A Feminist Future?

A Feminist Future?


Men have been fucking up the world for some time now. We find ourselves in a world dominated by competition, dogma and greed. I don’t pretend that a world under a feminist power paradigm would be perfect, but I think the world owes it to the preservative, as opposed to destructive, instinct of the feminine as opposed to the masculine to at least have a chance to fuck it up for themselves.

The environmental disaster we find ourselves in the middle of, and quickly speeding towards the endgame of, is a case of embarrassment in point. We now have ‘environmental refugees’; people having to be relocated en masse in order to survive. As the Pixies’ Charles Francis once sang: ‘There’s a hole in the sky, we’re all gonna burn; we’ll all take turns…I’ll get mine too’ (Monkey Gone To Heaven). The established men, making exorbitant profits from fossil fuels are apparently FINE for this extinction; if you look around, on the TV shows, your facebook friends, on the streets – the vast majority of women are not.

Whether you believe in Darwinism or not, I’d say the male instinct to compete and destroy versus the female urge to nurture and conserve is pretty clear. This clash can and does make for wonderful art, literature, and music – but isn’t politics meant to be a little more rational than that? And the rationale here is that after centuries, and in some cultures, millenia of male rule, it has failed, and the male inpulse will lead us sooner than we think into blind oblivion.

Since the Suffragette movement of the beginning of the twentieth century, through to the Women’s Lib movement of the sixties, on to today’s ambiguous ‘post-feminist’ situation, the struggle for rights (which indeed should never have had to be fought in the first place) has to any fair-minded person been a progress of beauty, a thing of which we should all be proud. What happens in a relationship is between a man and a woman; my point here is in the political relationship between women and the rest of the world.

Do you really think so many wars would have been so drawn-out, bloody and destructive had a feminine (as opposed to masculine) principle been at play? Of course they would have taken place, but a system of restorative prejudice, as opposed to who is going to gain most, would more reasonably, constructively have been employed. You may argue that this is a liberal/humanitarian stance as opposed to a gender one – but I would say that any gracious stance of respect, conservation and simple care would need to be implicated in the system to work, as in rewriting the constitutions and guidelines themselves. Come at the ‘politics’ from a different angle. Men, presumably by being physically stronger, just stole their own stance, ran off with it and established it without asking anyone else.

Of course the likes of Angela Merkel, Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto or even the Queens Elizabeth will be thrown at me, and well done them of course for succeding in that culture as they did (especially Bhutto, anyway). However it doesn’t take a genius to see that these are token, highly driven women in a man’s world, and god knows how that deformed Thatcher, at least. Imagine for a second that a few (or a good number of) highly ambitious men were allowed to thrive in politics, but being conscientiously obliged to play by newly established rules for a differently enlightened age. They may well end up being greatly loved and admired – and at least that would be novel for a politician these days.

The global population would drastically (or steadily) reduce too. Not by a war or a deliberately deployed virus, but by dint of the fact that reproductive rights would first be in the hands of the mother, and secondly protected by the state. What the world needs right now is more one, maximum two-child families; don’t worry, the technology and systems are available that you don’t need ten children anymore to run the farm, folks.

You are noticing that this feminist future might require some other extablishment changes, and I’d agree. The worldwide population is already utterly pissed off with the 1% mentality, the greed of corporations, media-bias and the arrogance of self-interested politicians. A new socialist paradigm (under whatever name some bright spark would like to give it), a resource-based (as opposed to finance-based) economy, renewable energy across the board, cultural systems which take into account all the different intelligences, not just IQ; all would be necessary for this differently-weighted, harmonious future to flourish. Even if you take into account why we should have to do this in the first place, wouldn’t you say it’s this, or oblivion?

  1. Most feminists would disagree on the idea of “male instinct” and a “female instinct” resulting from evolution, and the evidence for these things being biologically determined is actually very poor. Women have been socialised to be caring and put others first, because it keeps us in our subordinate role. Likewise, men are not naturally violent or controlling – they too have been socialised that way. We can and must change these ideas. Men originally gained power over women “by being physically stronger” perhaps as you point out, but have maintained it because of a patriarchal system of beliefs in these very gender stereotypes that uphold and justify inequality.

    What happens in a relationship isn’t always between a man and a woman – there are all kinds of relationships, all equally valid as long as they are not oppressive :)

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

God is in the TV is an online music and culture fanzine founded in Cardiff by the editor Bill Cummings in 2003. GIITTV Bill has developed the site with the aid of a team of sub-editors and writers from across Britain, covering a wide range of music from unsigned and independent artists to major releases.