Western governments have failed to respond to the problem of patriarchy, both from within and from without, for obvious reasons; 90% of the power elite is male (with most of the females involved in secondary roles) and therefore its interests lie in the continuation of male supremacy.
There have been minor exceptions, such as the French ban on niqabs and burqas. Liberals have tried to turn this into a human rights issue, that we should have the right to wear whatever we want. First of all, this is an extremely disingenuous position for liberals to take, since they support a capitalist system which most definitely does not give people the right to wear whatever they want; if they were serious about such a position, they would be advocating a ban on corporate-imposed clothing and uniforms as well.
Secondly, for someone who really believes that the niqabs and burqas are mandated by the Quran, which is the word of Allah, the wearing of the niqabs and burqas cannot be said to be “voluntary” in any meaningful sense (although nothing in the Quran mandates such clothing, but that never stops religious fanatics). So the idea that “voluntary” niqab or burqa wearing should be allowed is nonsense on its face, since there can be no such thing. And again, this is a disingenous position for statists to take, since they take pleasure in banning a wide variety of voluntary actions.
Patriarchy is the real issue under question. Women are told that they must wear these cloth tombstones because men are such beasts that they will rape women who show their face in public. This is merely a fanatical version of gallantry, where men take it upon themselves to “protect” women from non-existing dangers, repressing women’s freedom in the process. In this case, women are figuratively killed (to the world) so men can have all the space to themselves without feeling sexual attraction (because they follow a faggot ideology).
Some people dismiss these concerns as “cute.” I am not sure how being outraged against extremist patriarchal hate speech is “cute.” The patriarchy needs to be exterminated. You may argue with my methods, and that’s fine. You may argue that it is not the State’s role to ban such clothing, and I agree with you completely. However, I still think it is better for the State to ban them than for the State to not ban them, in the same way that I’d rather the State ban murder than not ban murder (sadly, they don’t, at least not consistently). I am not saying gradualism is great, because it’s absolutely not. I am merely making a theoretical statement. In practice, I want the State to be destroyed.
The continuation of the patriarchy is founded on the failure of civil rights movements in reforming society. Instead of demanding equal rights, the marginalized demanded opportunities to obtain the same power that the privileged possessed. This has led to the spreading of power lust and power competition across all social strata.
Our heteronormative system has completely and absolutely failed. Homosexuality, which is the superior mode of sexual relations, has been dragged through the dirt of heteronormativity, and now the goal of homosexual marriage is widely accepted as “progressive,” despite its utterly regressive and depraved nature; marriage only exists because our heteronormative society demands monogamy, and monogamy is unsustainable. This is one of the paradoxes which exposes our system as regressive nonsense.
Because they are self-hating faggots, Christians vehemently argue that homosexuality is unnatural. To this, atheists rightly respond that homosexuality exists in hundreds of species of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians and insects. But we can go further than this. Consider that, before they begin sexual activity, children will generally have masturbated hundreds of times. Therefore, they become very familiar with their own genitals, while remaining unfamiliar with those of the opposite sex. In fact, most men will always be more familiar with penises than with vulvas, and most women will always be more familiar with vulvas than with penises. We can therefore claim, as a generality, that homosexuality is more natural than heterosexuality.
So it is nonsense to say that homosexuals should be made to conform to the power structure, adopt the trappings of heterosexuals such as marriage and monogamy, and integrate within heteronormative institutions. It is heterosexuals who should be made to integrate within homosexual patterns. It is the heterosexual concepts which are regressive. This is the fatal error of the liberals, who still firmly try to integrate homosexuals within the bankrupt heteronormative framework.
Why am I talking about this specific issue? Because all answers, without exception, given by statists to patriarchal issues are predicated upon the belief that women must be made to integrate at all costs within the oppressive institutions already in place, which must be minimally modified to admit women and give them the opportunity to pursue the power they control. It really doesn’t matter what form of bigotry we’re talking about, their answer always follows the same framework, and they inevitably call this regressive, primitive philosophy “progressive.”
The only valid alternative is to wipe out all forms of oppression and segregation based on invalid distinctions: not merely to ban niqabs and burqas, but to ban all segregated forms of clothing. Heteronormative institutions could not survive the destruction of gender. The ultimate goal should not be to make women be more like men, or to make men be more like women, but to erase all concept of man and woman, just as the solution to power lust is not to make power more available but rather to eliminate or disperse all power.
This is not an extreme solution, as it is well known that gender is a social construct. If society has made it, then society can unmake it. Segregated clothing such as dresses, high heels, suits and ties are clearly part of the construction of gender, therefore their removal should participate in the unmaking of gender. In doing so, we would participate in the extermination of patriarchy.
And there is not really any need to anger the liberals and arouse their “human rights” arguments: by banning the manufacture and importation of these articles, but not their wearing, individuals need not be oppressed for their fashion choices. These patriarchal articles would simply be gradually weeded out of society as they wore out. This would have the unfortunate consequence that they would become scarce and their price would shoot out, meaning that only rich people could afford them for a while, but this is an unfortunate consequence of the fact that we live in a class society where only the rich get what they want, not a consequence of my proposed policy.