The feminist lie

After an email today, sadly misunderstanding what I’m on about with this issue [not that what I think matters in the scheme of things], let’s set the record straight.

Rather than me saying what I believe, I’ll quote two women below at length and state, here and now, that that is what I believe.   So there’s no need to misinterpret my posts on feminism as somehow connected to misogyny [the two are quite separate issues].   Just look at these women’s words and that is also my view.

Do you think they hate their fellow women?

Well nor do I.

First cab off the rank is the youtube by Suzanne Venker.  In that youtube, the interviewer opens:

Suzanne, let me ask you – in the book, you write out what … the three tenets of feminism are [for example] “Feminists are imprisoned by their negative view of women and their place in the world around them.”

Suzanne affirms that and goes on to say that the main negative reaction to her is from feminists asking how she could disparage a movement which allowed women like her to get college degrees and to become authors.

But that is the whole crux of the matter – it was NOT feminists at all who enabled that – they only claimed, quite erroneously, that it was their doing .  They have been telling enormous porkies for decades and they’ve hoodwinked young women under 40 with these lies.

I had an email from a woman over 40 and hers was a different point of view – she has a different perspective.   Perhaps the time we grew up in is a factor.

Suzanne explains it in clear terms [1:41]:

Now that [is] exactly the message which young people are getting about feminism – that we, as women today, owe feminists for those things but in fact … we do not.

And if that were the case [as the feminists portray it], then how was it that my grandmother in 1920 had a college degree.   How is it that my mother, who’s now 80, had a … degree and went into the male dominated field [of] stockbrok[ing]?

I’d add that my own mother was a qualified working woman and her friends were too.   They did it part time and balanced their lives – this was well before the 2nd wave feminism ever got going.

So it’s a LIE the feminists are perpetrating to say that women never had good lives.   But someone under 40 is more likely not to know that and this is part of the tragedy – young people are getting a jaundiced and erroneous history.   They have no choice because all they have available to read now are feminist tomes.

Suzanne Venker was asked why this lie is all-pervasive and she replied:

There is a chasm in America between the powerful and the not so powerful.  We know, from research, that everyday Americans are largely a right-of-centre bunch.   We also know that those in the media are largely not a right-of-centre bunch … and because of that, the views on all areas of our lives … are getting filtered through a left-wing lens.

She was challenged on this by the interviewer, with reference to Rush Limbaugh’s huge audience.  She replied:

What we’re identifying here is what is known as the feminist elite and … they reside in three primary places:  academia, Hollywood and the media and most people – especially young people, are exposed on an everyday routine basis to these women.

So the messages they’re getting are consistently coming from this one place and that message conflicts with what … will lead [women] to a happy place.

She spoke about emails from young girls who thanked her because these girls felt they had no voice on the matter, nowhere to go.   So she’s gone in to bat for those girls … and so do I.

She says: “I’m for those people who don’t have a voice.”

Amen, Suzanne.

Feminism was about, from the 60s, at the outset, demeaning motherhood.  There are so many people today who don’t think of themselves as feminist but their lives have been [affected and not in a good way] as a direct result of the feminist culture.  People have different definitions of it.  We speak of 1st wave, 2nd wave and 3rd wave.

She goes into this, pointing out that the 1st wave was the one which made all the advances – the vote for women etc. and bringing the idea into public consciousness.   She mentions the 3rd wave [today], hand in hand with 2nd wave but says that neither go with [have a connection with] the 1st wave, the one which actually produced the results on legitimate grievances.

This is a vital point – many women go around quietly believing “well feminism has achieved so much for us”.   No it didn’t, replies Suzanne Venker – that is the suffragette movement that achieved that for women.

The feminists in the 1960s just piggybacked off that earlier movement that any sane person would agree with …

I’d agree.

… but those women were very family-oriented women.

Yes they were.   My mother was.   She was no feminist, never spoke of it but carved out her own niche where she wanted to be.   She took no s*** from my father or from anyone but here’s the thing – he never ever gave any either.   My father was nominal head of the family and the final arbiter but my mother ran the show.   As it should be.

Suzanne goes on to say that it’s ludicrous to compare women in third world countries with American women as if they’re all equally oppressed.  She goes onto further things like “casual sex is a dead-end street” but that’s broadening this post too far.


Now we come to a transcription of part of Christy O’s youtube on “The Death of Distinction:

Feminists define equality as sameness. That’s messed up. I’m sorry but it is. I say men and women are of equal value but [in] different roles.

Absolutely and that is the core of my belief on this issue, which puts me at odds with men who don’t see male and female of equal value, let alone the feminazis themselves in reverse.

Anything can be used as an example. I like to use the example of a camshaft and a crankshaft – both absolutely necessary to make the thing run – but completely different roles, doing different things.

A camshaft doesn’t whine because it can’t be a crankshaft.

I recently heard a feminist admit that there were [biological] differences “and probably different wiring too”     I’m currently reading a book [which says] that the differences are so pronounced, it almost makes [us] a different species.

The goal of the feminist movement and society in general these days is to make men and women interchangeable.    [To them] it doesn’t matter who stays home and raises the kids, it doesn’t matter who … fights the wars, it doesn’t matter who nurtures the babies.

That, my friends, is perversity.

It flies in the face of the way we were created, it flies in the face of nature and we’re seeing the consequences of it.   People should be able to see the consequences of it but no – they see anything but the actual cause.

In all of nature there are checks and balances.   I always find it funny when I see a marriage where the wife will brag that they’re really good friends.   You look over and the guy’s looking whipped.   The woman’s saying: “We have an equal relationship.”

What she means is: “I’m in charge.” To her, her being in charge makes it equal.

She then goes into praise of men and as I go into praise of women, we can skip over the mutual backslapping. She speaks of high-risk activity and chivalry.

The only reason to be chivalrous, in my opinion, is when men want to and women need to take note of this.

And now she gets to the killer point:

Men who sacrifice for women do it as a reaction to women being women. It’s where they see a vulnerability that they step in and protect you.   To demand that a man sacrifice for you … and be there for you and you’re not fulfilling your side of things is the most stupid, unreasonable thing.

When women act like women, men act like men.

Amen. How many of you are out there, Christy O?


The bottom line in all of this is that feminism is like some mutation of womanhood.   I might have chosen a better term for them because those who don’t read carefully enough might make this eternal error of thinking I’m referring to women.

I’m not – I’m referring to a mutation, that word meaning [from my dictionary here]:

1 the action or process of mutating : the mutation of ethnic politics into nationalist politics | his first novel went through several mutations.

2 the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form that may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes.

• a distinct form resulting from such a change.

ORIGIN late Middle English : from Latin mutatio(n-), from mutare ‘to change.’

As Suzanne Venker points out – the feminists of the 60s and today’s 3rd wave “had a very different agenda” to that of the suffragettes.   This is a mutation of the cause of women.

The 2nd and 3rd waves were part of the global push which aimed to totally transform society into a dystopia.   They perverted the idea of rights and the addressing of abuses [though they retained the language of it] into an agenda of misandry and discrimination against the male.

The proof of that is in the very phenomena of “positive discrimination” and “parachutism”.   The suffragettes weren’t on about that at all.   They weren’t trying to split society as these mutants are.  They weren’t on a political mission to destroy the family.

That’s why I’m down on this one very specific demographic and constant attempts to portray me as being against anything female reveal that the person peddling this has, by definition, bought the feminist lie.   Therefore I am not angry with them – they know no better.

The women quoted above and many others [I agree with them and have quoted many of them many times], state categorically that they are against this mutant, false strain, the 2nd and 3rd wave feminist, for the reasons stated and the corollary to that is that if we are against the feminist, we must therefore, by definition, be for the best interests of women.

In the case of the women quoted, being women, they can get away with speaking of their sex – but when a member of the hated male sex puts these things in a post, watch the invective fly, with all sorts of personal observations of said male.   I’m glad readers have the opportunity to see this in print.

Truth is, as I’ve said many times and as many women are well aware, I like and love those women I’ve got close to.   All my exes remain in touch and surely that says something about how they interpret my attitude to them.   How it appears to others who are determined to misconstrue it is not really my concern.

Fighting humbug in any field is the brief of this blog and therefore that is my prime concern.


Let’s close with a few quotes:

# Namely, where were all the “good” women when feminism started? Why didn’t the women who knew they were not being abused do something to stop the misinformation that spread like wildfire? Aren’t these women just as deserving of men’s contempt as the hardcore feminists who started it all? [Kelly Mac]

# The feminist agenda is offensive to women. With Eve Ensler and her contemporary cheerleaders in the feminist movement, initiatives such as the “Vagina Monologues” have become a central part of Women’s Awareness Month programming on campuses around the country.

The “Vagina Monologues,” often promoted as a wonderfully inspiring event to empower women, is, in reality, nothing more than an atrociously written anti-male tirade, portraying women as pathetic sexual objects who will forever be victims. Such programs are not only blatantly offensive towards women but are vile and vulgar. [Ruth Malhotra]

# It has not been easy to acknowledge that feminism has promoted the unraveling of the most binding and important social bonds. Not easy, but unavoidable. Like countless other women who cherish improvement in the situation of women in the United States and throughout the world, I was initially quick to embrace feminism as the best way to secure our “rights” and our dignity as persons. Like countless others, I was seriously misled …

Worse, it is destroying the fabric of our society as a whole because it is severing the most fundamental social bonds. Binding ties constrain women, but they constrain men as well. [Elizabeth Fox-Genovese]

Thank you.

24 comments for “The feminist lie

  1. September 3, 2012 at 20:48

    “So there’s no need to misinterpret my posts on feminism as somehow connected to misogyny [the two are quite separate issues].”

    I gave up trying to get people to realize or acknowledge this some time ago.

    Some people simply WILL interpret any criticism of feminism as ‘hatred of women.’ Even if all you do is publish excerpts from the SCUM Manifesto and say hey, that Valerie Solanas sure was a loony, eh?

    You will still get some whining accusation of ‘misogyneeeee.’

    It doesn’t matter what you do or say or think. Zealots will interpret any criticism or scepticism of feminism as a ‘war on women.’ A war, fucking lol.

    For that reason … I don’t purposefully avoid the labels ‘misogynist,’ ‘sexist,’ etc. Nor shall I defend myself from them. I’ll happily own them, so that we can get that side issue out the way and focus on the argument at hand, i.e. what I’m actually trying to say.

  2. September 3, 2012 at 21:00

    If I take two aspects of the earlier criticism:

    you really are a fucking pig

    … then that’s an opinion and I wouldn’t dispute it. Perhaps I am.

    James and his quite obvious hatred of anything with tits

    That’s out of order because it is a lie, borne out neither by the stated position [see post] nor by women in my life, past and present.

    It’s lies I’m most down on. You let them wash over you, Mojo whereas this blog is dedicated to countering them.

  3. September 3, 2012 at 21:47

    My blog is dedicated to countering lies, too. I just couldn’t care less what people are saying about me.

  4. September 3, 2012 at 23:01

    How about this one…

    It is relevant not just to females in the context of your post but also men in different occupations. There is a particular occupation I am thinking of but it would take up a whole blog post and peoples political standpoint would blur the issue.

    [Cherie, I did read all of this.]

  5. Moggsy
    September 4, 2012 at 06:01

    Well I am having trouble reading this post and the comments.

    One problem is Feminism is different things and has been stretched by some with agendas that are at odds with others who also see themselves as feminist.

    Maybe like the civil rights movement has had some complete reactionary racist A-holes caught up in it along with all the decent people. There are I am sure some man haters rolled up in feminism. And sure politics come into it, but again it is spread over the whole spectrum if you actually take the time to look and don’t see it using pre-judged ways.

    Feminism is, and should be, about _equal_ rights. Notice that word equal? Not as in “some are more equal than others”. Equal. You can’t have EQUALITY without _everyone_ getting a fair shake.

    Yes it should be aimed at, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights for women. And to ensure, all else being equal, equal chances for women. A fair deal. Not women in charge.

    We really all need to be on board with this sort of stuff.

    Matthew 7:12 – Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

    Luke 6:31 – And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

    Mathew 25:40 – And the King shall answer, and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, In as much as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

    Even if a person is not religious this is The Golden Rule and makes sense purely on it’s own.

    And sometimes it means men giving up sole rights, things like the exclusive right to vote. And it means growing up, giving as much weight and consideration to a woman’s opinion as a man’s. But equally it means giving as much weight to a man’s as a woman’s.

    How you get there? That is politics.

    There is a whole wide world of ways of looking at how you get there and stay there. If a person sees them as wrongheaded or not depends on their piolitics.

    James, I think you look at Feminism a bit like a hard line cold warrior might have looked at Russia. “G*D*d Reds. Nuke em”. Just leave the place a glowing wasteland at least it won’t be a threat anymore.

    Probably you know all Russians don’t have the same politics. Maybe on balance it is better no one Nuked the GDRs don’t you think?

    Maybe it would have been better if there had been less proxy wars also, maybe we might not be seeing Islamicist terrorism like we do if it were not for CIA/KGB games. But that is some other story.

    You seem to consider feminism as… just wrong. You seem to see it as exclusively left wing and intrinsically unfair and somehow aimed at subjugating men or something.

    I believe you need to be looking at people’s politics male, or female, and not beating up on feminism as a concept.

    You may not think it so, but for sure there are still issues need fixing, even in the West. Some have been imported because of politics, there are surely big ones in other lands and cultures.

    And you know even if there were not Thomas Jefferson reminds us that “the price of freedom is eternal vigilance”.

  6. September 4, 2012 at 06:08

    @ Moggsy,

    “Feminism is, and should be, about _equal_ rights.”

    Maybe should be, but it _isn’t_.

    Look at what they do, not what they say.

    “I believe you need to be looking at people’s politics male, or female, and not beating up on feminism as a concept.”

    I believe bigotry needs to be beat up as a concept. More importantly in this case, EXPOSED, then beat up.

  7. Moggsy
    September 4, 2012 at 07:07

    Mojo, my comment “Feminism is, and should be, about equal rights” expresses what I mean when I am talking about the subject and also it fits with many “definitions” of it, and you must know it.

    I am fed up with all this they, they, they, evil Martian they.

    IT IS POLITICS!!! Really, PEOPLE (Not women, or men) PEOPLE!!! Left wing authoritarian people see different solutions and maybe a different end game from more libertarian economically liberal people. To make a contrast.

    _Some_ of those people are self-proclaimed Feminists. That does not actually _make_ them feminists tho, no more than some KKK Grand wizard saying he is a really a good Christian makes it so. No matter how much they talked about being one.

    What “They” say, or do not say, just gives them away if you actually look at what “they” say (political disinformation) sensibly…

    And you are playing their game if you just sit there and hoover it all up with a big self satisfied grin on your face.

    I believe bigotry needs to be beat up on as a concept also, for sure. Shown for what it is. Absolutely. Feminism is about doing that too.

    Don’t be like a “useful idiot” and go attacking people who might even agree with you from time to time… if you were not so busy attacking them because you have been wound up and pointed at them like some clockwork soldier.

    You are lured into going for the wrong target, not even seeing the real target is there. Think of the politics.

  8. September 4, 2012 at 07:14

    Moggsy, you write:

    I believe you need to be looking at people’s politics male, or female, and not beating up on feminism as a concept.

    Yes but that belief has to be based on something substantive, solid, hard evidence as to why and these women have shown hard evidence of why “feminism as a concept” is so subtly evil. You show you have not addressed those women’s points in the least but have ignored them and jumped to your own thing.

    Again and again, [and I thought the post had made it clear], all I’ve done is repeat the words of women. Feminism has been responsible for the divide. As Suzanne said, and Christy and Elizabeth and all the other women – this is a W2W thing and women have been very badly served.

    As they say, it’s women who need to listen to this, to realize they’ve been sold a pup. You, Moggsy, have not taken what they say onboard. You’re a fine person but have a blindspot on this.

    There comes a point, you know, when you can no longer try to blank out the evidence and put all sorts of other constructs on an issue, not when so many are saying the same thing.

    And this attempt to say that James is doing this or that – James is irrelevant in this. James is only the scribe, presenting these women – and these women are seriously p**sed and with good reason.

    You write as if this is some fixation of mine and it is not. At Harvard University, the feminist elite sat in rooms and both redefined the reading lists – each faculty in its own way – and adopted revisionist texts.

    This is pure fascism – expurgating texts. You have said before it’s just a few women. Yes, it always is but the influence is incalculable. If you have a tenure in a university and shouldn’t have been given one in a million years – let’s name names here – Warren and Sullivan – and you have authorized the rewriting of texts and determining which texts are in the library and are pointed to online as acceptable, then you have enormous power over young minds and you are tilting the playing field without those young minds ever suspecting something is wrong.

    Now multiply that by all the colleges and universities, all the judiciaries in each of our countries, from New Zealand around the world to Canada say and then look at what comes out of Hollywood and Laurel Canyon, for example and what you have is a mass brainwashing.

    This is what those women are saying in their books and lectures – that this is really going on – it’s happened and is still happening. This has nothing to do with how James Higham should look at things. James Higham should consider all the evidence and then believe where it points. He does. You present counter-evidence and show the detractors of that as well and then my point of view alters. That’s how it works.

    I can’t just cling on to my old view, which was your view, when it is shown to be invalid.

    Perhaps you were at university and you know it was my field for much of my life.

    At OoL I wrote on Professor Foner and there are hundreds in the UK – they brainwash the kids oh so subtly in many ways, determine values by presenting strawman themes, then encourage the kids to tear down the strawman and take on board the values therein. Certain texts are approved, others are frowned on and mocked. I did economics and Hayek etc. were mocked when students brought him up. The professors and lecturers were never going to bring him up.

    That is criminally negligent.

    So the combination of lax upbringing due to the Boomers and Gen X for a start, combined with these values in a susceptible kid of 17-22 and there is your political mass for the future.

    That is not soft, it is not benign. That is not easing off and letting people get on with their own lives. The brainwashed people are soft and benign within the lie though and would no more call themselves feminist than anything else nasty but they are most certainly imbued with these values which allow a government to impose “positive discrimination” on the population, for example and the worst aspect is that the new brainwashed think it’s actually “fair”.

    How is discrimination “fair”? Since when has it ever been? The reply of the average person is that women have been oppressed for so long and this is “even-ing things up”.

    Utter BS! As the ladies in the post said, this is the feminist lie – women have NOT been oppressed in western antions in the way the feminists present. Yes in Africa or Arab nations – yes they are oppressed. But modern American women? Give us a break.

    Not just you, Moggsy but so many women answer with the line that these radical feminists are a minority. Yes, yes, yes, they are a minority but they are a carefully placed minority in key positions in society and they taint the young.

    From all your comments on various posts, you come over as young, Moggsy and therefore you’ve been part of the process. We were too in our day but we had other influences as well in the early days, before they changed the texts, before this thing became all-pervasive. I’m not against you, Moggsy, not putting you down because I see where you’re at. It’s not a straight choice we’re talking about here – it’s a manipulated choice and we have to stick to facts on it.

    There was a post on groupthink which had many links and it went into neuro-linguistic programming. There is another post on research methods [written by an American researcher and how a person is manipulated into thinking he’s made a free choice, how he thinks he’s come to the belief of his own volition but in fact he has not.

    It’s carefully put to him that he came to his point of view by wide-reading, careful consideration and then his own conclusions and it’s true that he did – within what was presented to him. The reason you don’t take on board what so many are trying to reveal is because you did not come to it yourself and it militates against everything else you’ve read or heard in your upbringing. Plus I appear to be lecturing – my tone gets up the nose, right?

    Yes it does. Therefore all of us are switched off from going forward. If people like us say the reason for that is that everything you have experienced has been tainted, it sounds 1. conspiracy theory and 2. paranoid.

    Yet Yuri Bezmenov showed chapter and verse how Americans have been tainted:

    And I showed how education, [my field] from the Wundtian Lincoln School onwards managed to get the funding to put those educational ideas and to eliminate others. This was how, in the 70s, classrooms went open plan and we had a celebrity deputy head at the time who had written countless books, all readily published, on education and he was the new guru.

    I liked him, his manner was persuasive rather than combative [as mine is] and we naturally took what he said onboard. It was only decades later I saw something online about him being a key figure in the Fabian Society and that put him with so many others, e.g. Geoff Mulgan of Demos – the interconnections are legendary. Now at the time, we never suspected he was one of those. One never does.

    All of this takes hours, weeks, years to explain. One really can’t come in and pretend that this hasn’t happened, what one is reading, isn’t happening. The reason I’m writing this now is not to convince you what has happened because you’re inured against taking onbaord anything I write and that’s not your fault.

    Your reply makes perfect sense on an even playing field, stemming form a love your neighbour stance but that stance is not valid in the light of all the other things which have been going on.

    It’s Python again. Having murdered the wedding guests, Cleese is then forgiven by the baron who says to the grieving: “Let’s not bicker over who’s killed whom; this is supposed to be a happy occasion.”

    You can’t say that to people when so much wrongdoing has taken place prior to it. In fact, to say that is a political move to marginalize dissent. That’s what the Baron’s exhortation was – it was to suppress dissent from a crime.

    Ditto the left’s attempt to portray people like Suzanne Venker and me as fanatics, people who won’t let things rest and won’t just get on with our neighbours.

    It conveniently ignores what those people have laid over the past four decades and which people are blissfully unaware of.

    Does it matter if there are “different shades of opinion”? Again, this is the subtle lie. It is not a difference of opinion [and everyone’s entitled to his], it’s far more – it is the deliberate spreading of a lie and an unsustainable ideology which most certainly ruins society.

    Those women quoted have ALL said the same thing – ALL of them, every one. Now surely even you, Moggsy and other women reading this – surely even you can pause and take what they say onboard or at least consider the points.

    Instead you auto-counter me. You have no argument against what these women say so you ignore that, simply in the interests of putting the counterview – any counterview, as long as it’s counter. And why?

    Because you don’t like that I, personally, “always think I’m right”.

    And again I say to you that it has nothing to do with me as a person – I am the scribe. These women – not men but women [in the quotes] who understand women because they are women – have said these things and not only have said them but have shown why, given reasons, given examples backing those reasons – what anyone in a rational discussion is bound to do.

    And those women are intellectual, intelligent, with life experience. Even Christy O, though young, has done much and seen much. You have too, Moggsy but not in the fields these women have been in.

    This is where our frustration comes from and these feminist elitists [her words, not mine] plus the global left in general, are laughing because they have most women lock, stock and barrel. That’s how the Jesuits did it.

    The only way you’ll ever break out of this is when something personal happens to you but by then it will be too late and we’ll be in a society with no marriage and family left as a concept, no independent voice – see what’s happening in govt moves on the blogosphere already, no decent medicine – observe the crippling of the NHS and Obama’s trillions in Healthcare, no justice from the courts and so on and so on and so on and I’m exhausted.

    These things are subtle evil. They are designed to cripple society. There is a blog called The Boiling Frog. The boiling frog is precisely the way this is being done.

    All I can do is add to the material trying to get people to wake up. It’s a tough task.

    All I can do is present this again:

    … and hope it is read with an open mind. Please note the Bezmenov quote in there.

    There are things happening, bad things. The unnecessary recession is part of it, the constricted jobmarket and feminism is right in there, poisoning the minds behind the things which are happening. Feminism is simply one manifestation – look at the green religion and the climate scam for another.

    I’m not an expert on climate so I leave it to AK Haart and others. However, I am an expert on feminism because it’s been my field of study for so long. Rather than obsession, it is writing on those things I know about.

  9. Moggsy
    September 4, 2012 at 08:20

    I don’t think anyone is reading, or considering my core argument, and I do believe you almost literally can’t se my main point. I tried to make it as clear as I can. Not much more to say usefully.

    Not really part of what I was speaking of but you said James at the bginning you agreed with what the women you were quoting said, Stuff you selectively quote, who know what the context to illustrate you belief.

    I am happy to own my quotes. I didn’t say them, they are probably said better tham I would have done. That is why they are seminal quotes.

    I am not “imprisoned” by my negative view, more to the point I won’t have one imposed on me for my race, sex, nationality, religion/beliefs or any other aspect.

    It is wrong to claim it has not taken constant and regular pressure to remove blocks for most women, and many men to study, to vote, to practice what profession they choose.

    You know full well it was very difficult for a woman to become a MD for instance until quite recently, just because she was a woman. It was quite difficult even to go to university until fairly recently and them it was mostly supported as much for improving marriage prospects as anything else. Yes there have been exceptions, but don’t try to pretend they are not exceptions.

    You know perfectly well women generally did not get to vote. You know full well a whole raft of stuff.

    Let me turn round one of your quotes a bit so you see it in the mirror.
    “where were all the “good” Germans when national socialism started? Why didn’t the people who knew they were not being robbed by the jews do something to stop the misinformation that spread like wildfire? Aren’t these Germans just as deserving of the world’s contempt as the hardcore Nazies who started it all?”

    “where were all the “moderate” union members when the activists took to take over? Why didn’t the people who knew they were not being ruthlessly exploited do something to stop the misinformation that spread like wildfire? Aren’t these workers just as deserving of contempt as the hardcore Troskytes who started it all?”

  10. September 4, 2012 at 08:31

    You know perfectly well women generally did not get to vote. You know full well a whole raft of stuff.

    You see, that’s where you are brainwashed. Women have had the vote for donkey’s years, long, long before the 2nd wave feminists – read Hoff-Summers on that. They already had that, Moggsy. Women were already working. At university, there were roughly equal numbers when I was there.

    What actually happened:

    … is not what you’re saying. I’m not saying you’re a bad person but you are regurgitating the 2nd and 3rd wave feminist lie.

    I know perfectly well a “whole raft of stuff” which is not what you’re saying. Women, Moggsy, by the 60s were NOT oppressed. You readily believe this lie because you’re a woman and a woman telling a woman she’s oppressed sits well.

    A man telling her it’s not so does not go down well. That’s why I quote the women in the post. i just wrote a long reply which exhausted me.

    You took NONE of that onboard. None.

    I’m knackered.


    Minette Marrin [Sunday Times], one suspects, knows what it’s like to be a woman. She wrote:

    “I was woken up to this by a women’s magazine investigation of rape about 20 years ago, following a big survey of readers. The writer pointed out with furious indignation that a great many unhappy women had written in, after reading the series, to say that they hadn’t realised until then that they had been raped. Call me conventional, but I think rape is the kind of thing you would notice, at least if you were awake.”

    … and:

    We hear endless complaints about misogyny, but actually misandry rules. Or if not exactly misandry, a profound misunderstanding of masculinity: Boys and men are increasingly blamed and belittled. Girls meanwhile have been doing better and better at school and university, making the most of positive discrimination; whereas boys have begun to underperform in most things, except in breaking the law.

    Ruth Malhotra puts it in a way only women can:

    The notion of victimhood, that “women are oppressed and exploited,” evokes strong anti-male sentiment. Many influential feminists demonstrate extreme animosity towards marriage and family life, even likening the institution of marriage to that prostitution.

    I can go on and on with what women are saying but you just won’t listen.

  11. Moggsy
    September 4, 2012 at 14:26

    James, don’t talk down to me about history. Women in the UK were officially especially banned, as women, from voting in 1872.

    Where were all the “Good” men when that happened? Why didn’t the men who knew better do something to stop the justifications for it spreading like wildfire? Are those men not just as deserving of contempt? Just a rhetorical question…

    Up to then women hadn’t actually been banned from voting in the UK. So there is precedent and things can’t be relied on or guaranteed.

    Women’s suffrage societies (It can be argued that the idea of them provoked the act) did not have much success until , seeming to be getting no where, they had to become more strident and militant about it. Patriotically the suffrage movement put their attention mostly to the war effort and home front during WWI. As a reward in 1918 they got their reward and women over 30 got the vote, because women over 21 couldn’t be as sensible as guys. In 1921 they finally got the same as guys. That was 91 years ago, within living memory.

    Or are you saying this second wave of feminists are the evil ones, sinister and somehow different from people who wanted to be able to vote?

    Do you know who the first (female) person able to study to be an MD was? Elizabeth Blackwell, studied and recognised in both in the US and UK She was accepted as a student in 1847, but the other (male) students were invited to blackball her application. The British GMC recognised her in 1859. She died in 1910, just about within living memory.

    More up to date, there are girls being murdered because they don’t want to be forced to do what their fathers and brothers order them to. Like get married and go live in rural Pakistan. I could list more of that whole raft of stuff, but frankly I don’t see the point. not really sure what I am doing bothering to write this.

    Well done! You can make an argument out of most anything, even half agreement and you are the looser by it.. You might think your really long posts with lots and lots of quotes carefully picked to say what you want, like the cut out newspaper letters in some ransom demand are oh-so clever.

    Well they are not, and you are busted! Busted pushing the logical fallacy argumentum verbosum, proff by verbosity.

  12. September 4, 2012 at 14:46

    Women in the UK were officially especially banned, as women, from voting in 1872.

    There you go again, Moggsy. It’s what the women were saying – that it was the suffragette movement, NOT the feminists responsible for the advances.

    The feminist movements 2 and 3 had NO positive outcomes for women and that is those 2nd and 3rd waves we’re all so down on. This is why those women said what Suzanne Velker said:

    Now that [is] exactly the message which young people are getting about feminism – that we, as women today, owe feminists for those things but in fact … we do not.

    … but you won’t listen to that. You ignore it. You instead try to go all ad hominem on me when I made it abundantly clear it has nothing to do with me and nothing to do with me thinking I’m right or clever or any of that.

    Stick to the issues, Moggsy. And the issue is:

    Now that [is] exactly the message which young people are getting about feminism – that we, as women today, owe feminists for those things but in fact … we do not.

    There it is in black and white. You have brought in a whole lot about what the suffragette movement did – nothing more. In fact, in the light of all the other changes from the late 50s on, women’s position was undergoing a positive change anyway.

    All that the feminists did was introduce hatred – misandry. That is their legacy. Read the quotes at the end of post again.

    Now you can ignore the facts all you like but you have not shown one way in which feminists have done anything but harm to women.

    As women now know.


    Here is some viewing. Now I’m not one for “men’s rights” and I don’t argue for them on this blog. However, that page contains a few vids from women and their views on things. So it’s for that reason I include it.

    And here’s some reading:

    You’ll see that the views are remarkably consistent across the world – they all say the same sort of thing about feminism. Wonder why?

    What it has done though is created the modern tart culture which didn’t exist before feminism – in those days, women respected themselves. This skirts around the question but I think draws many wrong conclusions:

    Nevertheless, the bottom line is that the things feminism tried to achieve have produced the opposite in terms of advancement for women. Women’s lot now is far poorer – there’ve been quite a few surveys on women’s happiness for example.

    And of course, they’ve lost the majority of men. In the 50s and even into the 60s, the two got along. Not now.

    And will feminists learn from this? Of course not – they’re hardwired into the ideology of pretending they’re for “women’s advancement”. The socialist rag has an article by one of these misandrist dinosaurs:

    As long as she plays divisive politics, as long as feminists continue on their destructive path, women’s lot will get worse and worse and worse.

    What those women in the post are trying to do, what I am trying to do, is stop this evil. And as women like you have shown amply here – you’re not interested in the least – you really do believe feminism brings good, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

    And if you think it’s none of my business as a man – yes it is – we would like our women back please, out of the clutches of these gorgons. We would like to return to an era of sanity.

  13. September 4, 2012 at 15:22

    And this is how they brainwash students:

    Another woman speaks:

    And another:

    And the feminazis have lost the younger generation thank goodness:

    Now there are only the gorgons in the government, media and academia to get rid of.

  14. Rootar
    September 4, 2012 at 21:03

    Women eh ?
    Slaves to their emotions, poor things.

  15. September 4, 2012 at 21:09

    I have no beef with women even though another one wrote an email accusing me yet again of misogyny.

    Let’s do this one more time, as the feminazis are obviously having trouble with it:

    Men: For
    Women: For
    Global left elite: Exterminate

    Includes CFR, TLC, IMF, BIS, ECB, Them, Tavistock, Feminazis and many others – all those whose brief is to break down society.

  16. Moggsy
    September 5, 2012 at 07:09

    I am wondering where my last comment went, I guess I put it in the wrong box. Duh. I do hope you were not suggesting I accused you of misogeny, If you were I guess you didn’t bother to read my comment properly, because I didn’t.. quite.

    James, Are you serious? I am quoting you here. “You (talking to me) have not shown one way in which feminists have done anything but harm to women. “

    Twisty kinda loaded question. I wasn’t trying to. I was arguing the people you imagine are feminists are not feminists. And they have done.

    That your being manipulated, into arguing with me instead of listening.

    Your apparently opposing equality and showing what looks difficult to tell from some aspects of misogyny is the legacy.

    I would have thought you would jump on left wing politics and wheels within wheels, but maybe they don’t fit with your pre conceived notions. Like some bull charging around, who hates the cape, feels the pain… but does not quite get what the matador is up to.

  17. September 5, 2012 at 13:26

    For over 600 years, men did not have universal voting enfranchisement, it was only in 1918 that all men got the vote. At the same time, voting for women was extended for the first time (although with restrictions) but in the first Election with Universal Male Enfranchisement, about 40% of those voting were women (thanks in part to WW1)… Up to the mid 1800’s voting was a preserve of the wealthy house/land owner and elections were not for the common person. prior to WW1 men were still largely disenfranchised.

    Within ten years of Male Enfranchisement, Women were extended the same voting rights by 1928 as it was the irresistible will of the now much extended electorate.

    So men and women got the same voting rights 10 years apart, after well over half a millennia of struggle.

    Why is it people see universal suffrage a man vs women issue and not a rich vs poor issue?

  18. September 5, 2012 at 13:41

    Precisely, Daniel. Good to see you again, by the way.

  19. Amfortas
    September 5, 2012 at 14:43

    What feminists claim and most people get confused about starts with this 1918 voting nonesense. But both ignore ‘context’.

    The First world war ( I will confine my subsequent remarks to Great Britain) was an emormous Human, national and personal trauma which saw one third of marriagable males either killed or maimed. In trauma – and I mean the proper use of the word, not applying it to rude remarks or a touch up by an Uncle or as was far more likely, an aunty – infections gain entrance. Mind infections: in such a traumatic assault on the National psyche.

    The Nation as a whole was deeply traumatised. The vote issue was minor in comparison to what was to come. With so many of the voting qualified killed there had to be changes to enfranchise more or the entire governmental democratic system would have collapsed. Men had earned it with blood. Mostly unfranchised men and boys. Women had only their white feathers to show, which had sent so many of those young men off to the slaughter.

    But the real ‘spur’ to women’s ‘liberty’ was their inability to continue playing the dependant. They had to live under their own steam rather than rely on a man. Competition for a husband was intense and women’s hatred of other women blossomed. Women HAD to work for a living and by golly many a fine, intelligent woman did just that. There were not enough men to go around to carry all the marriageable women as in ages previous.

    The upside was that in the 20’s and 30’s the professions blossomed with women. There were women lawyers, doctors, politicians, writers, even aviators and adventurers. Every field of work saw women rise and take a place. Except for the dirty and dangerous jobs of course. The hard work jobs. There were no womanual jobs suddenly to the fore then, nor now. None of this was due to ‘feminism’ nor to suffragettes but to sheer necessity to grow up and stand on their own feet. For a change. With the dirty, dangerous job proviso.

    There was a downside too, of course. While the national bones were knitting and the wounds healing, the ideological infection of the national psyche was underway.

    Women were angry. They were disappointed. They were grief-striken. They were guilty. They were guilty for shaming men to death and guilty of blaming men for it. For a large majority of women the result was a low-level neuroticism. In some a full-blown one. This was grasped by the growing communist inspired left wing and boy did they run with it. Envy – especially of women who wanted to marry and have a family – grew intense. The feminists were primarily misogynistic toward the ‘traditional’ woman, even decrying her desire to have a home and family and stay within it (Simone de Bouvoir, for example, hated the idea that women shold even have the choice. She would have them all at work).

    Then WW2 came along and again in the UK 800,000 men lost their lives. 800,000 young women were denied an opportunity to marry and be carried. The massive national truama all over again, but with a weakened ‘womanhood’ which now became quite psychotic.

    This was the main factor in the rise of the nastily misandric feminism that grew like a boil inside the traumatised British psyche. And the post war (ww2) feminists of the 60’s and 70’s had the timerity to claim that the men were misogynists when in fact it was their ideological-mother’s strategy and practice.

    I have studied psychological trauma in theory and practice for 25 years. It rots. It alters perception. It breeds mental infections which become ‘norms’ of thinking and feeling. It breeds fantasies in place of realities.

    The enormous traumas of ww1 and ww2’s enormities borne mostly by men are virtually scrubbed from memory by the crude, infection-soaked bristles of fantasies in the neurotic and psychotic women, and just as the Ellen Bass’s of the world, the Andrea Dworkins and the Germaine Greers (aptly nick-named ‘Germs) and her ilk can make small fortunes from washing the wounds with anthrax. So the proto-communists have taken feminism and applied it like a poison, with intent to kill western, enlightenment, capitalism, conservativism and social harmony.

    Votes? I don’t cast mine anywhere near them as a rationale.

  20. September 5, 2012 at 16:00

    Thanks for both of those – a good perspective. Until now I’ve run only the woman’s perspective but these put it in context. The post has been worthwhile after all.

  21. Moggsy
    September 7, 2012 at 03:03

    Daniel, I absolutely agree for much of history most or many of the population didn’t get to vote. Although there are other rights like inheritance in the mix also. I don’t have issues with things like voting age or even property voting rights as they are things that anyone can fix, say by reaching 21 or 30 or whatever.

    What makes the female right to vote stand out was that it was basically specifically banned in the UK, by act of parliament. When sections of the population are actually disenfranchised because of something they can’t change like sex or skin colour then, for me, it is “eau de rattus rattus”

    So if women are singled out by parliament it sort of sets up a male vs female thing. Like apartite sets up a race thing.

    I agree there was a strong element of the rich and powerful retaining power. The “narrative is of gradually expanding suffrage leading to universal suffrage, but that Act of parliament was a bit of a pothole on that road.

    Suffrage is only a part of eqaual rights tho. And any part of those can not be taken for granted. Who elected the current Italian Prime Minister exactly?

    Amfortus… interesting take…

  22. September 7, 2012 at 03:30

    Yes, as Daniel pointed out, men were also “basically specifically banned” too for so long. Over and over you zero in on special pleading for women, Moggsy, to the exclusion of men.

    That’s precisely what I’ve been referring to and why those women say feminism is so skewed and bad. It’s only result is to split the sexes.

    Why not be for the enfranchisement of BOTH male and female? Is it really so wrong to include the hated male as “people”?

  23. Amfortas
    September 7, 2012 at 03:41

    Thanks for the nod, Moggsy. Perhaps you can point us to the Act which specifically banned the female vote, which seems at odds with the practice of property owners having the specific right to vote and women being quite as allowed to own properties (some huge even by today’s standards) as anybody, as they had done since before Boudicca.

    And while you are at that, some explanation of why suffragettes wanted the vote only for certain classes of women and not others.

    Oh, and I wonder when our modern UK will get around to repealing the restrictions on Catholics of either sex holding particular significant public offices.

  24. Moggsy
    September 7, 2012 at 05:40

    Amfortas. I already did mention it in an earlier comment (14:26 Sept 4).

    My best understanding is that women were not prohibited from voting in the UK (or maybe more correctly in England and Wales?) until the 1832 Reform Act and the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act enfranchising, specifically “male persons” (a little after Boudicca’s time ^_^). Because of the wording slipped into the act it was claimed use of the word “male”, meant an actual statutory bar to women voting. That set the women’s suffrage movement to growing.

    Some Suffragettes may have wanted to exlude some classes. I would imagine they came from the upper classes and reflected views held in those classes. Plenty of upper class males had exactly the same views. Just a hint of logical fallacy creeping in there?

    If you want to talk old laws and the modern world I heard it was technically illegal to push a pram or push chair on the pavement…

    James, You know perfectly well that Daniel did no such thing. As Amfortas pointed out some classes of males and I suspect less females got to vote on some things over the centuries. Other classes didn’t.

    To take a leaf from Amfortas, maybe you could show us the act that specifically banned the male vote? Sauce for the goose… ^_^

Leave a Reply

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