Macho Fags and Feminist Hags - The Case of Israel Shamir

I had not heard of Israel Shamir until yesterday when his now suddenly quite well-known post, Unmanning The Man, was spread around the internet. Its macho defence of Assange against the evil ‘feminised’ culture of Sweden has been ridiculed by feminists and others. But I think it provides us with some interesting information, that the critics have failed to see.

James Ball of The Guardian sides with the feminists in criticising Shamir,  focusing on the machismo of Shamir’s stance, highlighting his belief that men are being ‘unmanned’ by feminism, particularly in Sweden:

‘Assange’s situation is not merely the consequence of one man’s sexual liaisons,

but part of a wider ploy to feminise men in order to make humanity more compliant to political elites. “Strong men are prone to rebellion, ready for sacrifice and primed for action,” Shamir writes.

“It is no coincidence that the enemies of Empire are all masculine males, be they Gaddafi, Castro, Chávez,Lukashenko, Putin – or Julian Assange. It appears the men have been targeted for elimination; the working ants need no sex.”‘

Reading Shamir’s original (slightly mad) essay, it is clear that he is indeed bemoaning the demise of ‘real men’:

According to Shamir:

‘Though there is certainly a political reason, the Assange case is not exceptional, for Sweden is a victim of cruel social experiment of re-gendering: recently, a Swedish man was sent to jail for 18 months for failing to properly wake up his girlfriend before beginning a session of morning sex. Swedish men have good reason to fear the Swedish justice system, and daily they grow more and more afraid of Swedish women. In response, they take foreign wives; they are also increasingly turning gay and adopting children from abroad’.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=37265

What I disagree with is how the Guardian treats this polemic as a straightforward anti-women, anti-feminist diatribe. As usual, everyone’s favourite feminist publication ignores what the implications are for men.

Mark Simpson however, has examined carefully how ‘macho’ discourse relates to the changing face of masculinity in the contemporary world. When looking at a video of a sermon from a similarly er, eccentric pastor in America, Simpson noted how these macho railings against ‘effeminacy’ are in fact, rather ‘faggy’ themselves. He writes:

‘Perhaps it’s his fagly beard and whiny voice, but Pastor Steve Anderson of Arizona sounds a lot like some gay bears I know who are always bitching about sissies and metrosexuals and where oh where did all the real men go.

“God made us to be men! We need to embrace being manly and not be pretty boys and cissified, effeminate little twinkies!!”

But I’m grateful to Mr Anderson and his Xstian fundamentals for making it quite clear where much of America’s problem with metrosexuality and the ‘gender neutral movement’ as he calls it (fingers interlocking, intimating the horror of a world of mutuality) comes from.

God hates metros.’

http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2011/04/11/ive-had-a-lot-of-guys-who-arent-homo-but-are-effeminate/

Indeed, Simpson has pointed out before that Sweden, that Shamir claims is suffering from a process of ‘re-gendering’, is  ’the most metrosexual country on Earth.’  So it is hardly surprising there is some reaction against this social change.

http://deathatthemall.wordpress.com/2011/11/05/metrosexual-sweden/

A very dramatic example of ‘reaction’ to social change and metrosexuality in Scandanavia, was of course Anders Breivik, labelled by Simpson ‘metro-psycho’.

‘Breivik was clearly in pathological denial about all sorts of things – his own metrosexuality was perhaps the least of them. But he went to and continues to go to a great deal of trouble to present himself to the world, however camply, however grotesquely, as a ‘real man’, a Christian warrior, while using and displaying many of the characteristics of his hated ‘passive’, ‘weak’, ‘feminine’ metrosexuality to do that.’

http://www.marksimpson.com/blog/2011/08/03/metro-psycho/

So whilst Shamir’s outburst is not exactly sophisticated, it does represent in an extreme form (though not as extreme as Breivik), a more common phenomenon of men finding it difficult to come to terms with the ‘feminine’ aspects of contemporary masculinities. It also alludes to the increased power of feminism in gender relations, something which, however you look at it and whatever your views are, has impacted on the situation of Julian Assange. I and anyone else who has refused to condemn Assange (innocent until proven guilty) of rape, have been called ‘rape apologists’.

As Graun journo and Assange-hater Suzanne Moore tweeted to me a while ago:

‘Oh no did I diss rape? You and your bedfellows must have a great time!’

http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/05/19/tweeting-to-suzanne-moore-about-rape/

And, though he presents it in a twisted way, it is true that Sweden’s ‘state feminism’ means that rape laws and procedures can be very tough on men. Assange, whatever his actions, is rightly wary of turning himself in to the mercy of the Swedish courts as someone accused of rape.

But James Ball ignores all this context, and chooses instead to portray women as poor innocent victims of the ‘machismo’ of men like Assange and Shamir. And he links in readers’ minds Shamir and Assange to the recent hoo-ha over ‘misogyny’ online:

‘As conversations hosted by the Guardian and elsewhere reveal, theinternet is a reactionary world where women’s rights are concerned. Most high-profile women bloggers have been subjected to threats and personal abuse, and many have received rape threats. For individuals supposedly on the cutting edge of the information era – and allegedly fighting for human rights – to have such limited and insecure outlooks on women is ludicrous and reactionary’.

But I and one or two others have challenged this view, relating how women too can be abusive online. Responding to an article by Helen Lewis on the subject I wrote;

‘As I said, since most of the ‘hate’ that has been directed at me online has been from feminist women, her point falls on stony ground here.

Also she quotes David Allen Green, lawyer and ex Tory (supposedly), who seems to love cosying up to feminists these days. This is the same David Allen Green that encouraged, joined in and then tried to justify the ‘misogynist hate’ directed at me by his NS colleague and feminist ally,  Steven Baxter. So I don’t really trust anything he has to say on the subject.

http://quietgirlriot.wordpress.com/2011/11/03/the-female-of-the-species/

I think it is pretty manipulative to take the case of an individual man, who it seems could indeed be quite a nasty and dangerous character, and link it to the current cries of ‘misogyny on the internet’! Especially when that man is linked to someone who is about to be extradited on rape charges in a very high profile case.

It’s almost as if the Guardian is using Shamir to indicate Assange’s guilt.

Finally, in a familiar twist often displayed by feminists, despite the critique of machismo, Ball is really saying these ‘boys’ need to man up!

‘Assange and Shamir may think their proclivity to judge people’s worth by their testosterone level makes them alpha males, but others are far more likely to judge it makes them look like boys. It’s time to grow up.’

Because ‘real men’ don’t behave as these two have done? Who is being macho now?

About these ads