By Luc Loranhe (2006)

I differentiate between feminism and feminazism. Feminism is pro-sexual (recognizing that for women, just as for men, the ultimate value in life is sexual satisfaction), feminazism is anti-sexual.

I support feminism: anything that supports female sexual satisfaction. I obviously oppose feminazism.

Another distinction I can make about myself is that I'm a Marxist in some of my views, but I'm a Communist in none. This isn't as strange as it sounds. In characterizing myself as a Marxist in some of my views, I refer to Marx' philosophical writing, not the political movement in which he was active.

Marx' philosophy isn't anti-sexual. And I'm obviously not in tune with the prudish sexual order that has typically been promoted by Communist governments, especially in Asia.

A key presumption of Marx' philosophy is, in the original German: Das Sein bestimmt das Bewusst-Sein. I quote this in German, because in German, it contrapositions "Sein" and "Bewusst-Sein". "Sein" could be translated simply as "existence" but to catch the German aura of the term, a more appropriate translation would be something like "the modalities of our existence". "Bewusst-Sein" is easier to translate. It means “consciousness”, or better "self-consciousness". In German, the correct spelling is without the hyphen, Bewusstsein, not Bewusst-Sein. I introduced the hyphen for readers of the English language, so they will notice that the word "Sein" is part of "Bewusstsein". Thus, relating the two terms gives Marx' philosophical assumption a poetic component, apart from its philosophical deepness.

What Marx pointed out (in the introduction to the Critique of political economy, written 1859) is that it's not our minds that determine our opinions, but our interests, regardless of whether we admit it or not, and even regardless of whether we are aware or not of the connection between our interests and our opinions.

To give some simple examples. I bet a year's income that if we were to do a poll among cattle farmers, the vast majority of them will support the assessment that eating beef is healthy. Now, if you tell them that they are of this opinion because they profit from people eating beef, many of them will vehemently deny this "accusation" and start citing scientific research as well as authorities like their grandmother who reached the age of 95 on a diet that included beef daily.

The Nebraska Beef Council on beef in a healthy diet
http://www.nebeef.org/nutrition.asp

Now, if we do the same poll among vegetable farmers, we will have the same result, only that in this case, the health secret is vegetables instead of beef. And they, too, will likely react angry when accused of being impartial in favor of their profits.

The Georgia Fruit & Vegetable Growers Association on healthy (!) benefits
http://www.gfvga.org/benefits/benefits_index.html

The cited samples make the connection between people's opinions (their ideology) and their economic interests. This is in accordance with how standard Marxism explained the world. Most everything was reduced to economic conditions.

Such a model of the world goes a long way when explaining economies of need (or just economies). But in today's world of material surplus, other interests play an important role. Sexual interests.

Just like cattle farmers are of the opinion that eating beef is healthy, other men and women typically are in favor of sexual mores that potentially benefit them. Or, in Marxist terms: their opinions are ideologies... mind games in support of their interests.

Let's put this assumption to a test. Among all men, it is likely that good-looking young men will be most in favor of the abolition of criminal procedures against adulterers. On the other hand, short married men in their forties will probably be more in favor of a strict punishment for adultery.

Both groups will cite all kinds of dishonest arguments in favor of their views, but will vehemently deny that their views have anything to do with their interests (young good-looking men are interested in other men's wives, and short married men don't want to lose the women they regard as their own).

Women who have been abandoned by their husbands have another ideology than sexy young chicks who benefit from rich previously married men becoming available.

Again, don't expect either of the two groups to admit that their opinions are just reflections of their sexual interests (and thus ideologies). Rather, both groups will take the moral high ground and argue their points as matters of principles.

In this age of moral pluralism, coalitions on what people are for and against do vary. But by and large, they always reflect particular sexual interests. One of the interests that can cause solidarity is the aim to exclude unwanted competition.

Women above 30 typically are in favor of restricting the sexual conduct of girls under 18. Women and girls in developed countries are against men traveling to Third World countries for sexual adventures. But they will never admit that their views on these matters are ideologies (a reflection of their sexual interests). Much rather they will pretend to act out of solidarity with oppressed females across shores. And they will join campaigns against child prostitution and trafficking in Third World countries.

I leave it up to the reader to analyze the motivations behind feminazism. But I'm sure the real motivation is not an abstract idea of a better world order. Feminazism is just another ideology that reflects sexual interests.