Thursday, August 5, 2010

Female oppression and Mongolian neo-nazis

There can be few other reactions to this photo other than "Are you freakin' kidding me?"

It's courtesy of a Guardian article about the rise of far-right elements in Mongolia. Neo-nazi gangs are on the rise there, seemingly in reaction (or over-reaction) to foreign influences, particularly the dominance of China. They express admiration for Hitler's devotion to ethnic purity; bizarrely unaware that Mongolians would be first against the wall if Adolph was in charge.

The whole article is worth reading, but I wanted to focus on several selected paragraphs which I think say a lot about far-right extremism as a whole:

Once again, ultra-nationalists have emerged from an impoverished economy and turned upon outsiders. This time the main targets come from China, the rising power to the south. Groups such as Tsagaan Khass, or White Swastika, portray themselves as patriots standing up for ordinary citizens in the face of foreign crime, rampant inequality, political indifference and corruption.
But critics say they scapegoat and attack the innocent. The US state department has warned travellers of increased assaults on inter-racial couples in recent years – including organised violence by ultra-nationalist groups. Dayar Mongol threatened to shave the heads of women who sleep with Chinese men. Three years ago, the leader of Blue Mongol was convicted of murdering his daughter's boyfriend, reportedly because the young man had studied in China.
"We have to make sure that as a nation our blood is pure. That's about our independence," said 23-year-old Battur, pointing out that the population is under three million.
"If we start mixing with Chinese, they will slowly swallow us up. Mongolian society is not very rich. Foreigners come with a lot of money and might start taking our women."
Hip hop tracks such as Don't Go Too Far, You Chinks by 4 Züg – chorus: "shoot them all, all, all" – have been widely played in bars and clubs. Urban myths abound; some believe Beijing has a secret policy of encouraging men to have sex with Mongolian women.

"We have heard of instances [of violence]. They are not necessarily all right or all wrong," said Javkhlan, a Tsagaan Khass leader. But the group is simply a "law enforcement" body, he maintained: "We do checks; we go to hotels and restaurants to make sure Mongolian girls don't do prostitution and foreigners don't break the laws.

That confirms to me the common theme that seems to bind fundamentalists and ultra-nationalists everywhere, from Mongolia to Al-Qaeda to the Ku Klux Klan; the keeping of women in their place, and control of their sexuality.

From culture to culture, you'll see the same thing again and again in different forms, with the honour of a group being inextricably tied to the honour of their females. A few examples:

* Paranoia about another ethnic group messing with "our" women.

* Soldiers raping women to symbolise the humiliation and violation of their nation/culture as a whole.  

* "Honour" killings to punish females who step outside the male-defined restrictions on their sexual behaviour; even for those who commit the sin of "allowing themselves to be raped".

* Female genital mutilation and infibulation designed to inhibit female sexual expression and desire (seen as dangerous things that must be controlled).

* Insults directed at a man's mother (or sister) are almost universally among the worst things you can say to a man.

Remember Zinedine Zidane's headbutt at World Cup 2006? That was allegedly in response to a sexual remark about his sister.

Check, for example, this comment from an article about race in Korea:

“Even a friend of mine confided to me that when he sees a Korean woman walking with a foreign man, he feels as if his own mother betrayed him.”

Remember that one of the primary obsessions of the KKK was preventing the violation of white women by black men; violation of course could mean something as minor as a black man even looking at a white woman, or heaven forbid, having consensual sex with one.

Or consider the behaviour of Hindu nationalists in India who attacked women for daring to drink in pubs - to "protect" the women of course, out of "love and respect".

Or the Taliban's obsession with keeping women in their place - preventing girls from being educated, gaining employment, or leaving the house without a burqa.

The double standards Western cultures have towards male and female sexuality - a promiscuous male is a "stud", "player" or "ladies man" while a woman seen to be promiscuous is a "slut" or "whore" - is merely one part of a very ugly continuum.


  1. you make a lot of good points here, basically it is all about men using violence to control women like they are property just because they share the same ethnicity

    it is entirely too common and scary

  2. Whether women are treated this way or that way in a society will have nothing whatsoever to do with the women themselves. They are the weaker sex, after all. If we insist on saying that women can be "strong" and "independent" and other such chimera, then we have to conclude that the women in places like Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia have only themselves to blame for their "oppression". After all, all they apparently have to do is place their arms akimbo and growl menacingly at their "oppressive" menfolk to send their petrified bearded misogynists scurrying for the hills while hurriedly conceding to their pursuers every right to vote, drive, smoke and wear g-strings!

    See, women in Western countries do not have themselves to thank for their apparent "freedom". They had absolutely no say in it! Sure, they had their women's suffrage and all that, but how well would women's suffrage work with the Taliban or in Wahabi Saudi Arabia? If the men aren't willing to listen to them, how far will they go? Women evidently only get what they're given.

    If the situation women live in doesn't depend on the menfolk they happen to find themselves with, then again, the "oppressed" women have only themselves to blame, since Western women apparently growled menacingly and got their "freedom" while Eastern and Southern women seem to have chosen not to growl and so essentially elected to remain "repressed", even those in technologically advanced societies like Japan -- in which case are we obliged to respect their decision to remain "oppressed"!

    Clearly the matter of how women are to live in a society rests solely with men and women have absolutely no say in the matter, only being able to accept what they get, whether it's the easy-pussy West or the can't-drive Saudi Arabia.

    Behind your alleged concern for women's rights, Chris, I sense the perennial craving of predatory men for easy pussy. In the West women are easy. In other parts of the world they're not so easy (wolves may have to contend with more than just not making the follow-up call they promised and may have an encounter with the woman's male relatives), and some men, whose interests cannot be counted on to be honorable, may not like that.

    All societies are patriarchal. It doesn't do anybody any good to think otherwise, especially the "strong", "independent" young women who only end up being easily discardable sexual ragdoll, albeit with an independent income.

  3. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  4. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  5. Sorry for the triple post. *blush*

  6. @ Peter:

    I removed your duplicate comments.

    Ok, so what is your vision for how women ought to be treated then? Are you saying all the cases of far-right groups' treatment of women that I've listed are justifiable?

    And as for your comment:

    Behind your alleged concern for women's rights, Chris, I sense the perennial craving of predatory men for easy pussy.

    Honestly, that's some low sh*t to say. Given the intelligence of most of your comments on here, I'm surprised at you.

  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  8. "Ok, so what is your vision for how women ought to be treated then"

    I think the Japanese get it about right.

    "Are you saying all the cases of far-right groups' treatment of women that I've listed are justifiable?"

    This is an ethical question which requires first the establishment of an ethical standard to apply. Which standard are we to apply? The Muslim one? The Jewish one? The Christian one? The moral-relativst one? Er, wait ... how can you apply a standard of moral relativism? Moral relativism is contradictory, since it implies that its own view on morality is the correct one, therefore contradicting itself.

    The question of "ought" presupposes an "ought" in the first place. And this "ought" has to be established before we can answer whether one "ought" or "ought not" to do this or that. So you'll first have to establish that.

    "Honestly, that's some low sh*t to say. Given the intelligence of most of your comments on here, I'm surprised at you."

    You may not be a conscious predator, but you're an advocate of predation. The reason being, since women are the weaker sex, they need protection from the depredations of men through social mores. To think that women can otherwise fend for themselves in the courtship process, apparently having equal bargaining power sans protective social mores, is to be like those WWI generals who kept sending waves and waves of men into machinegun fire. It's cruel, leaving a generation of women with what I used to call Alanis Morissette Syndrome. Your attitude doesn't help women, even though you may think it does.

    I'll see if I can copy and paste some dialogue I had relatively recently with a female American friend of mine. Amazingly she still didn't agree with me, even though I think I made a good point...

    [more to follow]

  9. [Bits of cut and paste follow to a female friend...]

    Quite simply, this "double standard" exists because it's an acknowledgement that men are different from women. After all, why do men and women exist? In other words, where are there two genders and not one? I guess you could say that's just the way it is. And you can't deny it. You can't say that men, or males, are a social construct and that women, or females, are categories created by society that don't actually exist. The distinction between males and females is the most basic distinction one can make in humans; it is fundamental. As soon as children begin to think and talk, they notice the distinction between males and females -- that there are boys and girls and men and women, and that this is as basic as it gets.

    So there's a male sex and a female sex. The relationship is symbiotic: the sexes must come together for the propagation of the species. The sexual organs are complementary. The male sexual organs only make sense in relation to the female sexual organ, and vise-versa. The differences between the sexes points to their sexual symbiosis.

    So why the "double standard"? Because we are not comparing the same thing. We acknbowledge that there are two sexes and that they are different. We have separate public toilets for males and females to acknowledge this fundamental reality. Some progressive universities have unisex bathrooms, but this is more in rebellion against the fundamental reality of things than "progressing" anywhere. Thus, it is inappropriate for men to go into women's bathrooms because we acknowledge this fundamental distinction between the sexes; and of course the bathroom is especially significant in this matter because it involves an uncovering of the sexual organs, which is the defining quality of the respective sexes.


  10. Further to this recognition that there are two sexes and that they are different from each other primarily in the possession of symbiotic sexual organs -- there is the recognition that women are the weaker sex. They are physically weaker and are subject to their men. Because of men's superior strength, all societies are patriarchal. There is no such thing as a "battle of the sexes", as such an idea is merely a feminist fantasy encouraged by the condescending sympathy of well meaning men. The only real battles that exist are between men -- between the warriors and soldiers of warring tribes, cities and nations. Moreover, women don't exist as seperate communities, such as we find in communities organised in tribes, villages, nations, etc. No, women are part of these societies themselves -- the "other half", the symbiotic complement to the male sex. So there is not a society of men and one of women, but rather societies that consist of men and women. They do not live as separate communities but rather are of the same community.

    And in recognition of the weaker station of the female sex, properly functioning societies regulate the interaction of the sexes, so that the weak are not exploited by the strong. This interaction, in a properly functioning society, is regulated by social norms in order to protect women from the sexual depredations of men, and thus for the benefit the institution of the family. Sociologists like JD Unwin and Pitirim Sorokim, who've studied civilizations that have declined, have found that no society that embraced sexual hedonism survived more than one generation after doing so. The taming of the male sexual drive toward monogamous sexual commitment to the one woman for life is critical in establishing a stable environment in which to successfully raise the next generation. The social science data is overwhelming in showing the importance of the nuclear family in raising well-adjusted individuals, and in showing the relationship between family breakdown and sundry social pathologies -- though there are rare exceptions where people rise above unfavorable family circumstances.


  11. And it is critical to acknowledge this difference in sex drive in determining how society should treat male-female interaction and whether it should employ a "double standard". The biological as well as anecdotal reality is that males have a much higher sex drive than women. Upon hitting puberty, the level of testosterone in males shoots up from being three times that of women to a whopping ten to fifteen times that of women. Eunuchs or castrated men will have little to no sex drives, for the obvious reason that they have little of the hormone responsible for libido, namely testosterone. Post-menopousal women suffering from a diminished sex drive can apply a testosterone patch to to remedy their loss of testosterone and thus increase their sex drive.

    Moreover, anecdotal evidence seems to confirm the reality that males have a much higher sex drive than women, as would be expected given the biological difference mentioned above. Honest people will acknowledge that, generally speaking, men want sex and women want "love". That doesn't mean men aren't interested in love and women in sex; rather that there is a very different level of emphasis and priority placed on each by the different sexes. "Is that all men think about?" is a common complaint heard from exasperated women. To highlight the significance of such oft-heard comments, just imagine they were inverted, so that what is often heard from women is put into the mouths of men. "Is that all women think about?!" Already it's amusing to try and imagine a man -- any man -- saying something like that. "She was just using me for sex." Again, the idea of a guy complaining about being used for sex is difficult to conceive. I remember that scene in American Pie (I think the second one; I only watched it because I was at a friend's house) where the guy, after finally bedding a girl he wanted to do, finds, upon waking up, that she's gone. Stunned, he slowly mutters to himself, "she used me!" After a bit of a pause, to let this reality sink in, he shrieks in excitement -- "COOL!" Continuing, imagine hearing the following: "She only thinks with her pussy." My, how many guys would consider hearing such music to their ears? Another one: "Why doesn't she call me?" I know, that's just funny to hear. Thinking of the famous Shirrelles song from the Sixties, "Will you (she) still love me tomorrow?", is this a concern that anyone can imagine a guy having in such a situation? I think not. "Why do guys fake orgasms?" Evidently guys don't fake orgasms. "I've got a headache", says the guy. ROFL. "I'm not in the mood." Too rare to be worth considering. "He's not up for it unless I first take him out to dinner and am romantic with him." Anyway, I think that anecdotal evidence seems to show men and women to be significantly different in their attitude toward sex.

    [Okay, I'd better stop there! Me and her exchange loooong messages, and this particular long one was exclusively on this subject of "double standards", as she'd complained about it a few times in passing before and asked me what I thought. Anyway, a good book I read a number of years ago, which explores the difficulties modern women face, is the astute Danielle Crittenden's "What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman".]

  12. Oops! The last three posts were relevant to the following quotation of yours, Chris, as well as to the general topic:

    "The double standards Western cultures have towards male and female sexuality - a promiscuous male is a "stud", "player" or "ladies man" while a woman seen to be promiscuous is a "slut" or "whore" - is merely one part of a very ugly continuum."

    There! That's it for tonight! :)

  13. [One more -- I couldn't resist!]

    What is the practical result of this sexual liberation, this supposed sexual equality with men?

    Women are left in a poor bargaining position. They are strong, after all -- they are not weak. They do not need protection. To even suggest such is so infuriatingly patronizing that tears of rage can build up in such women. How ridiculous to suggest such -- so out of date, out of touch, so stuck in the misogynistic time warp of the patriarchal dark ages.

    But the reality is that this dreaded patriarchy (especially during the Victorian era) insured that for any guys to get any, they had to put a ring on it first, as Beyonce has so recently reminded us. This meant that the woman got the committment she was after. It has been suggested by some observers that the reason for the recent popularity for many of Jane Austen's modern film reproductions is because of the yearning many modern young women have for the protection afforded to the young women depicted in Jane Austen's books. (Another example of this yearning, it has been suggested, is in the vampire's restraint -- a metaphor for sexual restraint -- in the currently popular Twighlight Series.)

    With the modern, strong and independent woman's offering of try-before-you-buy, males have all the bargaining power. They try ... and then never buy (well, hardly!). They simply move on to the next pussy, leaving the girl (with her usual incapacity to understand how males think) wondering why he hasn't called, often also engaging in the fruitless examination of what she may have done wrong. Of course the brute reality is that the guy hasn't called because he's already fucked her and is looking for the next pussy -- mission accomplished!

    Men will seek to sow their wild oats -- for hormonal reasons. Men dream of having sex with many different women -- for hormonal reasons. They barely dream of love or romance or any of those girly concerns. They dream of having sex. And if "strong", "modern", "independent" women are willing to give them easy pussy with few questions asked -- well then, hey, they're gonna take it and run. And run they will! To the next modern, strong, independent woman who reads Cosmopolitan. And the women on the receiving end of this will quite likely out of pride be forced into a stance of bravado and denial. To their girlfriends they may cry about this; but they must not reveal their fragility, their weakness to the opposite sex, for to do so would be to concede so much ground that had been so strenuously fought for by their mothers' generation. So a raunch culture may be adopted to mask this pitiable situation, spinning there status as sexual ragdolls as a strength.

    So why is there a "double standard"? Because women do not have the same sex drive as men. If a man is promiscuous, then it because he lacks self control. If a woman is promiscuous, then it is because she is silly, is out to make a point, lacks self-respect, or something else. It is certainly not because she lacks self-control, for what is there that she is struggling to control?

    So the claim that there is a "double standard" seeks to treat males and females as undifferentiated. But the reality is that they are different, and societies have and will continue to recognise this.

  14. @ Peter:

    I'll put it very simply. I believe women should have the right to determine their own destiny. I don't think any man has the right to inflict violence upon them for doing the things that men do freely - seek education, choose their own sexual partner, or drink a beer.

    If that is too controversial a notion for you, that's too bad.

    And despite your long-winded attempt to justify it, your implication that my concern for women's rights is not only "alleged" but is ultimately motivated only by "easy pussy" is quite frankly insulting to me as a human being. Let alone as someone who has spent the last 8 years working for an organisation aimed at preventing rape.

    I'm not pro-hedonism or pro-promiscuity or whatever. But I don't believe men have the right to use violently abusive measures to ensure women stay in their place.

    The focus on limiting women in order to save them from male predation actually perpetuates the conditions that encourage rape - because men feel their responsibility to control themselves is diminished.

    I would also contend that you have a pretty limited perspective on female sexuality.

  15. Fair enough. I could critique you on your assertion of there being a "right" to do this and that, and so of women having this or that right, but that would probably take too long and I'm not sure how far people are willing to take things, as in examine their basis assumptions.

    But at least I hope I provided readers with some food for thought.

  16. You have a very good blog that the main thing a lot of interesting and beautiful. I rally like it & shared with my friends! hope u go for this website to increase visitor.

  17. Wow! Peter, it's troubling to hear your views.

    I agree with Eurasian on this one.

    I don't agree with the raunchy culture, or sexual promiscuity, but I don't believe in using violent means to control a female who wants an education/career.

    Patriarchal protection" is not a good enough reason either, since it takes the responsibility of controling their sexual urges off the men, and condones or justifies violence against women.

    Why are these men so afraid of a female getting an education? Could it be that these men are egotistical and lacking feel confidence in themselves and can only feel good about their masculinity when engaging in female oppression.

    Furthermore, physical strength is one way of measuring strength, but it's not all of it. I doubt you'd be able to experience living life as a woman in misogynistic culture like Afghanistan and survive it. The fact that these women are surviving in these misogynistic and violent cultures is testament to their strength. Moreover, lack of aggression is not a sign of weakness either.

  18. Unless there is a chance that a Mongolian woman would go "be" with a "richer" man, there is no need to be concerned that, that is what a Mongolian woman would do.

    If she shames his heart, then he must seek the virtue in the future. If she emboldens his heart, then the virtue is in the past.

  19. These Mongolian men have every right to protect their women from foreign influence. The best way to do that is work hard and stimulate their economy. Education is key here. Restrict alcohol consumption, encourage education and instill strong nationality amongst the people to repel the foreign propaganda that is perpetuated by the west.

  20. Mongolia and China have been fighting for 2000 years so the racism is understandable.

  21. Mongolia was less sexist in the Middle Ages than America is now. How can you compare the Taliban to Mongolians stopping there women from becoming prostitutes? The place men there want to put there women is anywhere exept the streetcorner! The Mongol empire had more female rulers and warriors than any nation today. In there traditional life Mongol women and men work together to tend the herds. Men are not engouraged to have sex with multiple women like in America. Inner Mongolia is occupied by China right now and nine times more people living there are rich Chinese immegrants than Mongols. These are the people who are stealing Mongolian women. They are trying to do the same in Mongolia and it is western idiots who want women to sleep around and marry for money that are allowing them to do it.

    1. Mongolian fascists attacking mixed-ethnic couples? Shaving women's heads who sleep with Chinese men?
      I think I can very easily compare that to the Taliban.