it does race, and find qualitative expression in deep
social relations, which cannot be resolved by a concoction of
rights and privileges. The “right” of the workingman
and woman to exercise power over each other is totally absurd.
True equality and justice for working people will come only from
conscious cooperation. The "reproductive right"
should be repudiated and the divisive feminist agenda
counteracted by a non-gender platform.
This is a precondition for the redemption of the working
class “family” and especially for the host of marginalized
and alienated African and Hispanic males (including the
children) whose daily lives constitute a struggle for survival.
It is time to take a stand against criminalization of
masculinity in America. Time to send a clear message to
the American Feminist Movement and their political cronies that
we will not be divided, man against woman!
* * * *
*
posted 9 November 2007 |
