Sex and Deviance

by Guillaume Faye

  This sartorial laissez allez, signifying a rejection of elegance, is also seen in the refusal to wear a tie so as to appear informal, out of a false simplicity, as a defence of negligence. But worst of all is what women wear: in an age where all discourse revolves around sex, most Western women dress with as little femininity as possible. Just for fun, walk to the Museum of Fashion or the Louvre in Paris and compare the women’s outfits of the regency (early eighteenth century, the absolute peak of French sartorial aesthetics — or indeed of the world) with what today’s parisiennes are wearing. Not a pretty picture, as they say.

  [25] In Antiquity, breeches (trousers) were worn only by men for reasons relating to climate among the Celts, Germanics, Varangians, and all non-Mediterranean peoples. In the Roman Empire, men wore either the toga or a loincloth that reached to the middle of the thigh. In Arab civilisation before it was Westernised, trousers for men were rather rare. But trousers for women are not attested in any civilisation. It is in the West that this practice took off in the 1960s. Among Westerners, it was a matter of masculising oneself to liberate oneself, according to a feminist whim which appeared in the nineteenth century with George Sand, who dressed as a man.

  But there are some striking paradoxes in all this: to protest against the macho and off-colour remarks of their male colleagues, women legislators have abandoned the trouser suit for skirts. As for veiled Muslim women, you see a lot of them wear wide, black trousers.

  [26] In France, young men of non-European immigrant background are heavily concentrated in the suburbs [les banlieues]. –Tr.

  [27] To co-education must be added other causes for the decline of the ‘republican school’: the collapse of discipline and of the level of instruction from the very first grades; ethnic heterogeneity; decreasing selectivity; a surge in the mediocrity of teachers — especially in the primary grades — with the teachers themselves being a product of a degraded educational system; solidarity among the excessive number of employees in the education system (badly paid, it is true, because of their excessive number). At one time, neighbourhood schools and (free) State secondary schools were clearly superior to tuition-charging private schools; today the situation has been reversed. Children of comfortable middle-class families enjoy an education clearly superior to that of the lower orders — who, moreover, are subjected to a horrible school environment. The circulation of elites has stopped, and we have the Left to thank.

  [28] Contrary to the statements of sociologists or publicists who decry the ‘commodification of the world’ and our age’s ‘worship of money’ without any knowledge of history, the possession of wealth and consumer appetite constituted one of the central poles of ancient and traditional societies. In the Roman Empire, membership in the equestrian and (especially) the senatorial class was reserved for very wealthy men. It was not until the end of the nineteenth century that property qualifications for voting were dropped (the elector having to pay above a certain amount in tax). Until the nineteenth century, the popes were recruited among the propertied Italian nobility, and everywhere cardinals had to come from rich families able to provide for a luxurious manner of life, which was inseparable from their religious prestige. Sumptuousness, prodigality, and the display of wealth were not in ancient societies condemned as they are today, but eagerly sought and admired. Nothing could be more bling-bling than the Florentine nobility and clergy, or sovereign European (as much as Eastern) courts. Moreover, let us not forget the practice of the dowry, which survived in France to the middle of the twentieth century. Until the nineteenth century, even a very pretty girl had a poor chance of marriage without a dowry. If her family were poor, she was likely to end up a household servant (‘good for anything’, whence the expression bonne [French for maid –Tr.]), a nursemaid (for rich women did not nurse their children and took little trouble over them), or even a prostitute. One might also mention the venality of offices.... [In France under the ancien régime, certain public offices, including that of judge, were filled by purchase. –Tr.]

  All of this is to say that in contemporary Western society, money plays a much less crucial role materially and in terms of prestige than in pre-modern societies, despite claims spread by ignorant journalists or self-proclaimed philosophers.

  [29] The human species is the only one in which filial love (attachment and care for offspring) endures beyond weaning. It would seem, moreover that certain populations practice filial love less and for a shorter time than others, but this subject is too politically incorrect and dangerous to be treated by anthropologists. As soon as the little one is no longer little but has become a young adult, the parents lose interest in him.

  [30] Speaking of the arrival of Christianity in the Roman Empire, the historian Lucien Jerphagnon often emphasises that Christian sexual morality amazed pagans. In Julien dit l’Apostate (Tallendier, 2010), he explains how rabid the proscription of the new religion seems to have been: ‘His (Christ’s or Chrestos’s) commandments were genuinely frightening: to love all men as oneself was the least realisable thing imaginable, and something that had never even occurred to anyone. One also had to renounce the various pleasures of the divine Eros, apart from contracting marriages, and one had to rest satisfied with them and stick to them indefinitely. One simple glance at an attractive girl and your soul fell like a dead fly.’

  Chapter 4

  Feminist Schizophrenia

  Feminism made a timid appearance in the West in the nineteenth century, at first aiming to align the legal status of women with that of men in two areas: the right to vote (hence the term suffragette for the first activists) and the abolition of laws unfavourable to women in family and financial law.[1] This movement, broadly supported by many men, appeared among peoples of European origin (Western and Northern Europe, along with North America) among whom a woman’s position had historically been strongest when compared to other civilisations.

  The feminist movement contributed to a true, positive revolution, perhaps the most important of all cultural revolutions: the establishment of the legal equality of men and women, something that had never before happened in the entire history of humanity. Neither the French Revolution nor the American Revolution had accorded legal equality to women. The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia had done so, but in practice had hastened to transform women into forced labourers.

  The feminist movement succeeded. But as soon as this (completely legitimate) legal equality had been obtained, deviations and excesses began to appear and feminism, from being a movement promoting equality of the sexes before the law, was transformed into an emotional ideology with egalitarian and extremist overtones — above all, wildly utopian. We can speak of neo-feminism. This neo-feminism has succeeded in imposing itself on us through laws that restrict our freedom, especially ‘parity’ laws.[2]

  At the same time, it is running up against insurmountable contradictions, especially the following: the feminist movement, having become a satellite within the gravitational field of the Left, is naturally pro-immigration, anti-racist (of course), and thus scandalised by Islamophobia. Now, Islam is hardly a shining example of respect for women.

  The second symptom of the schizophrenia of contemporary feminism is its opposition to femininity, its aim of masculinising women.

  The Insurmountable Contradictions of Feminism

  The first contradiction in the movement for the emancipation of women, clearly visible in feminist ideology, is the paradox in its view of the female body. This has been going on for decades. One the one hand, they demand that women be allowed to reveal their charms, no longer to hide themselves, to liberate themselves from modesty (with ‘modesty’ defended today by prudish Islam), to showcase their bodies; but on the other hand, they denounce the ‘exploitation of women’s bodies’ by the advertising and pornographic industries and by the media as a whole. They complain as if they had just made
the discovery that men find women’s bodies attractive. A square circle: liberate our bodies, but don’t let anyone look at us.

  The second contradiction of feminism is the affirmation of equality between men and women combined with the rejection of femininity, considered as a sign of inferiority. The mother of the family, the guardian of the hearth, the procreator — indeed, the desirable and sexual woman — are considered archetypes of oppression and submission. Men are the ideal upon which feminists model themselves. The new, liberated woman must resemble a man (while men, for their part, are divirilising and feminising themselves). The masculinisation of women is implicitly central to the program of every feminist movement since the beginning of the twentieth century.

  The third contradiction of feminism, clearly visible today, is its anchorage in the Left, and thus in the anti-racist and Islamophilic vernacular. Apart from a few exceptions, feminist movements are careful not to criticise Islamic practices against women too strongly, nor the misogyny that is inseparable from Islam itself — a crying omission. Islam per se is never considered in relation to the increasing violence against women and young girls, nor is the ethnic origin of the perpetrators. These, however, are the direct causes of that violence!

  To be clear, feminists privately think that Islamisation and massive demographic colonisation will have dramatic consequences for the status and cause of women. Out of cowardice, however, none of them dares to raise the question. They prefer to reassure themselves with dreams and untruths such as ‘secular Islam will win out’, even as more and more women go veiled and as increasingly serious sexist incidents occur.[3] The association: Neither Whores Nor Submissives is interesting to study.[4] What does it consist of? Young North African women in perfect contradiction with themselves, rejecting the way of life imposed on them by a certain form of Islam, but also revolted by the barbaric machismo of their male coreligionists.

  But politicised feminism, which attracts the ear of those in power, originates in well-protected strata of the Leftist bourgeoisie; it is not interested in the progress of brutal machismo among the lower orders caused by Islamisation. It prefers to occupy itself with ‘parity’ in political assemblies, candidacies, in the boardrooms of large companies, in the salaries of female administrators, and so on. These are very important causes in the eyes of ambitious, well-protected elite feminists, but of no importance to the women of modest circumstances who are bearing the brunt of Islamisation.

  * * *

  Feminist ardour — which resembles the dreams of a garçon manqué[5] — also exhibits both schizophrenic behaviour (namely the impossibility of admitting one’s own identity and personality, and the tendency to adopt a double identity) and paranoid behaviour, or persecution mania.[6] Here are few examples of many:

  Journalist Jacqueline Rémy took offence in an article featured in Marianne over sports commentators at the French Open Tennis Tournament who rhapsodised over the figures and charm of certain women’s tennis champions, considering this an expression of contemptuous machismo. She was also scandalised that the publisher, Robert Laffont, released a Guide to the Pretty Women of Paris (by Pierre-Louis Colin, 2008), which reviews the areas richest in feminine beauty. For a man to praise the beauty and charm of a woman is, it seems, ‘macho’ and anti-feminist. This is the very worst vein of puritanical American feminism. A heterosexual man would not have thought of mentioning the attractiveness of a male sportsman, therefore he ought to speak of a sportswoman in an asexual manner, as he would a male. The resentment of feminist muses at not having been born men is evident here: they are at war with femininity and feminine sexuality — with their own sexuality. You can imagine their frustration.... Is it insulting a woman to praise her beauty, her attractiveness? It is as if feminists are ashamed of feminine beauty. Is it not also because many feminists, themselves poorly endowed, are simply envious of pretty women? This is perhaps the beginning of an explanation.[7]

  In reality, in accordance with the same neurotic mindset as homosexual activists and immigrant lobbies that complaining about ‘racism’, feminists see discrimination and ‘macho’ contempt everywhere. Someone says a woman is ugly? Machismo, persecution. Someone says a woman is attractive? Machismo, persecution. Someone says that a woman is foolish? Contempt, insult. Someone says women deserve admiration? Hypocrisy, lies. The feminist activist, like the homosexual or anti-racist activist, loves to posture as a permanent victim, to invent oppression and to see conspiracies everywhere. Paranoia.

  Certain down-market writers and journalists have succumbed to the latest fashion: feminising certain common nouns and adjectives. Thus have the following barbarisms been coined: authoress, professoress, writeress, prosecutress, and so forth, out of sheer orthographic ignorance.[8] In French, such nouns are neutral, neither masculine nor feminine. Shall we go so far as to call women painters ‘paintresses’, or speak of taxi driveresses, judgettes, firewomen, plumberesses, and the like?

  The Two Feminisms: Sane and Insane

  A certain number of civilisations do not consider women human beings by full right, that is, as beings of equal capacity and (especially) as equal in law. These civilisations are essentially Eastern, Near Eastern, or African. We see this clearly today in the case of Islam or even elsewhere, when you consider the social situation of women in the Far East and the traditional ‘macho’ ideology which pervades.[9] The status Europeans have accorded women is an historical exception.

  In European traditions, the proper place of and respect for women have been a constant concern. Although the roles of the sexes were separate and complimentary, and despite male domination, no one has ever found legal infantilisation of or social contempt for women as one finds in the rest of the world. What determines the superiority of a civilisation is the legal and social position it accords to women. Superior civilisations can be recognised by not trying systematically to oppress women and preserve their status as a social minority.

  Considering women inferior is a constant in all civilisations, but in Europe this tendency was less strong than elsewhere. Among the Celts, Romans, Germans, and Scandinavians, women, although subordinate, enjoyed respect, consideration and a favourable legal status. In classical Rome of the first and second centuries, we even see the beginnings of a feminist movement, during the reign of Trajan. Upper class women demanded sexual freedom and absolute legal equality in divorce and civil cases, as well as demands that were not heard again for nineteen centuries.

  However, we should not forget that in classical Greece, laws protecting women (respecting marriage and divorce) kept them strictly within the domestic realm of hearth and family, restricting them to subordinate forms of work and excluding them entirely from the sphere of politics. The teachings of Aristotle and Plato were highly influential: according to Aristotle in the Metaphysics, woman is a being radically different from man, a ‘matter informed by man’. Woman is a ‘monster’, and ‘only man can tend toward perfection’. For Plato, woman is a human being, but ‘infantile’, closer to children than to men; she is not ontologically different, as for Aristotle, but is inferior. This thesis implies a moderate exclusion of women, though not contempt for them.

  These two traditions, Aristotelian and Platonic, have existed side-by-side. In Roman Law, the Aristotelian view prevailed. Women are incapacitated because of their otherness. In post-Roman customary law, it is rather the Platonic view that prevailed: women are subordinated because of their inferiority. In both cases, the rights of women are inferior to those of men. With the disappearance of paganism and introduction of Christianity, the status of women decreases, because they are considered the incarnation of sin and impurity. In St Paul and St Augustine we find the same curses against women as we do among radical Muslims today.[10] The questions of whether they had a ‘soul’ was resolved only with great difficulty. This tradition, taken up and amplified by Islam, obviously comes from certain biblical texts and all oriental traditio
ns, violently ‘macho’ and anti-feminist. On this matter, the thesis of Dr Gérard Zwang[11] is that the exclusively masculine character of the unique God in the various monotheistic religions corresponds to an inferiorisation of women.

  In the French Civil Code, the Platonic view lasted until the middle of the twentieth century: the weakness and immaturity of woman implied that she was in need of protection, which in turn implied the impossibility of making her the head of the family and limited her civil rights. Nevertheless, this legal inferiority of woman was not accompanied with any contempt or oppression, for example, by complete veiling or other practices of monotheistic Islam.

  * * *

  We are compelled to recognise that in all civilisations up to the present, men have been at the top in the arts, arms, law, sciences, philosophy, politics, poetry, and everything of the sort. Why? The first explanation that comes to mind is the division of roles according to sex. Outdoor work for men, indoor work for women, namely reproduction, domestic work, or subordinate tasks. This is the schema, well demonstrated by Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt[12] and Robert Ardrey,[13] of woman as guardian of the hearth and man as hunter. From the start of the twentieth century in the West, this division of authority began to be undermined, since women were increasingly obtaining important social roles in literature, science, and politics. Nevertheless, in no place have women yet reached a level of equivalence with men.