I’ve been researching old Edwardian anti-suffragette postcards and posters, and it’s revealing how many of them poke fun at the remarkable ugliness of the early feminists.
The Suffragettes were responding to the rapidly diminishing sexual value of plain and aging women in an urbanised industrial society adopting increasingly secular values. The vote was often explicitly stated as a means to the end of legislating sexual morality, and the suffragette movement itself, and therefore feminism, was born out of the Victorian Social Purity Movements – themselves responding primarily to the increase in prostitution and the numbers of available unmarried teenage girls. The continued deflation of female sexual market value is still the root cause driving each new wave of feminism.
Love those postcards please post more if you find them.
I found this OLD MRA article on feminism and prostitution (written back in 1992) here:
http://www.backlash.com/book/prostit.html
I thought you might like it because A) the MRA authors position is similar to the Sexual Trade Union theory advocated here and B) the article provides quotes by feminists who seem to flat out admit that they are engaging in sexual trade unionist activities.
Thanks Highwayman, interesting article and the author spells it out very well. I note with pride that he links to this site in his sidebar!
I’m beginning to think that the only way we can stop sexual trade unionism is by somehow, one day, legislating against it. Broadning the definition of rape, or defining a new crime perhaps, that covers attempts by one gender to artificially inflate or maintain their sexual value through ‘the abuse of the legal system’.
As that article shows, many feminists are even explicit in their admission of sexual trade unionism. In a famous essay that I’ve written about here, Naomi Wolf admitted that her objection to pornography was that it increases male expectations and provides an alternative to a sexual relationship with a real woman.
In fact, I think a case could be made that this could be covered under existing rape laws, especially since feminists have broadened the definition so much, and especially when feminists outright use lies (such as in sex trafficking figures or in claiming that porn leads to more sex crimes despite all the evidence to the contrary). If a war leader such as General Milosovic can be tried for mass murder without himself laying a finger on any of his victims, why shouldn’t a sexual trade union leader be tried for rape, or at least attempted rape?
A feminist lying about sex trafficking, porn, or the harm done to teenage girls from consensual sex, in order to create new laws, limit competition, and raise her own sexual value to men, is a violent rapist in the sense that she is exploiting the violence of the state (the threat of imprisonment) in order to increase her own chances of having sex (and the chances of the women who support her).
By the way, all of the ‘Per’s Manifesto’ articles have been archived here : http://slackbob.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04/pers-manifesto-march-1998.html
Here is my post on that Naomi Wolf article : http://theantifeminist.com/naomi-wolf-feminist-rapist/
From Nov 2008 – wow! I didn’t realise this blog was so old. It’s actually a year older than the Spearhead.
I phrased the ‘feminists are rapists’ argument a little better.
I also found a link containing mor eanti-suffragette posters:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Wanti.htm
Here is the profile of Mary Humphry Ward a leading female anti-suffragette of the period:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Wward.htm
I would not describe her as “hot” but she is still noticeably more attractive than your typical feminist. Please note that I am NOT opposed to women having he right to vote…I dislike suffragettes for the sexual trade unionist activities as well as their other objectionably policies documented by Ernest Belfort Bax and Steve Moxon.
Antifeminist:
During your vacation, Futrelle was having a tantrum over MRM blogs critical of the sufferagettes. Needless to say, he prudently avoided mentioning this blog, although I’m sure his flunkies read the articles here.
However, given the fact that back in Edwardian times, postcards were overwhelmingly purchased by women, I can’t help but think that women themselves back then saw a lot of truth in what was being depicted.
As a postscript: It occurred to me that a high percentage of the artists who designed postcards back then (many were hand-drawn) were also female artists. I wonder how many of those cards we’re looking at were actually drawn by women?
I’m sure that’s true. In fact, historians appear to agree that the suffragettes were an extremely violent and vocal minority, and that most women did not feel represented by them or even that the right to vote was terribly important to them.
Antifeminist:
The last picture in the postcard probably well-summarizes Anglo-American women’s attitudes back then. I’ve seen cartoons in women’s magazines in antique stores that looked just like that.
It’s interesting comparing the articles in those magazines to the feminist propaganda today.
I remember when I was young, my older female relatives rarely ever discussed politics, let alone voted. Once I asked my great-aunt about an upcoming election, and she told me that politics was ‘man’s work’ and she really had no interest in it.
I remember when I was young, my older female relatives rarely ever discussed politics, let alone voted. Once I asked my great-aunt about an upcoming election, and she told me that politics was ‘man’s work’ and she really had no interest in it.
The reason for the first wave was so small was because women DID NOT care about having the right to vote, as Angry Harry says, the gov was not that big and the decision it took never affected women, the first wave got the right to vote BUT it wasn’t until the 70s when women started to vote for their personal benefit, because when women got the vote they voted for what their husbands voted because it affected men but not women.
That is the reason that the less feminists countries the less women would care about politic and having the right to vote, in fact most women in less feminism countries still vote for what their male partner and husbands vote for.
If you want to see indifference among women about politic just go to any politic site or blog, they are run mostly by men and read mostly by men, the same happens in technology.
Women like stuff about their persona, fashion, gossip etc, analysis and debate are not women interest.
MRA:
My grandfather also used to say that politically-active men (like he was) used to register their wives to vote so that their own votes would count twice. In rural areas here, men do the same thing; they get a hunting license for their wives and can get two deer instead of the one they’re limited to as individuals. There are lots of female hunters officially listed, but most of them really never leave the house during hunting season.
Even today, most effective feminist political empowerment is run by mangina blogs and media outlets like Futrelle and Fleming have.
@MRA & Eric
Women are interested in politics as much as it involves their primal sexual and reproductive needs. Sexual morality used to be a pretty simple mater – they used to call it Christianity. This is why the first feminists (the Social Purity Movements) were fervent Christians reacting against the sexual temptations for men that came with urbanisation and industrialisation (cities teeming with prostitutes, nubile 15 year old girls working in factories instead of being married off at 12). With the decline of Christianity, feminism became both more secularized and more extreme in the form of the Suffragettes.
From my still limited reading of the Suffragettes, it seems that women in general were starting to feel sexually threatened by the massive changes that were happening in society, but that there was the idea still that women having the vote would mean women becoming men. Most women didn’t really want their role as women to be changed, they wanted their sexual interests protected though. Bear in mind that the Social Purity Movements had already succeeded in raising the age of consent in both the UK and the USA without the need of female suffrage. Most of the leading and vocal female opponenents of the Suffragettes appeared to be traditionalist femiservatives.
There is indeed evidence that women did not vote fundamentally differently to men until the 70′s and the sexual revolution blew the sex market wide open (though as far as I can tell, this statistic applies to America – there might have been exceptions in Europe,for example, Hitler only got into power and was able to ultimately be responsible for the deaths of 60 million people because women voted for him in greater numbers than men).
For most of human history politics was about which kings got which territories and which nobles etc got which spoils of war. Sexual morality was stable and more or less identical to the prevailing religion. As economies became more complex, so did politics, but still women were not interested as long as they ruled the economy of their own household. Fast forward today and the political situation in America is decided by the vagina vote and basically has two alternate positions ;
1/ small government (Republicans) with highly conservative sexual morality by way of compromise to protect female sexual and economic interests.
2/ big government (Democrats) with ‘progressive’ sexual morality but welfare state and government as substitute husband to protect female sexual and economic interests.
And in Europe we don’t really even have democracy anymore. Half the population doesn’t vote because we realise that we’re now ruled from beurocrats in Brussels, who spends half of their massive resources churning out directive over directive devoted to ‘child sex abuse protection’, ‘anti-sex trafficking’ etc etc.
@MRA your point about female involvement in political and scientific blogs is a very good one. If you go to Reddit and look at the comment history of feminist redditors, and when not in feminist reddits or trolling men’s rights, they are usually found in dating and relationship subreddits.
I’m a little wary of any suggestion, which is common in the MRM, particularly amongst traditionalistis, that it’s really only a minority of women (evil feminists) who are causing all this misandry and that ordinary women are either innocent, not interested, or have been brainwashed. Seems to me to be another example of the reluctance of the male to hold women accountable as moral agents, and should have no part in the men’s rights movement.
The mass of women definately are sexually threatened these days, they have turned politics into an extension of their vaginal needs and fears, and elections are decided by the politicians who can cravenly appeal to those fears. It’s not a case of a few lesbian feminists causing paedohysteria, misandry etc There is a lot of manipulation in the media etc, but at the end of the day, the media is a profit business that is providing what ordinary women want, and politicians who hurt men are getting elected because women vote them in.
Antifeminist:
Related to your earlier post about the Sufferagettes, I’m certain too that most women back then admired those stage/silent screen actresses a lot more than they did the Sufferagettes. I know that Mary Pickford and Clara Bow were millionaires at the end of their film careers; and it seems like a lot of others lived fairly comfortably all their lives afterwards as well. In Sufferagettes look like a fairly underclass group.
My grandfather also used to say that politically-active men (like he was) used to register their wives to vote so that their own votes would count twice. In rural areas here, men do the same thing; they get a hunting license for their wives and can get two deer instead of the one they’re limited to as individuals. There are lots of female hunters officially listed, but most of them really never leave the house during hunting season.
Even today, most effective feminist political empowerment is run by mangina blogs and media outlets like Futrelle and Fleming have.
This still happens, is you ever go to any political debate/meeting, notice that most women are there with their husbands, I went to a political meeting some time ago and I can tell you that men outnumber women 3-1, and I did not see any one of the females being single or at least alone without a male companion, same with sport, if you go to a stadium notice that women are never alone without boyfriend and husbands, this tells a lot about the interest of women when it comes to big movement.
About what you say of hunting is true and the same with guns, many men register their wives for a licence to carry guns and then their adult daughters but is just because many state that allow gun have a limited number of gun per citizen, having your wife get a licence get you the double amount of gun of what you get alone. These women never touch a gun after getting a licence because they don’t feel interest on it.
The last picture is really good, how feminists are against motherhood that even today women who choose to be stay at home moms are seen as lazy and failure by MSM liberals, feminists and PC.
Feminists realized they needed to sell pretty faces if they wanted to be seen as a modern group appealing to women, as the postcards show women were mocking feminists for their ugliness, that is why from first wave to second wave women kept behaving the same even with the vote, they (women) were voting for what their husbands voted, that was when the second wave started to put good looking women on the front of everything as Rush Limbaugh said “Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.”
Also feminism always has been about white-middle upper class women, they just started to use the blacks in the late 70s.
Putting not ugly women on the front like Gloria Steinem (she was even a Playboy bunny) in the 70s makes feminists more appealing to women, because women DO NOT want to be associated with anything that is well-known for ugly females, do you think if Sandra Fluke was a fat ugly 50 something- Andrea Dworkin-look alike-woman she would have received the same amount of popularity? of course not, the same goes for Valenti or Marcote, as a magazines does, feminists need to sell a pretty face if they want to get attention, just look the slut walk, which are are women on the front? the not ugly.
MRA:
On a related topic that’s been discussed a lot lately: I wonder how much of that feminist sex-appeal, like Jessica Valenti and Melissa Gorga uses, is being employed to spur on White Knights to fight on their behalves?
Solid GOLD find Anti-Feminist!
Interesting how fashions and speech styles may change, but basic human nature doesn’t. I feel a close bond with my male soul mates from 100 years ago looking at those postcards. Imagine how they’d feel if they knew that by 2012 a man could be jailed for years on the unsubstantiated ‘evidence’ of a woman.
Deano:
I know what you mean about ‘soul-mates of a century ago.’ When we were discussing early actresses a few weeks ago, it occurred to me how easy it would be to fall in love with women like them. And look at the mother in the last postcard. Beautiful and standing tall with her three kids against a horde of feral feminists. I mean, wouldn’t any man be proud of a wife like that?
These feminised women who blather on about how ‘there are no good men left’ should look at those women and see what attracts good men. But they’d rather force us to accept them ‘as they are’ with all their ‘issues’.
Antifeminist & Deano:
Here are three photographs that are rather interesting. These were the wives of American presidents contemporary with Edwardian England:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Folsom_Cleveland_Preston
http://www.firstladies.org/biographical/firstladies.aspx?biography=25
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Hathaway_Lee_Roosevelt
Somewhat of a far cry from Hillary, eh? LOL
Thanks Deano.
Highwayman pointed out that he is not against women having the vote, and I certainly agree that there is not the slightest point in holding a position like that at this or any other men’s rights site.
However, as Deano said, if men knew back then what the consequences down the road would be…
And if the question was put to me :
‘is women having the vote compatible (at least in the long run) with a reasonable age of consent, the legal and moral acceptance of prostitution and porn, and the tolerance of male sexuality?’
then my answer would have to be no. Without even having recourse to evolutionary psychology or anything like that, there appears to me to be no evidence whatsoever that this question could be answered positively.
And this is why ultimately, I think that transhumanism is going to be an essential part of the liberation of male sexuality.
BTW, Angry Harry just put this up on his site (good to see AH updating again) :
Winston Churchill …
“The women’s suffrage movement is only the small end of the wedge, If we allow women to vote it will mean the loss of social structure and the rise of every liberal cause under the sun. Women are well represented by their fathers, brothers and husbands.”
When women were given the right to vote in America, Dr. Sigmund Freud predicted it would be the downfall of the United States. He also predicted that Prohibition would be the first major law passed under female sufferage, and his prediction came true a year later.
Freud always used to refer to the US political leadership as ‘Petticoat Government’. LOL