Emmeline & Christable Pankhurst & The White Feather Betrayal of History

http://www.mralondon.org/2012/11/pankhurst-white-feather-betrayal-of.html

Excellent video and article but I can't help reflecting upon a possible irony - as my site is on the first page of Google for 'white feather campaign', I can't believe that the authors didn't visit here. In that case, I presume the lack of any link in the footnotes of their article is for the usual reasons - paedohysteria has nothing to do with men's rights etc

If this is the case, what a remarkable irony - given that it was Emmeline Pankhurst who was the leading campaigner to raise the age of consent to 16 in the UK (ostensibly because she and most of her fellow suffragettes believed that sex outside of marriage was a wicked sin and girls were consequently 'ruined' by pre-marital sex).

25 thoughts on “Emmeline & Christable Pankhurst & The White Feather Betrayal of History

  1. Alan Vaughn

    If this is the case, what a remarkable irony – given that it was Emmeline Pankhurst who was the leading campaigner to raise the age of consent to 16 in the UK (ostensibly because she and most of her fellow suffragettes believed that sex outside of marriage was a wicked sin and girls were consequently ‘ruined’ by pre-marital sex).

    While on the other side of the Atlantic, REAL mRAs have debunked that story!
    I.e. manosphere blogger and avid AVfM commentator (albeit Paul Elam dissenter): 'scarecrow' tells us on his blog that he has 'no doubt that the original intention of the age of consent laws was to protect children from perverts'. This of course being the most popular narrative and supported belief of the real mRAs there.
    The AofC laws are vehemently opposed by all of them, because they are 'based on a hatred of men - and only men.

    In other words, according to our US 'brothers': they are 'not fair', the laws should be changed to EQUALLY punish women - female paedophiles for the same offences against 17 and 18 year old MALE children (boys).

    Seriously...

  2. Eric

    Speaking of White Feathers (and White Knights), it looks like we're having our own version of the Savile hysteria looming on the horizon. Now that General Petraeus has resigned, a number of women are 'coming forward' and now General John Allen (Petraeus' successor as Afghanistan CIC) is being accused.

    Welmer reported over on the Spearhead that another Army Ranger commander, General Jeffery Sinclair has also been relieved of command and faces court-martial for 'inappropriate sex'. It looks like the witch-hunting has been turned loose on our military.

    Maybe soon our soldiers will be parading in high heels like Canadian troops do?

  3. theantifeminist

    Post author

    @Alan - this is why it's important to educate the men's rights community about the early history of feminism, and for that reason it's good to see more and more sites taking an interest in feminism before 1970.

    When they understand that it was feminists who created our modern age of consent laws, the same Victorian and Edwardian era feminists who were handing out white feathers to underage boys for not dying in trenches, then they simply have no excuse for their defence of these laws.

    It's alsom important to educate them as to the fact that applying age of consent laws and forcing the label of 'child abuse victim' onto boys (who engaged in sex willingly) harms those boys. In other words, these mRAs, some of them probably well meaning, are actually harming teenage boys in defence of feminist laws (that were only ever designed to 'protect' i.e. remove the sexual compettion of - young girls).

    BTW, according to my computer, my history site is now number 2 and only behind Wikipedia for 'History of Feminism' on Google!

  4. Alan Vaughn

    And it's number 2 because FEMINISTS are that stupid they don't even notice its a blog that opposes EVERYTHING about them!
    BTW: while on the topic of forcing the label of 'child abuse victim' onto boys, did you read this one, back in August?

  5. theantifeminist

    Post author

    So this Hannah woman, a trainee clinical psychologist (i.e. trainee child abuse industry professional) is trawling a men's rights site for men who already identify themselves as 'victims' of female child sexual abuse in order to 'prove' how fucked up 'victims' of female sexual abuse are. And, of course, to ensure that the feminist age of consent, which serves feminists and female sexual needs, is never an issue in men's rights (apart from enforcing it by swallowing the feminist child abuse trauma industry).

    BTW, I'm not saying that women who have sex with underage boys aren't acting very wrongly - certainly as wrongly as men in the same situation are, and that in many cases, boys having unwanted sex with women will be damaged later in life.

    It's also slightly odd the number of men's rights activists that are claiming to have been abused by women as children. I remember that back in the heyday of second wave radical feminism every self-respecting feminist claimed to have been raped at some point by men (including germaine greer who claimed to have been raped by an entire rugby team). Now feminists tend to claim more often that they were abused as children by men.

  6. theantifeminist

    Post author

    I've just read Scarecrow's article (http://men-factor.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/age-of-consent-laws-my-thoughts.html).

    It's not all bad..at least by men's rights normal standards, and he is obviously having a dig at Paul Elam's treatment of Jay Hammers in threatening to sue him if he is accused of being a paedophile.

    The thing I disliked the most is his reply to Eric's excellent comment - he again states that the original laws were hijacked by man hating feminists.

    Does he actually know anything about the origin of the age of consent laws? I suspect not.

    I am not on his blogroll - he only links to me because my posts appear on the men's rights feed that a lot of mra bloggers use (including anti-feminist tech - who is also stringently against discussion of age of consent laws by 'paedophiles' infiltrating the MRM).

    Until I see EACH AND EVERY 19 year old young woman having to register as a sex offender for having sex with their 17 year old boyfriends - I will not support the age of consent laws - as I will correctly consider them to be based on a hatred of men - and only men.

    This means that he is happy for 19 year old boys to go to jail for having sex with their 17 year old girlfriends, so long as 19 year old women in the same situation are punished equally as absurdly?

    With the men's rights movement we will achieve equal injustice for all!!!!

  7. Alan Vaughn

    BTW, I’m not saying that women who have sex with underage boys aren’t acting very wrongly – certainly as wrongly as men in the same situation are, and that in many cases, boys having unwanted sex with women will be damaged later in life.

    unwanted being the operative word here.
    I was assuming perhaps incorrectly, that we (including Mr 'scarecrow') were discussing CONSENSUAL sexual encounters between 'children' (as defined by the gynocracy) and adults.
    With unwanted sex (regardless of whether it's male or female victims) it IS rape and I say the perpetrator deserves the full weight of the law to be used in determining a suitably severe penalty. I would thus agree with US mRA's, where the sex of either the victim or the rapist should not be considered when sentencing such a real sex-offender.
    Rape is a heinous crime, regardless of the sex of the perpetrator or the sex, or age of the victim.

    When it comes to CONSENSUAL sex, the law shouldn't even be involved.
    Again: regardless of the sex or age* of the individuals involved (there would be no 'victim' or 'perpetrator' to my way of thinking) and until quite recently, (since feminism and paedohysteria) that was so...

    * I do agree of course, that a PRE-PUBESCENT child is too young to give consent for sex with an adult, regardless of his / her sex. That would constitute paedophilia and is a totally different argument.
    By the same token, I don't think the law needs to be involved when it comes to children simply growing up and experimenting with sex with other children, i.e. 'playing doctor'...
    In the US, there are literally thousands of children (mainly boys) who have had at least brushes with the law for such normal, developmental behaviour.
    That is nothing more than pure destructive paedohysteria in action.

  8. Alan Vaughn

    Now feminists tend to claim more often that they were abused as children by men.

    Yeah, well just look at things like the Jimmy Savile witch-hunt and its easy to see why: if a man put his hand on her knee or simply put is arm around her in a friendly hug (with no sexual interest) they say he 'sexually abused' them...

    You know, yeah fuck-it, why not...
    I have been what these paedohysterical bleeding-hearts would call 'sexually abused' and when I was a teenager. By MEN! By actual gay men who clearly wanted to fuck me, on 2 occasions.
    One tried to put his hand down my trousers and the other, when he was sitting at a table with me he was acting just like I myself would act when I know I have more than a 98% chance of laying a girl. I.e. patting her knee, then slowly moving up her leg to her thigh etc. while my other arm is round her waste...

    All of that by older gay men! I told both of them to fuck-off and they did.
    I am not traumatized by it, I actually think it was funny. The point is: they didn't do anything, other than show interest. I don't consider that I was in any way 'abused' sexually or otherwise.

    As far as I'm concerned these witch-hunters we've all been reading and hearing about of late, are either looking for attention, or money, or more likely: are just sheep, following the narrative as defined by the latest or most popular meme linked to paedohysteria!

    Those people totally infuriate me, because I know from personal experience, they are truly making a big fuss about NOTHING - a storm in a tea-cup.

  9. Ian B

    On the point Alan Vaughn has brought up; here's my interpretation. Many "MRAs" follow what might be called a "conservative" morality. The idea of this is that there is this set of moral values which are traditional- have always existed effectively- and then feminism, or liberalism, or something similar, came along and overturned them, and so that's the problem and the "traditional" morals need putting back in place.

    The problem is, if you actually look at the history, these "traditional" puritanical morals are merely the moral code imposed during the first (successful) wave of feminism and progressivism. So there is this myth that "Victorian values" are traditional; but they are not. They were an innovation, the political correctness of their day.

    It's thus easy to see why notional "radical left" feminists and notional "conservative right" conservatives actually end up on the same side in the sex war. In broad terms, they're after the same thing, just with different interpretations of it from different time periods (First Wave or Second Wave).

    Ultimately I think the only way forward out of this mess is to avoid falling into the conceptual quagmire of the Victorian and post-Victorian value set, and step outside it paradigmatically. Which nearly happened in the post-war period, until the Victorians revived under the false flag of "radicalism".

  10. Eric

    Antifeminist & Alan:
    I've followed Scarecrow for awhile; he writes with a lot of sarcasm and irony. I suspect you're right about his knowledge of AOC laws (which is why I referred him here LOL)!

    The comment he left after mine can be interpreted one of two ways: it's not clear whether he means historical AOC laws or the current ones. As far as I know, the Romans enacted the first AOC law at age 12. I'm not sure what their specific reasons for enacting it were, but it was clearly designed to protect young, prepubescent children. The AOC stayed unchanged through Mediaeval Europe. I'm not sure when it went to the 15-16 range (I would guess probably the 17th or 18th centuries).

    As for the paedocrite PMAFT, he came in for some unpleasant exposure recently, among the commentary on this article:

    http://www.hawaiianlibertarian.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-zeta-point.html

    His readership has fallen like a rock ever since. LOL

  11. Eric

    As a follow-up to the post about the three generals; the local media reported today that Frederick Humphreys, a top FBI counter-terrorism official who was personally responsible for upending two Islamic terror plots and once killed a professional terrorist in hand-to-hand combat, has been canned for 'inappropriate sexual photos'. (BTW, these 'explict' photos show him without a shirt).

    Nonetheless, he's the latest target in what's developed into a full-fledged purge over here.

    Meanwhile, Michelle Obama has apparently chosen notorious femihag Susan Rice to replace Hillary. Surprise! Surprise!

  12. theantifeminist

    Post author

    @Eric

    That Scarecrow article came across as though he wanted to say something a bit stronger but backed out a little. It seems odd he threatens to sue Paul Elam if he is accused of being a paedophile for simply saying age of consent laws should be applied equally to men and women. He could also be interpreted as saying that the age of consent laws are bunkem because we know that women would never accept them if they were used to criminalize and prosecute as many women as they do men.

    And of course we must make it clear that when we talk about the age of consent we are really talking about statutory rape laws.

    The AOC stayed unchanged through Mediaeval Europe. I’m not sure when it went to the 15-16 range (I would guess probably the 17th or 18th centuries).

    As we've discussed lately, the age of consent was 12 in the UK until 1875, when feminists had their first successful attempt at raising it (to 13). Then 10 years later (1885) to its present 16 as a result of further suffragette campaigning, together with the world's first tabloid 'paedohysteria' over exaggerated and fake claims of child prositution in London (by a male feminist mangina 'William T Stead, who later died on board the Titanic happily giving his lifeboat to a feminist).

    As far as I'm aware in continental Europe things followed a similar path, but a little later. One of the reasons why the aoc is lower in most European countries is because feminists (suffragettes) appeared a little bit later, somewhat after the peak of Victorian puritanism (which was never as extreme in Europe anyway).

    Spain didn't raise the age of consent from 12 at all. Or it did, only a decade ago or so to 13 (after much opposition, particularly from the socialists - this was before they were hijacked,like all European socialist parties, by feminists).

    An interesting biography to read is that of Casanova, the famous 18th century seducer of 'women'. In fact, he would be declared 'the worst paedophile sex predator in history' if he was alive and active today, as most of his conquests across Europe were in the 12 - 15 range (apparently legal).

  13. theantifeminist

    Post author

    @Ian

    Many “MRAs” follow what might be called a “conservative” morality. The idea of this is that there is this set of moral values which are traditional- have always existed effectively- and then feminism, or liberalism, or something similar, came along and overturned them, and so that’s the problem and the “traditional” morals need putting back in place.

    The problem is, if you actually look at the history, these “traditional” puritanical morals are merely the moral code imposed during the first (successful) wave of feminism and progressivism. So there is this myth that “Victorian values” are traditional; but they are not. They were an innovation, the political correctness of their day.

    Good points.

    The more that MRAs are educated as to the entire history of feminism, the less able they will be to carry this myth that feminists were responsible for the sexual revolution.

    If you Google 'anti-feminism' you will see a whole raft of Christian, sex conservative sites appear - this one stands out like a sore thumb.

    What the MRM will need to accept is that it is the feminist response to the inevitable liberalisation of the sex market that has done the most damage to men, fathers, boys, relationships between the sexes and between generations.

    And yes the Men's Rights Movement is entirely valid, given the historical disposability of males (based on biology) and because of the fact that society is only addressing the needs of women in this new 'reproductive' world.

    BTW, I'm sure future historians will see this period of civilisational madness we're witnessing currently as a kind of primitive (and brief) reaction to the inevitable process of secular seperation between sex and reproduction that began (in earnest) in the 60's.

    What we are going through today can be compared to the witch hunts which reached their peak AFTER the glories of the renaissance and the discovery of printing which was already spreading knowledge across Europe and triggering the Enlightenment (just as the internet has its dark side and allows for the anonymous lynching of accused 'paedophiles' online, one of the first uses of the printing presses we associate with the Enlightenment and modern world was to publish pamphlets accusing individuals of witchcraft).

  14. Alan Vaughn

    @theantifeminist

    That Scarecrow article came across as though he wanted to say something a bit stronger but backed out a little. It seems odd he threatens to sue Paul Elam if he is accused of being a paedophile for simply saying age of consent laws should be applied equally to men and women

    Yes indeed - I even thought the same things. However, if he really believes that everything about feminism is wrong, especially AofC laws, he should say so - don't be afraid, spit it out! We do!
    If he calls himself a MRA, he should be fearless - it isn't illegal (yet) to question feminist anti-male laws, even those ones, so PROTEST out loud against them and clearly state WHY they are so wrong and such a violation of people's basic human rights.

    So taking all that into account, I continued with my criticism of him as a mRA...

  15. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Yes indeed – I even thought the same things. However, if he really believes that everything about feminism is wrong, especially AofC laws, he should say so – don’t be afraid, spit it out! We do!

    To be fair Alan, the owners of websites take on substantially more legal and personal risks to themselves than their readers and commentators do in discussing the age of consent.

    However, I assume Scarecrow is American, and it has to be said, the risks for American MRAs are small in comparison to those living in the eUSSR, particularly the UK. Given that, it is hard to explain the general cowardice of most American MRAs on this theme.

  16. Jack

    An interesting development in a not too distant past is the "French petition against age of consent laws" in 1977. The AOC in France was then 15. Here the wikipedia article:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws

    A worrying aspect of that petition is that it was initiated and signed mostly by leftist/marxist authors, although in those days in France to be an intellectual you had to be a leftist of sorts. All the same, it raises the important question of whether lumping feminism together with "cultural marxism" is legitimate.

  17. theantifeminist

    Post author

    A worrying aspect of that petition is that it was initiated and signed mostly by leftist/marxist authors, although in those days in France to be an intellectual you had to be a leftist of sorts. All the same, it raises the important question of whether lumping feminism together with “cultural marxism” is legitimate.

    @Jack I think we need to distinguish between a 1970's genuine marxist (as people like Jean Paul Sartre, who signed the petition, were) and a cultural marxist who simply takes bits of Marxism and turns it into an anti-white, anti-male ideology.

  18. Ian B

    All the same, it raises the important question of whether lumping feminism together with “cultural marxism” is legitimate.

    Indeed. Which dovetails into why I've been arguing for some time that the Anglosphere New Left are best seen (at least on the "social" front) as Puritans who expropriated marxist theory as justification, rather than as a marxist conspiracy ("Cultural Marxism"). In those terms, when figures like Beatrix Campbell stormed into the CPGB and realigned it (they were known as "the new Gramscians") they were doing to communists what communists normally like to do to other organisations- take them over by entryism.

    Feminists and their surrounding cloud of radical Progressives adopted pseudo-marxist theory as a replacement for previous evangelical religious justifications for their campaigns. Corruption of the innocents became exploitation of the oppressed. But their intended objectives are not in any recognisable way marxist, or communist. They don't want a "workers state" or anything like it. The ends are old fashioned Anglospheric (female dominated) Puritanism.

  19. Jack

    About the same French petition, the mind boggles when you read the letter addressed to the newspaper "Le Monde" (the French equivalent of The Guardian or the Washington Post). Excerpt: "Three years [in jail] for caresses and kisses are enough." Here:

    http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/00aug29b1_from_1977.htm

    Nowadays such a letter is unthinkable. You wouldn't find people bold enough to put the name underneath such immorality.

  20. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Nowadays such a letter is unthinkable. You wouldn’t find people bold enough to put the name underneath such immorality.

    Very true Jack, but I've often thought that perhaps it's not too late to organise some intellectuals and even celebrities to address a letter denouncing paedohysteria - at least recognising that it is excessive and damaging to society (not least children).

  21. Eric

    Antifeminist & Alan:

    While we don't have a lot of official censorship in the US, vigilanteism is rife. And it's carried on over here with a winky-winky, nod-nod approval of the authorities. Groups like the SPLC and NCMEC can denounce individual bloggers to the FBI while MRA bloggers get death threats and the police do nothing.

    That actually happened to Scarecrow last Summer. He got a rash of explicit death threats and the police laughed at him when he filed the report. He's since discovered that he was intentionally poisoned---according to him, he had to employ private detectives to investigate any of this. Recently, he posted an excerpt from a femihag blogger who stated that she hoped he'd 'become a martyr for the MRM' and that she 'wouldn't be sorry if a contract were placed on him right now.' What started that whole flap was after Scarecrow posted the names of false rape accusers.

    Now, if an American MRA even hinted that the AOC should be lowered to what it was during Roman times; it would be an easy matter for some troll at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to pass the comment on to the FBI and the guy ends up getting surveillance for it. I've posted comments about lowering the AOC myself; and phishing spam about child porn inevitably turns up my e-mail box. No doubt who sent it, either! The real porn guys aren't nearly as amateurish as these FBI boobs! LOL

  22. Alan Vaughn

    @jack
    The petition stated (according to wikipedia):

    They believed that the penal system was replacing the punishment of criminal acts by the creation of the figure of the individual dangerous to society (regardless of any actual crime), and predicted that a "society of dangers" would come.

    Well they were NOT WRONG! We now have a society that genuinely believes that: ALL MEN, at least potentially, are dangerous paedophiles who would all if given half a chance, would rape and murder their 'children' (even thee up to 18 year old children). Society today is indeed full of REAL dangers that emanated from nothing more than feminist dictated paedo-myth and society's belief and acceptance of such mythology.

    You're also right in saying 'Nowadays such a letter is unthinkable. You wouldn’t find people bold enough to put the name underneath such immorality.'
    If such a petition was even printed and posted online, the lynching that would inevitably follow would make something like a major football riot look like a kiddie’s picnic.
    Dangerous indeed, it's almost as if we're sitting on a ticking time-bomb - the moral panic is gathering momentum almost daily now, thanks to this massive over-reaction, we call paedohysteria.

  23. Alan Vaughn

    @Eric

    That actually happened to Scarecrow last Summer. He got a rash of explicit death threats and the police laughed at him when he filed the report

    And if the tables were turned (with even ONE death threat to HER blog), the man who made it would have been in the police cells within 24 hours and would still be there waiting now, while the feminist totalitarian state controlled judiciary, decide what they're going to do with him, other than the mandatory and life-long registration of his name, address etc. on the public sex-offender register.

    Well, this at least confirms what theantifeminist suggested as his possible reasons for treading very carefully, when discussing this highly controversial and potentially dangerous topic of feminist Draconian age of consent laws.

    Considering what you've just explained, our brother: Scarecrow was in fact quite courageous to have written anything that questions them or dissents from the dominant narrative, that American society is now so addicted to!

  24. Eric

    Alan:
    I should point out as well that this kind of thing isn't unique. Fidelbogen and Keonigalt have also mentioned receiving death threats (both American MRAs). I'm certain if they're getting threats, some of the more high-profile guys are too. In fact, look what happened to John the Other getting attacked with boxcutters!

    Obviously those punks in Vancouver were prepared for violence. I don't know anyone other than stevedores (and these male feminists didn't look quite physically fit enough for such an occupation) who routinely carry boxcutters around with them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>