Archive for the ‘history of feminism’ tag
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.
Interesting article from TheScotsman reveals that five prominent feminists were on board the Titanic, and all of them survived bar one – William Thomas Stead, the only male feminist amongst them. A noted women’s rights campaigner, Stead was most famous for his ‘tabloid’ style expose of child prostitution in late Victorian London, which was largely responsible for persuading the British parliament to accede to feminist demands, against the wishes of early men’s rights campaigners, and raise the age of consent from 13 to 16.
The article seems to be stressing the bravery of the female feminists. One of them ‘helped other women and children into the lifeboats’. Another, ‘broke her ankle boarding the lifeboat but survived’. Poor dear. William T Stead, meanwhile, exemplified Victorian chivalry with a stiff upper lip.
William T Stead – a British newspaper reporter who paved the way for tabloid journalism – was a social reformer and ardent advocate of women’s rights. While editor of the Pall Mall Gazette in 1885, he “bought” a 13-year-old girl for £5 in an attempt to expose the scale of child prostitution. Although he was jailed for unlawfully kidnapping a minor, the publicity the case generated led to the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which raised he age of consent from 13 to 16. A friend of suffragette Millicent Garrett Fawcett, Stead was proud of being the first editor to employ women on the same wages as men. After all the lifeboats on the Titanic had been filled, Stead, who had been travelling to a peace conference, is said to have gone to the First Class smoking room where he was last seen sitting in a leather chair reading a book.
Just spotted this at reddit.com/r/mensrights :
Disgusting, eh? Hopefully stuff like this will hasten the process by which the men’s rights movement (as a whole) accepts that feminism did not start in the 1960′s, but has in fact been one long history of women selfishly protecting their own interests and existing privilages. Not only that, but that something akin to a ‘men’s rights movement’, or at least a consciousness amongst (at least some) men that women are not, and were not oppressed, has also existed for more than a century.
It should also be clear that the questioning of laws, made by and campaigned for by women like Sylvia Pankhurst, will always be a valid part of men’s rights.
Brendan O’Neil : It isn’t the Catholic Church that is unhealthily obsessed with mythical Satanic sex – it is radical feminists and social workers
Apparently these oddball beliefs brought about the imprisonment of Knox, echoing the Catholic Church’s fifteenth-century witch hunts, which also were motored by a “fear of women’s sexual power over men”.This idea that the modern-day obsession with Satanism and crazy sexual degradation springs from somewhere within the Vatican is completely mad. It wasn’t Catholic officials or men of the cloth who in recent years rehabilitated the Middle Ages view that there are evil people out there who worship the devil and have sex while they’re doing it – no, it was radical feminists and social workers, in fact some of the same kind of people currently shedding tears over the witch-hunting of Knox. Across Western Europe and America in the 1980s and 90s, it was implacably atheistic, supposedly “Left-wing” activists who spread the idea that Satanism was making a comeback and that children were being raped and killed as a result. It was writers like Beatrix Campbell, a feminist and contributor to the Guardian, who argued in 1990 in Marxism Today, the then bible of the chattering Left, that Satanists were “organising rituals to penetrate any available orifice in troops of little children; to cut open rabbits or cats or people and drink their blood; to shit on silver trays and make the children eat it”. It was feministic social workers who, with the help of police, kidnapped working-class children from their families on the bizarre basis that they were being ritualistically abused. It was people like Oprah Winfrey, echoing academic feminists, who hosted TV shows claiming that some families in America were involved in “human sacrifice rituals and cannibalism” – watch the clip here.
When it comes to the lingering Christian remnants of the virgin/whore type dualism that female sexuality has historically been seen through (for sound reasons – at least until recently), feminists really do want to have their cake and eat it. The recent slut walks were an expression of feminist defiance at the historic male need (perfectly formalised through Christian sexual ethics) to ensure valid paternity of offspring through the promotion of monogomy and faithfulness, and the necessity for sexual decorum, in women. At the same time, feminists exploit these same instinctive male attitudes when it comes to promoting child abuse hysteria, statutory rape laws, and legislation against prostitution and pornography. Feminists like Jessica Valenti write books on ‘the purity myth’ whilst simultaneously exploiting that myth in order to justify draconian statutory rape punishments and thereby limit sexual competition from younger, more desirable females. Or they appeal to the archetype of the ‘fallen Madonna’ in presenting their sex trafficking myths and arguments for ‘rescuing’ women who have escaped from a life-time of Third World poverty and mindless factory work through giving cheap anonymous sex to men.
The battle of the sexes has always been based upon the conflicting evolutionary reproductive strategies of men and women – men want to fuck many women, women want to love one man. For most of history, this conflict has been held in check by a number of realities – one of which is the need for a father to ensure paternity over the child he is raising. Judao-Christian sexual ethics restored balance to the sexual conflict that was beginning to run out of control in the teeming Godless cities of the later Roman Empire – taming the male sexual drive by requiring monogamy and commitment. The part that women had to play in return – sexual modesty and faithfulness, was a win win for them, in terms of both hardly being a sacrifice at all in terms of their more limited sexual desires, and for also ensuring their own sexual value and economic survival as they grew older and lost their sexual appeal and ability to attract any other mate.
The increasing secularisation of industrial society slowly loosened that contract, and tore it asunder completely with the advent of the contraceptive pill. Women, especially older and unattractive women, have discovered that they have lost more than men from this. The result is the curious schism in 21st century society that this blog attempts to highlight. Feminism is an illiberal, backward looking, anti-enlightenment reactionary project that is built upon medieval archetypes, dogmas, and sexual hysterias. And yet, astonishingly, it is still held up by millions of intelligent, educated people as the pinnacle of liberal and secular ‘progress’.
And so it begins. The feminist campaign to raise the age of consent to 21 and beyond has started in earnest. I thank my loyal and well-informed reader ‘Highwayman’ for delivering me the depressing news that the Netherlands is set to increase the minimum age for sex work from 18 to 21.
Of course, this event has far wider implications than merely the age and the beauty of the prostitutes gazing out from the windows of the Amsterdam red light district. Once again, look behind the visage, and feminist laws such as this reveal the entire strategy and truely ugly selfish motivation of the sexual trade union. Feminists in the Netherlands could just as easily make an outright ban on prostitution as raise the minimum age to 21. But the attraction of a move like this lies not only in making paying for sex with prostitutes less tempting to men (because young and nubile sex workers are forbidden) - the greater motive is in setting the bar ever higher in what is acceptable for older women to control the sexuality of younger females, and to rule those younger women out of bounds as sexual objects for men.
As often detailed on this site, little more than a century ago the age of consent in most countries was 12 or 13. Contrary to what some conservative anti-feminists have written recently, pre-marital sex with ‘minors’ was not generally forbidden as such, although out of wedlock pregnancy was. In fact, at this time there were estimated to be over 100,000 prostitutes in London alone, with probably the majority of them being under 18. Feminism originated in (successful) campaigns against child prostitution. Laws were passed that were lobbied for almost entirely by feminists (and fought against by anti-feminists, who at that time still had balls) decades before those same feminists had won the right to vote, or even in some cases, even called for the right to the vote.
Nobody could argue against laws preventing 12 year old girls hanging around street corners offering themselves for sex. But 100 years ago, the deceitful modus operandi of the trade union was the same as it is today. Those early feminists and suffragettes, such as Emmeline Pankhurst, could have lobbied for simple laws prohibiting under 16s from engaging in prostitution. Instead, they successfully lobbied for a rise in the age of consent itself. Again, despite the erroneous historical readings of 19th century social history by certain members of the men’s rights community, there was little support for the idea at the time (outside of feminist self-rationalisations) that 14 or 15 year old girls could not consent to sex. The justification used by feminists was that an age of consent set at 16 would prevent child prostitution.
Whether or not it was foreseen at the time (in the UK and USA) that such laws would later prosecute millions of men for having consensual sex with teenage girls, the magical age of 16 as the age of full sexual responsibility for girls was achieved, even in European countries such as Germany and Italy in which the age of consent itself remained lower (but in which feminists likewise had set certain sexual limits relating to the age of 16).
Fast foward to the last decades of the 20th century and the feminist sexual trade union successfully defined 18 as the limit for both prostitution and pornography, enshrined in international treaties that included the United Nations charter of ‘children’s rights’. They achieved this with the assistance of America’s unique conception of a ‘minor’ (what a disgusting and revealing term) being somebody under 18 (Highwayman made an interesting comment about California’s high age of consent perhaps being specifically responsible for the propagation of this meme, for example through the medium of Hollywood).
Thus, even though the age of consent is still only 18 in a small number of American states and an even smaller handful of backward Islamic nations, the idea has spread around the entire world that there is something ‘questionable’ about having sex with a 16 or 17 year old, even in countries such as Spain and Argentina, free until very recently from the scourge of feminism, and where the age of consent is still 13. In fact, given the merging of the virtual with the real worlds, there now is a very real danger everywhere in having a sexual relationship with a girl over the age of consent but under 18. Every country in the world apart from Somalia and the USA has signed the UN charter on children’s rights which defines child pornography as any sexual representation of a ‘minor’ (the USA lobbied for the anti-sex elements of the children’s rights charter, but then refused to sign up to it because it would have also forced them to stop putting 16 year old black kids on to death row). Therefore it is now still legal to have sex with a 13 year old girl in Spain (if you can avoid being lynched), but if you happened to text her 17 year old sister in any way describing the act, you could be prosecuted for creating child porn.
The ‘virtual child pornography’ elements of the UN children’s rights charter were an attempt to fuzzy the border between the age of 18 and beyond, ‘childhood’ and adulthood. But here at least was the idea that the pornographic model had to look under 18. With this new prostitution law in the Netherlands, the common perception will quickly gain ground that even those aged 18 -21 are now unable fully to consent to sex, and even non-paid for sex with 20 year old women will soon become tainted with connotations of ‘paedophilia’ and ‘child abuse’.
Other countries will no doubt be quick to adopt this law – to bring their ‘child protection’ guidelines up to date with the Netherlands (in fact, it is amazing to consider, and a testament to the power of 3rd wave feminists and their sex abuse industry, that less than a decade ago, the age of consent itself in Holland was only 12).
Feminist shaming language will ensure that other countries will be quick to follow. An example of this is playing out right now in Switzerland, one of the few places left in which 16 year olds can work as prostitutes. 16 year olds who are perhaps less than 13 months away from being able to serve as cannon fodder, and who in neighbouring Austria are deemed to be intelligent and experienced enough to be able to vote in general elections.
A chain of catch-up is established. Soon most countries in the EU will have prostitution limits set at 21. This will then be extended to pornography, and to ’relationships in which authority is involved’ i.e. teacher/student relationships at which the cut off point is presently 18. Then, finally, the age of consent itself will be revised upwards to 21. Countries slow to adopt the new consensus will be shamed as ‘kiddy abuse capitals’, and hysteria regarding fears of ‘paedophile sex tourism’ will be whipped up to rouse the mob into forcing their governments to sign up.
And then…well, you can see it coming now can’t you? A ‘progressive nation’ will revise the minimum age for prostitution and/or pornography upwards to 25..the age of consent and extension of the definition of paedophilia will eventually follow..and the feminists and the ‘men’s rights supporters’ who secretly (or not) wish to have pre-marital sex criminilized will finally have gotten their wish.
Let’s just hope there will still be anti-feminists who can hear the screams of the millions of men being raped and beaten in prison as a result of these laws…men with no other voice to shout against the feminist sexual trade union.
Is Reddit Men’s Rights Getting Better?
I’ve been a harsh critic of reddit.com/r/mensrights in the past, but lately there does seem to be more genuine men’s rights supporters standing their ground in the comments section over there. I’ve just returned from my summer hols (apologies for lack of updates and slow comment moderation), but whilst I had a quick scan of Reddit, I came across possibly the best comment I have ever read there. It was in reply to a redditor’s post asking what percentage of sex offenders were genuine perverts, and what percentage where there for urinating against the wall of a nightclub :
also a lot of the sex offender terminology is an attempt to demonize the sexuality of men. terms like “predator” should really be applied to gold diggers, but they are reserved specifically for male sexuality by and large. since men are the biological pursuers of women, we can always be demonized as “predators” and “perverts” when in reality, it’s just a natural response to seeing a half naked girl. yet this feminist society shames male sexuality by telling us we are perverted for looking at huge half-covered, surgically enhanced tits. those tits obviously aren’t made bigger for breast feeding. they are made so that males WILL look.
women are really trying to have their cake and eat it too at the expense of men. on every facet women want to be equal to men while ignoring all the responsibility that men have to bear… even in sex offender cases where the woman is a female, the story is portrayed as something entirely innocent and benign, unlike the exact same situation where the genders are reversed. yes, even where sex is concerned, men must bear all the shame and all the responsibility. no longer are we allowed to call women sluts. no longer are we allowed to blame scantily clad women when they get raped. everything is the fault of men. men are bad. women are good. water is wet. case closed.
men need to start learning to say FUCK YOU to feminism. they need to start getting their balls back and learning to say NO to the entitlement mindset of today’s women raised under feminism’s permissive and abusive system. otherwise, men will forever fight a losing battle of trying to justify their natural sexual urges to women.
I’ve changed my mind about Reddit Men’s Rights. I think that rather than ignoring it or trying to weaken it, the best policy of the (genuine) men’s rights movement would be to submit as many relevant articles and posts as possible, at the same time as engaging in upvoting genuine articles and downvoting those submitted by feminists or closet mangina idiot MRAs.
Just how have we, as men, arrived at the grim situation I described in yesterday’s post? A world in which young white boys, filled by feelings of sexual inadequacy, kill themselves because they have the wrong colour penis. Boys who are crucified by feminists for making teenage girls feel inadequate through ‘idealizing’ the diminishing number of the female sex who aren’t grotesquely and dangerously obese. Those same boys who grow up into a world in which by the time they are 18 or 19 will begin to fear being socially and legally lynched as the worst subhuman perverts imaginable if they continue to pursue, or even look at, females of peak sexual attractiveness, i.e. young girls. A perverted gynocracy in which men are so castrated, that to even admit that girls 5 0r 6 years post-pubescent are attractive is to risk the ultimate in shaming language – and not just from women, but from fellow men…even ‘men’s rights activists’. LOL! Meanwhile, boys as young as 12 consume steroids and join violent gangs in order to live up to the grotesque conception of masculinity demanded by the young urban white female. And whilst men increasingly go to jail if they pay for sex, or even click on a mouse to view a forbidden cartoon image, tens of thousands of wealthy European women flock to the Carribean each summer to spend their grotesquely inflated divorce payouts in ‘hunting the big bamboos’ of illiterate, drug addled, poverty stricken rastafarians with average IQs of 75 (the same mental age as the average middle-class European 12 year old girl).
The only immediate and obvious answers, it seems to me, lie in evolutionary psychology. I don’t need to invoke ’cultural marxism’ for an explanation as to why 99% of the ways feminists screw men over happen to perfectly coincide with the reproductive needs of a heavy parental investment female simian in a free sexual ‘jungle’. I turn to evolutionary psychology.
And this is exactly what the excellent Human-Stupidity.com has done with his analysis of how feminists have used their evolutionary sharpened verbal, gossip, and social manipulation skills to simply annihilate men and our sexuality in the 21st century sex war. A war in which only one side has thus far turned up to fight.
In evolution, everything is result of an evolutionary arms race. (cheetah and gazelle’s running skills, bacteria vs. our bodily defense system, …) Skills and capacities get honed over time, to solve evolutionary tasks. Women, in evolutionary time, had the hard task to convince a much stronger man to assume his paternal role and take care of her offspring (which might be his, or even just his cuckold offspring). In any argument, men had clear superiority with 2 powerful weapons
- economical superiority: men were the hunters, they had the meat, they also could defend and own territory
- physical superiority: men could always win an argument by brute force, by simple violence.
So to achieve some kind of evolutionary long term equilibrium, women must have developed some weapeons to counter men’s economical & physical power. What weapons could they have?
- Social manipulation: gossiping among women, ganging up together against the common enemy, making intrigues, badmouthing a man, destroying his reputation, manipulating the opinion of other men (and women).
Women would actually need the skills to win over other men to defend the female agenda. In order to counter men’s physical superiority, women needed to be better then men at these social manipulation skills. They could not confront men clearly straight on, or else men could resort to the big stick argument. They would have to “con” men into doing what is in women’s interest, without men noticing.
Women would have to manipulate especially skillfully, when it has to do with reproductive success, with getting men to provide for them and their kids, with men staying away from other women.
So the historical stone age balance of power is:
- men have economical and physical superiority,
- women have verbal manipulation, cunningness, intrigue, social manipulation.
Nowadays, men surrendered their physical and economical power. Women maintained and expanded their verbal manipulative social power…
Read the complete article at Human-Stupidity.com
Although I have near completely given up on the men’s rights movement over the last few months, and any belief that it might become anything more than a tiny irritation upon the wrinkled skin of feminism, I still cling to the hope that the ever accelerating rate of technological change might eventually render the sex war meaningless. I don’t think feminists can ever be defeated. When you understand what feminism is, to believe that it can be is as silly as believing you can ‘defeat’ life itself. The hope must be to somehow render feminism irrelevant for women, and in a way that is positive and fair to all men.
It’s a hope, but I don’t think a very great one. Perhaps in 30 years time even feminists will be so happy, waking up each morning and being fucked by their king kong sex robots with their 20″ power drill black penises, that they won’t care if millions of men are doing similar with their perfect nubile 16 year old Anna Kournikova silicone replicants. Unfortunately, women aren’t psychologically satisfied by the satiation of their physical sexual needs in the way that men can be. They will still feel ‘threatened’ and insecure by the ready availability to men of female beauty and youth. They will still want to take a legal hammer to those Anna sex bots, no matter how many electric black cocks they themselves are being happily serviced by.