Some of you are surely familiar with the work of noted anthropologist, David Graeber, currently at the London School of Economics, (after being fired from the Yale faculty, reportedly for his political opinions and Anarchist activism). If not familiar with his academic work, (I am not either), surely many are aware of the large role he played as one of the major 'behind-the-scenes' instigators and leaders of the so-called 'Occupy Movement'. This ill-fated 'movement', which I believe failed due to glaring contradictions within its own guiding philosophy, which led inevitably to failures in its procedures, which caused it to dissipate without even trying to organize anything beyond the 'anarchy' that characterized it, was nonetheless one of the best efforts that the American Left has managed to mount against our political opponents, within the past several decades (at least). I am not acquainted with Mr. Graeber personally, (other than in a very brief correspondence several years ago), and I have no idea if he looks back at the role he played in 'Occupy' with a sense of accomplishment or failure, (or maybe a measured blend of both?). I was surprised to come across his byline above an article in the British liberal publication, 'The Guardian'. (A rather pretentious name to affect, I've long thought, especially considering its editorial slant, mostly supporting the status quo power structure. Are they pretending to 'guard' something besides the interests of the anti-democratic Elites?). An article in 'The Guardian'?? Hmmm... Has the Anarchist gone mainstream? In his article Professor Graeber is rising in male gallantry to protect the interests of all the poor innocent women being victimized by bestial men. It's really a pretty good article, as far as it goes, but it doesn't really go very far past what every 'dick, jane, and mary' are saying. We get force fed a steady diet of sensationalized headlines and articles expanding on the now internationally famous Weinstein Affair, every day, and seemingly from very direction. The absurd self-righteousness of women has long since 'jumped the shark', (as they apparently say in Hollywood), far beyond the bounds of mere reason and rationality. Here, for example, is one hysterical article in 'The Guardian', (hopefully written in parody, but this 'bonfire of the witches' vanities', (apologies to Tom Wolfe), has been burning so white hot that it's really hard to say), arguing that all "rapey men", (by which the author means all males), should be banned from the workplace, and relegated to doing housework. Read for yourself: I have been using the term Cutthroat Feminism to describe this bizarre and execrable ideology into which genuine Feminism has been twisted. It just seems to get worse and worse each day. We are seeing mob psychology playing out, and being given free rein, in all our mass media. In his own article, which people can read here: ...Professor Graeber tells us that he would like to get his hands around Harvey Weinstein's throat. He explains what makes him feel such powerful, to the extent of violence, emotions about this. He tells a story of a truly noble and dignified woman, (his mother), who was not only beautiful, but immensely talented, and won early acclaim as a stage actress, but turned away from a promising career in show business to follow a more mundane, (though still distinguished), career as a dedicated wife and mother. Why?, he asked her. Why had she turned away from such promise? Because " Some of us were willing to sleep with producers. I wasn’t,” he quotes her reply. Professor Graeber now wants to choke the life from Mr. Weinstein out of the wrath he feels over knowing that it was sick bestial pigs like Weinstein that had kept his beautiful and nobly dignified mother from success in Gomorrah (in becoming a movie star). Because of her noble woman's dignity, her sense of self worth, she was condemned to merely being a dedicated wife and mother. "O..The horror...The horror", (apologies to Brando's Colonel Kurtz). One wonders if Professor Graeber assumes she would be happier today, or would feel more fulfilled, as a person and as a woman, had she won fame and glory in Gomorrah, rather than 'settling for' a life as a 'mere' (in Professor Graeber's opinion, apparently) wife and mother. Women have been seduced, it seems, by this ideology of Cutthroat Feminism into despising womanhood. How could any woman possibly be as happy being a wife and mother as she would be from winning fame and glory in the drug and sex soaked land of movie stars and heartthrobs, (where surely every girl's dreams come true). Wouldn't she rather have been married several times, and have had super market articles written about her sex life, about which latest heartthrob she was sleeping with? Prevented from achieving all that, to be no more than a dedicated wife and mother? Have we lost our innate sense of what has value in this life, and what false idols try to seduce us into? Does wealth, fame, and limitless adulation prevent people in Gomorrah from becoming drunks and/or drug addicts, in their desperate need to seek some artificial means to 'be happy', after they find themselves so lonely and alienated, even as their very existence, as a "celebrity", is celebrated. ("Ain't it hard when you discover that, that wasn't really where it's at" -- apologies to noble laureate B. Dylan) Anyway......(Sigh.....) About three weeks ago, I sent along a longish (1600 word) piece that I had written about this non-stop wall-to-wall Weinstein Affair. Some may have had the time, or the interest, to read it. I have turned a good part of my attention since then to this subject, and that 1600 words has now become more than 20,000, nearly a book length piece. I hope to finish it in the coming days, but the more I write, trying to plumb its depths, the deeper the subject gets. (And don't worry, I don't intend to inflict this 'screed' on you all here...LOL...) What makes this subject so important to a person who usually writes about political affairs (me) rather than sensationalized sexual scandals? It's because I can palpably feel the presence of a 'mind' that is using this Weinstein Affair for crass political purpose. We all surely know that "divide and rule" is the basic strategy of the Super Wealthy Elites that rule over us, as it has been for millennia. What better way to create social divisions than to destroy the basic love, trust, and interdependency, both cultural and biological, between men and women? Hey....If I owned and controlled all the mass media, and wanted to keep people so confused that they never knew which way was up or down, this kind of thing, sensationalizing the 'sexual politics' of this Weinstein Affair, is sure exactly the kind of thing I would, and I sure as heck don't think I'm smarter than the people who DO own and control all our mass media, and are using it with consummate skill to foment hatreds and every kind of divisions between any and all social groups. 'Divide and rule' works as well today as it has for thousands of years. Better actually, since the power of modern mass media is exponentially greater than any tools of social control that have ever existed. I'm foolishly determined that if I can only get people to 'see' one facet of our predicament, the curtain will be drawn back, people's confused vision will clear, and they will then 'see' all with simple and incisive clarity. A foolish quest? No doubt. But I know that there is no single factor that would raise the political consciousness of the citizenry more that to understand how ruthlessly controlled all our mass media are, and how they are being used to keep us in a state of constant bamboozlement, which renders us unable to unite in our full power, and, as it always has, allows the few to rule over the many. According to the legends, as they are told, people awoke suddenly from being mesmerized by the mass mob hysteria of McCarthyism. Now the mass media drives us from one mass mob hysteria to the next, without a moment between, more often even overlapping. Anyway.....copied below is a note I sent in response to Mr. Graeber, for any interested. I think he is a man who well deserves our respect. He is a man of action, a man who has shown the courage of his convictions. Though I am offering criticism here, he is sure as heck 'my kinda guy'. I don't know him personally, but my impression of him is, back to back, in a hostile environment, I'd feel confident to know that he was the one who had my blind spot. I will also copy this note (to all here) to Professor Graeber. As always, please feel free to circulate this among your own circles of correspondence if you think it has any merit. I hope all are well and strong, Raymond Zwarich Bent Birch Farm 63 Webber Rd. Brookfield, MA 01506 774 449-8030 My note to Mr. Graeber, commenting on his piece: Professor Graeber: I read your recent piece in 'The Guardian' with great interest. I am working on a book-length piece on the Weinstein Affair, and sexual politics, myself, and am always avid to read the thoughts of others on the subject. The 'take' you present in your article is in keeping with classical male gallantry, rising in outrage over the suffering of innocent damsels. Like all decent people, men or women, I certainly agree that sexual assault is criminal behavior. Men who exhibit this behavior should be removed from decent society. They belong in prison. You are anxious to get your hands around Weinstein's throat, you say? Understandable. I do certainly agree, unequivocally, that Weinstein is a disgusting pig, as are all men who exhibit such predatory behavior. If the allegations are true, (rape has been alleged), Mr. Weinstein should be in prison. But I am greatly troubled by the self-righteousness we are seeing from women, and as it is being supported by gallant men like you. Women are very actively promulgating an attitude that considers all men as 'pigs', simply because all men are motivated by male lust. (The tenor of opinion pieces written by women bashing men has long ago 'jumped the shark', as they say). Women like to complain loudly about being 'sex objects'. Yet we can all see that women spend billions of dollars, and incredible amounts of time, powdering their skin, painting their lips provocatively, decorating their eyelids and eye sockets, glittering their hair just so, painting the finger and toenails, removing their body hair, and decorating variuos parts of their bodies with shiny objects. What is their purpose in all this effort, other than to stimulate male lust? What we now see is women loudly decrying what women obviously crave. Sexual aggressiveness is a DNA derived behavior in human males. As a noted anthropologist, you, Professor Graeber, surely know that male sexual aggressiveness, coupled with females' constant receptivity, (as opposed to being receptive for only short specific periods, as so many species of mammals are), are among the primary reasons that our species has established dominion over all the Earth. Male lust, male sexual aggressiveness, is an intrinsic part of being a male human. If we listen to what many women are saying, they seem to want to make it 'illegal' for men to be men. They actually seem to want to empower the enforcement arm of 'the state', and/or our largest and most powerful institutions, (corporations, universities, etc), to regulate and enforce human sexual behavior, according to female needs and commands. (And they most definitely seem to want men to behave as they command we must). As a noted anarchist, Professor Graeber, does that really strike you as a good idea? Extending the power of 'the state', and powerful centralized institutions, to that end? Of course all men, to be civilized, rather than bestial, must control our lustful impulses within the bounds of honorable and compassionate behavior. I have not seen any evidence, however, that suggests that any more than a relatively few men fail to learn to behave as 'gentlemen'. In your article, you cite the behavior of rich and powerful men as if it is typical of all men. When you look at the behavior of rich and powerful men, you are looking at people with few morals of any kind. You are looking at people who are willing to destroy others, to even kill large numbers of people, to guard and increase their own wealth and power. It is no surprise that people who feel no compunction restraining them from causing mass deaths for their own gain, would also feel privileged to assault a hotel maid with impunity. But that tells us little about the behavioral inclinations of the common men, among the common people. The behavior of the rich and powerful is sociopathic in nature. "They play with our world, like it's their little toy", (apologies to B. Dylan). Women are hardly the only human gender that suffers at their hands. All men, women, and children suffer at such people's hands. Women are not only affecting an attitude of dangerous self-righteousness, they are actually forging an ideology that holds that women do not bear any responsibility in regards to provoking male sexual behavior. While men must obey women's directives in controlling and restraining our behavior, women must be allowed to behave anyway they want, this new ideology tells us, with no restraints at all. They can parade themselves in public effectively naked, as Rose McGowan, (one of Harvey Weinstein's first accusers) did, ( https://www.buzzfeed.com/stephanieanderson/rose-mcgowan-vmas-queen?utm_term=.txelMR4lvk#.plgbqjNbJA ), but then adopt an attitude of righteousness, and/or play the tearful innocence damsel, when their provocative female behavior actually provokes male sexual behavior. You surely have heard it said, "If you knock on the Devil's door long enough, and loudly enough, sooner or later the Devil himself is going to open that door". Had all the beautiful young ladies who left Peoria to seek fame, fortune, and adulation in Hollywood, never heard of the casting couch? I am older than you by nearly a decade, Professor Graeber, and I was only a boy, in the 1950s, when I first heard the stories about "how little girls get into the movies". Unlike your mother, clearly a woman of noble dignity, were these other women not willing to lay down on the casting couch to achieve their own ends? Your mother was not willing to make that 'deal', but "some were", you quote her as saying. If women are willing to trade their sexual favors for gain, (often called "prostitution"), is it only men to be blamed when that 'deal' is made? If all women had true virtue, if they had your mother's noble dignity, then there would be no casting couch. If none were willing to 'sell' their sexual favors in exchange for personal gain, then we either wouldn't have females in movies, (likely?), or else Hollywood moguls would have to use more honorable means to entice women to be in movies. If somehow we could eliminate all sexual predation by males from the Hollywood casting system, what would we have left? We would still have beautiful women competing with each other for the opportunity to exploit their beauty to achieve fame, fortune, and adulation. Do we think that women would not then use their sexuality to try to win that competition? If we somehow (magically) succeeded in preventing male Hollywood moguls from using their power for purposes of sexual predation, (coupled with women's willingness to 'sell' their sexual favors for gain), what we then would have is women freely offering up their sexual favors instead. We would still have women willing to 'sell' themselves for personal gain. It's not for nothing that prostitution is ascribed as being the 'oldest profession'. Show me attractive women suffering harassment at work, and I'll show you women using their sexuality for advancement at work. Do we think a woman unbuttoning the top button of her blouse, before making her presentation in a meeting of her business superiors, doesn't know what she is doing? Do we really think that female humans are now vessels of pure virtue? Do we think that attractive women are not attentive for opportunities to exploit their sexuality for personal gain? Do we think that women don't "sleep their way" to advancement, in careers and politics? This is getting long, sir. The point I am trying to get to, and as an anthropologist you should know, human sexual behavior between males and females is entirely symbiotic. The behavior of one gender affects the behavior of the other, in an intricate system that anthropologists call 'culture'. If all women were as noble and dignified as your mother, if they were not willing to lay themselves down on the casting couch, then men would no longer expect them to. In their embrace of self-righteousness, women are denying the very obvious. They are pretending that they have, indeed, become vessels of pure virtue. Doesn't their twisted ideology of Cutthroat Feminism, which has now kicked genuine Feminism to the curb, tell them so? If male lust is likened to a 'demon' that can possess men's hearts and minds, and drive them to cruel and dishonorable behavior, but which most all men keep restrained in a 'cage' we call 'civilization', (civil behavior), are not women now claiming the 'right' to rattle that demon's cage to their hearts' content, and then batt mascara laden false lashes, as they pose as pure innocent damsels, when that demon, male lust, rears up before them in all its ugly power? Do they not clearly warn us that "slut shaming" is politically incorrect, that women are no longer at ALL restrained by being subject to shame? Does this twisted ideology, into which genuine Feminism has so bizarrely morphed,not now tell us that women's sexual behavior can be completely unrestrained? That it is only men who must restrain our behavior? In not laughing this bizarre and execrable ideology of Cutthroat Feminism completely out of the 'marketplace of reason and ideas', have we lost our basic powers of Reason, even our simple human common sense? Your gallantry in standing up for the ladies is understandable, Professor Graeber, but you are not helping women by enabling their unreasoning (and unreasonable) behavior. You are not helping women, or protecting them, by coddling this execrable ideology of Cutthroat Feminism. In '69 I was 21. That was when I first called myself a "feminist". It was not even 7 years later that I became a father of daughters. At considerable sacrifice to myself, I raised three daughters to be strong independent people, and to believe in their deepest core that they were the equals of ANYONE, male or female. I succeeded in getting them to believe that they could accomplish anything to which they set their minds. I am now bursting with a father's pride to see the exemplary young women into which they all have grown. (And I am still married to their mother, 43 years and counting. It has sometimes been a trying experience, and I'm sure she would say the same, but I stood on an alter and made a promise, before her entire clan and mine, and I am not a man who breaks his promises. I took, and still take, the "for better or for worse" part seriously). I still call myself a "feminist", but I am much troubled by an ugly ideology that now passes itself off as "feminism". Has what so many noow call "feminism" not devolved to mean little more than "hooray for females, boo on males. Females are wonderful, males are disgusting". One last thought: I would have posted this in the comments section of your article in 'The Guardian', but 'The Guardian' keeps the comments sections closed for all pieces having to do with gender. Our mass media, under the centralized ownership of the Super Wealthy Elite, sure seem to always be eager to sensationalize and exploit every opportunity to 'divide and rule'. Don't they? What better social division could possibly exist than to destroy the basic trust, love, and cultural interdependency between men and women. Does it strike you as a coincidence that as nuclear war threatens on multiple fronts, we are fed a constant diet of "all Weinstein all the time", or that rebuttal to articles like yours is being enjoined? Best to you, Raymond Zwarich PS: I am planning to circulate this note among circles of correspondence I maintain. If you should care to reply, (not saying you will, or should, I know that the life of an academic can be impossibly busy), I will circulate any comments you make among the same people, unless you request that I don't. I would keep any comments you make in reply in confidence, if you prefer. # |
Archives >