Reflecting “Feminism or Death (1974)” a Half Century Later

“The Earth is what we all have in common.” – Wendell Berry.

The insights and expertise of individuals like Dr. Yukio Kamino are critical in a world where sustainable development and environmental concerns have become increasingly significant. Dr. Kamino is a Resource Person at OISCA International, a Japanese NGO committed to promoting Life on Earth. He has a wealth of experience in social sciences, humanities, and metaphysics, and has dedicated decades to addressing issues related to sustainable development and environmental education. His work has been widely published, and he has played a crucial role in facilitating global initiatives to promote ecological sustainability.

SheSight is thrilled to present a six-part series of articles by the esteemed Professor Dr. Kamino. In this series, Professor Kamino will provide his insights on the concept of ecofeminism and how synthesizing feminist ideals with ecological principles can pave the way for a more sustainable future. We are honored to have him share his knowledge and expertise with our readers, and we hope that through these articles, we can foster meaningful discussions and inspire positive change toward a more equitable and inclusive world. This is part two of the six-part series by Dr. Yukio Kamino.

Male Domination Over Female

Since this chapter is a review article on Feminism or Death, it starts with the exploration of why Feminism emerged in modern Europe. Why have modern women there expressed their objection to the millennia-long tradition of Patriarchy? The answer is presented in dozens of passages in Feminism or Death (1974/2022) with sharply critical remarks on ‘male society.’ This section quotes some of them so that the readers can comprehend at least some basic reasons why modern females started to voice their
objection to Patriarchy, “a system of society or government in which men hold power and women are largely excluded from it” (Oxford Dictionary of English).

On the history of Patriarchy, d’Eaubonne (1974/2022) stated that “patriarchal and masculine power peaked in the Bronze Age, with the discovery of what would later become an industry” (p. 213). Since that ancient past of some 5,000 years ago, male domination or subjugation of women and girls has been a common practice in many parts of the world. In her own words:

Women were then put under strict surveillance by the victorious sex [male]…they [females] were exiled…not only from power and from work outside the home, but even from areas in which man seemed to have no fear of competition: physical sports…theater…art and culture, higher education (1974/2022, pp. 213-214).

To substantiate this legacy of inter-sexual inequity, Feminism or Death (1974/2022) includes a chapter titled “FEMINITUDE, OR RADICAL SUBJECTIVITY.” Its subsection headed “What Man’s Great Voices Say” provides quotations from males that enable us to gain at least some basic insights about why many thoughtful females, autonomous from the traditional customs, decided to voice the gender unfairness of the patriarchal civilization. According to that subsection, some famous intellectual French men stated as follows:

François Rabelais (c. 1494-1553): “When I speak of woman, I speak of a sex so fragile, so changeable, so fickle and imperfect…” (p. 22).

Jean Racine (1639-99): “She floats, she hesitates, in a word, she is a woman” (p. 22).

Pierre Beaumarchais (1732-99): “O Woman, weak and deceiving creature!” (p. 22).

Alfred de Vigny (1797-1863): “Woman, a sick child, twelve times over impure” (p. 22).

August Comte (1798-1857): “At the end of the day, the wittiest, the most refined of women is equal only to a rather lesser man, just with a lot of added pretense” (p. 22).

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865): “To us, you are ugly, venomous beasts, what do you have to say to that?”; “Man will be the master, and the woman will obey” (p. 22).

Baudelaire: (1821-1867): “Women is the natural, hence abominable. The young girl is a little imbecile and is a little bitch” (p. 22).

The above comments are all made by the ‘Great French Men.’ Then, how was the conventional males’ impression about, and attitude to, females? Proverbs or “the wisdom of nations” indicate that many common men were even more repressive against females than the renounced seven French intellectuals above. While the statements above (only) conveyed their ‘disrespectful views’ on females, the widely shared ethnic proverbs even rationalized males’ physical violence—especially Domestic Violence—against females. A passage below confirms that the proverbs of some ethnic groups in France and areas around the area legitimized men’s ‘beating’ of females.

Hungary… “Money is good for counting and the women for beating,”

Poland…“If the husband doesn’t beat his wife, her liver will decay.”

France: “Beat your wife as you beat your wheat; you’ll have good flour; you’ll have
beautiful children”…

North Africa: “Beat your wife. If you don’t know why, she does” (D’Eaubonne, 1974/2022, p. 23).

While the common men might have been too uneducated or too busy to develop fair views on gender relations, the ‘Spiritual Leaders’ are expected to have held ‘spiritual visions’ about both sexes. But it was not necessarily the case, as d’Eaubonne (2022) quoted what they had said as follows:

Saint Augustine: “Women can neither teach, bear witness, compromise, nor judge.”…

Saint Antonius: “Whenever you see a woman, keep in mind that it is neither a human being nor a ferocious beast, but the devil himself.”…

Saint John of Damascus: “Frightful parasite that has attached itself to the heart of man, daughter of the lie, sentinel sent from hell.”

Saint Paul… “I want the woman to remain silent; women, submit to your husbands” (p. 22).

In short, recorded comments on females left by males, including the French intellectuals, commoners in multiple countries, and Christian leaders around the Mediterranean collectively lead this section to conclude that d’Eaubonne convincingly illustrated that the traditional civilization of Europe (and surrounding areas) was a blatantly male chauvinist. The males upheld very biased, if not physically brutal, aggressively oppressive approaches to females. Indeed, the set of quotations provided in Feminism or Death (1974/2022) leads us to understand how fundamental Patriarchy used to be in these cultures through the 19th century.

But d’Eaubonne was born in 1920, so she was in her 50s at the publication of Feminism or Death (1974/2022). While it is difficult to identify the levels of ‘invisible’ domestic violence or ‘inside’ of males’ minds back then, one would suppose Patriarchy must have been substantially diminished by the mid-1970s, at least in France and its neighboring countries. (D’Eaubonne noted, “Women have been voting there [Sweden] since 1866” [p. 144].) Yet, d’Eaubonne pointed out that Patriarchy still solidly existed in her era. She explicated in Feminism or Death (1974/2022) the psycho-cultural mechanisms that sustained inter-gender inequality ‘invisibly.’

[B]ut the woman suffers all the consequences. If she wants to create, to command, to invent, to change, she parrots man, shame on her… Additionally, if the man proves to be intuitive, ingenious, full of good taste and sensitivity, he does not decrease the glory of his sex… On the contrary, it is a triumphal argument against us: “Even all the great chefs are men” (p. 21).

D’Eaubonne (1974/2022) also remarked on another kind of psycho-cultural impact of gender discrimination inherited from the millennia of Patriarchy. She explained how the inter-gender ‘separation’ was causing ‘different outcomes’ between males and females: “Every separation reinforces the difference that it underscores and creates it even if it doesn’t exist. (The salary gap between the sexes leads to a decrease in the quality of work and absenteeism among women, the same as lack of promotion provokes a disinterest in work.)” (pp. 19-20).

Feminism or Death (1974) termed such “incantation of phallocratic culture” as “feminitude,” which “is merely the interiorization of this [males’] accusation.” As one common outcome of feminitude, d’Eaubonne (1974/2022) noted: “Women who become known in movements dominated traditionally by men only managed it by bowing down to male values” (p. 133). Instead of adhering to the norm of the male system, she advocated “femininity” that represented “the radical rejection of it” (D’Eaubonne, 1974/2022, p.30).

We trust that this piece has offered you a valuable comprehension of ecofeminism and its significance in accomplishing sustainable development. The views of Dr. Kamino have brought into focus the interconnectedness of environmental and social justice concerns and emphasized the need for a comprehensive approach to address them. Let us embark on this voyage of exploration to uncover how combining feminism and ecology can lead to a fairer and more sustainable world. By taking small steps together, we can work towards creating a brighter future for both the Earth and all its living beings.

Dr. Kamino is a graduate of Keio University and studied social sciences, humanities, and metaphysics in the USA. He focuses on sustainable development and environmental education and has authored books on ecological sustainability. He worked as a Senior Researcher and Coordinator at OISCA International until 2019. He is now engaged with them as a Resource Person.