Fearing Feminism As A Dystopian Science Fiction Scenario

the feminists

Infinity Plus expounds on the lost not-so-classic 1971 pulp novel The Feminists, a fascinating example of the trope of misogynist fears regarding gender equality wrought as dystopian sci-fi theme:

The future is distant 1992, and everything’s gone to hell in a handbasket since the female coup (often for reasons that are not immediately apparent: for example, I cannot understand why a drop in industrial production to virtually zero should have caused devastating global pollution). Men are a subjugate species; they have their uses, but not many of them, and are expected to be self-effacing and subservient at all times.

Husky hetero Keith Montalvo has sex with a like-minded colleague, and their crime is discovered. He goes on the run, hides in the New York subway, encounters and joins the underground (literally) resistance. Oops, I forgot the obligatory bit: he falls in love with a sultry rebel temptress.

, , , , ,

  • john doe

    Well, the feminists in Sweden are trying to ban peeing while standing up. Sounds like dystopia to me.

    • http://twitter.com/TedHeistman Ted Heistman

      All the Vikings left out of there already, years ago.

      • Anarchy Pony

        We came to America and became fat, complacent midwesterners, and perfected the art of being condescending(See “Minnesota Nice”).

  • geminihigh

    Some paleo-”feminist”s and men haters still envision this as a utopia. Thankfully they are an outdated, silly minority.

    • http://artasith-m-nasdsnre.tumblr.com/ Simon Valentine

      not necessarily true
      be less direct
      some silly minorities are like zerg
      and lulz

      regardless of specifics, dystopia necessarily fails to be complete
      “nature will find a way”
      or
      some b*tch kid ‘will change the rules after the game starts’ (let alone won’t comprehend rules at any point in time)
      or
      [generic sic]

      let those be pre-defaced.
      there are always ways to have a f*ck’n great time
      no matter what anyone thinks, says, holds, moves, blah blah great blah is blah
      so as one may see
      utopia doesn’t require work
      but vision
      therefor inevitably cannot not exist
      and if it’s irrelevant
      we’re already dead
      and it’s only the beginning
      again

  • Tchoutoye

    The Polish sci-fi classic Seksmisja (Sex Mission, 1984) proves that feminism as a dystopian science fiction scenario doesn’t have to be all bad. In fact it was voted best Polish film of the last 30 years a while back, I’m assuming it could only have done so with many female voters.

  • Anarchy Pony

    The Oppressors always fear that the Oppressed will depose them and the roles will be reversed, which often causes them to double down on the oppression. Unfortunately, some of the oppressed become hell bent on that outcome. Every revolutionary movement has to confront this possibility.

    • Jin The Ninja

      true, but i’ve never heard of a historical matriarchal society where men where in ANY way disenfranchised or even removed from political decision making. in anthro it is common knowledge that matriarchal societies are almost always egalitarian in practice and almost always a form of participatory democracy.

      i.e. minangkabau or the iroquois confederacy.

      • Hadrian999

        for a society to be either matriarchal or patriarchal someone has to be disenfranchised, if not the terms would be totally meaningless

        • Jin The Ninja

          you’re thinking of ‘matriarchal’ as the opposite of patriarchal- which in anthropology just isn’t the case. matriarchal societies are on a spectrum- from matrilineal to matrifocal, but like i said in the previous comment- nearly every matriarchal society works on the basis of participatory democracy. the iroquois confederacy (haudenosanee) for example had usually male chiefs elected by a women’s council with consideration to the elder’s council. in cultural anthro “matriarchal” is often applied to cultures whose gender roles and norms radically differentiate from western standards- where women have a very high standard of personal freedom and where children are raised by the women’s family- and inherit a women’s property.
          in many so-called ‘matriarchal’ first nations cultures- the uncle (mother’s brother) was the disciplinarian/father figure, while the biological father served the role of the ‘fun uncle.’ who the kids saw socially, but never lived with. this is what anthropology often terms matriarchal. it is a kinship system and a political system, but the political system is really direct democracy with checks and balances. it is not direct rule by women. so if you take the word at face value- it doesn’t represent actual extant matriarchal traditions.

          often i think when people reference ‘matriarchy’ in popular discourse- what they are really referencing is an imagined threat of female rule and domination which would mirror our patriarchal civilisation, but that is system of control and domination perpetuating fear of alternative systems.

          i am not advocating for matriarchy- i am simply saying what plenty of mainstream anthropologists consistently say, that in the matriarchal societies observed and documented- what matriarchy really means, is a synonym for egalitarian participatory democracy. it could simply be that they use an incorrect word to describe these egalitarian societies, but it also could be that a society with specific matrifocal principles is much less oppressive for everyone.

          • Hadrian999

            modern societal and cultural programming does exist, you can’t remove it from the equation. any new system would have to account for all the demons we have and not assume we will return to some pristine naive noble savage state.

          • http://twitter.com/RayButlers Ray Butlers

            you are confusing inheritance with power

          • Jin The Ninja

            no actually- i’m referring to different forms of matriarchy- if you READ what i wrote- i said matriarchy exists on a continuum. there are matrilineal societies, matrifocal societies and matriarchal societies. matrilineality is but one feature of matriarchy. if i was confusing inheritence with power then my example of the haudenosanee would be misplaced since it was governed through councils, of which the women’s council decided on the chief. i can name hundreds of other examples. you’re simply confused.

          • http://twitter.com/RayButlers Ray Butlers

            Sorry, but I am not the one who is confused.

          • Jin The Ninja

            so either the Iroquois confederacy is not matriarchal- and you are opposing all contemporary academic writing and iroquois people’s own description of it- or i am correct. so?

      • http://twitter.com/RayButlers Ray Butlers

        I’ve never heard of a matriarchal society

        • Jin The Ninja

          you’ve never heard of the iroquois? hopi? cree? choctaw? cherokee? navajo? ojibway?

          not to mention the literally hundredsof other peoples that exist in s. america, europe, asia-pacific and africa.

          • http://twitter.com/RayButlers Ray Butlers

            how’d that work our for them?

          • Jin The Ninja

            obviously their individual civilisations lasted for a couple thousand years, so well i’d say.

    • Jin The Ninja

      true, but i’ve never heard of a historical matriarchal society where men where in ANY way disenfranchised or even removed from political decision making. in anthro it is common knowledge that matriarchal societies are almost always egalitarian in practice and almost always a form of participatory democracy.

      i.e. minangkabau or the iroquois confederacy.