I was a bit...cautious of the article upon reading the first part, but soon the theme conveyed an actual level of observation not often allowed.

Aside from his portrayal of women as victims in the past, the rest of his article seems about right.

The problem with articles such as this is that it STILL has the wrong idea about history and the suffragette movement.

The main objection to the suffrage movement, back in the days of the "evil patriarchy," was that it was readily acknowledged that women already had TREMENDOUS power over men because of how much men desired them sexually, and were also socially conditioned to treat women as superior beings to men. There is where we get the notion that "Nature has given women so much power that the law has wisely given them very little." Much of the arguments against women's suffrage was that women wanted ALL of the power that men had, while still being able to maintain ALL of the CONSIDERABLE power and influence that women had over men since the beginning of time. (What, did Delilah beat the information out of Sampson?)

What resulted from the suffrage movement was that women had double the power of men, and therefore, the suffragette movement was not about "equality" at all. In fact, what we have in Western Civilization is the exact gender opposite of what women face in Muslim societies. In Muslim societies, women have very little to no legal & political rights AND they have been stripped of their natural feminine wiles to influence men to do their bidding by denying their sexuality with the Burka etc. This gives men in Muslim society FAR more power than women. -- In our society we have given women ALL of the traditional male power base AND allowed them to keep ALL of their feminine wiles which they had already been using to get men to do their political and social bidding VERY successfully for millenia. Now women have the power to get everything they want while still being able to influence men to give them what they want too. A woman's political/legal power is tremendously more than a man's - and there is no "equality" in that whatsoever.

Couple this "over-power" women now possess with women's natural tendency to choose security over freedom (whereas men tend to choose freedom over security), you get a society that always drifts more and more towards women's totalitarian nature.

And this is the folly of people like the afore author. He still believes this claptrap nonsense that women were oppressed and needed to be liberated from dominant, oppressive males, and that the Suffragettes were the most noble, brave, egalitarian women that civilization has ever seen -- things would have been perfect if only the feminists of today were like the Suffragettes.

Oddly, the feminists of today are very much like the suffragettes of old, who were indeed advocating for women to have considerably much more power than the men. Remember, if one rules the ruler...

Here are some pieces I've recently posted on my blog which shows you how very similar the "noble Suffragettes" were to the Psycho Fembots of today:

-------

Excerpt from The Woman Question, by Stephen Leacock - written in 1916

http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/leacock.htm

I was sitting the other day in what is called the Peacock Alley of one of our leading hotels, drinking tea with another thing like myself, a man. At the next table were a group of Superior Beings in silk, talking. I couldn't help overhearing what they said--at least not when I held my head a little sideways.

They were speaking of the war.

"There wouldn't have been any war," said one, " if women were allowed to vote."

"No, indeed," chorused all the others.

The woman who had spoken looked about her defiantly. She wore spectacles and was of the type that we men used to call, in days when we still retained a little courage, an Awful Woman.

"When women have the vote," she went on "there will he no more war. The women will forbid it."

She gazed about her angrily. She evidently wanted to be heard. My friend and I hid ourselves behind a little fern and trembled.

But we listened. We were hoping that the Awful Woman would explain how war would be ended. She didn't. She went on to explain instead that when women have the vote there will be no more poverty, no disease, no germs, no cigarette smoking and nothing to drink but water. It seemed a gloomy world.

-------------

The following piece, written in August 1921, is an extract of a preface to the book The Fraud of Feminism:

http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/bax.htm

... Feminism in this and in some other countries has won well-nigh [near] all its formal demands.

...and so the pitch-forking of women into administrative posts proceeds galore. But the main contentions of The Fraud of Feminism have not been affected by the change in question.

Though women have been conceded all the rights of men, their privileges as females have remained untouched, while the sentimental "pull" they have over men, and the favouritism shown them in the courts, civil and criminal, often in flagrant violation of elementary justice, continues as before.

The result of their position on juries, as evinced in certain trials, has rather confirmed the remarks made in Chapter II. anent [concerning] hysteria than otherwise.

The sex-bias of men in favour of women and the love of the advanced woman towards her sex-self show no sign of abatement.

Proposals to the effect that in the event of infanticide by a mother the putative father should be placed in the dock merely because he is a man are received with applause.

The other day, at a court held in a fashionable town of the south coast, on a prostitute being brought upcharged with soliciting, a female "justice," recently appointed, declaimed against the wickedness of punishing prostitutes for soliciting while men were never brought up charged with the offence. (Needless to say, there was the usual male fool to be found in the body of the court, who shouted: "Hear! Hear!")

Now is it conceivable, I ask, that anybody can be so infatuated with Feminism as not to see that a prostitute who solicits nightly in the exercise of her trade-- i.e . for the purpose of money-making--is in a different position from a man who, once in a way, may, urged by natural passion, make advances to a woman?

Such a person must be unable to see distinctions in anything, one would think. Besides, it is not true that men, if charged with the annoyance or molestation of women, cannot be, and have not been, prosecuted for the offence.

The lady "justice" in question would probably like to see a man paired with a prostitute in the dock every time the latter gave occasion for police action. Such is the Feminist notion of justice.

There are a vast number of men who cultivate the pretence of having a contempt for, or prejudice against, their own sex. The idea seems to pander to the sex-vanity of the "New Woman."

Every popular writer caters for this prejudice.

No one can have failed to notice the persistent journalistic and literary "stunt" by which the man is portrayed in the light of a miserable and abject living creature as a foil [frustration] to the "noble animal" woman.

There is scarcely a play, short story or novel the plot of which in any way admits of it where this now stale device is not dragged in in some form or shape.

... This sourt of thing is not without its influence on the course of justice, as the daily papers still continue to show us. Times have not changed in this respect.

... There is no indication that the general public has a dawning sense that, to adapt the common metaphor, "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

Everywhere we hear the same old bogus grievances of the female sex trotted out as crying for remedy, but never the injustice of a man being compelled, whatever his economic position, to keep his wife, while a woman is under no corresponding obligation to keep her husband. No urgency is suggested for removing the anomaly that a husband is amenable for his wife's libels and slanders; none that a boy of fourteen is punishable for a sexual offence to which he has been incited by a girl of sixteen, who gets off scot-free; none that the obligation of a husband, whose wife wishes to bring an action for divorce against him, to furnish her with the money to fight him, should be abolished.

On the other hand, every law, every judicial decision, every case in the courts, civil and criminal, that on the most superficial view can be exploited by the conventional Feminist claptrap to prove the wickedness of "man-made law" to woman, is gripped by the beak of the Feminist harpy to help build up her nest of lying sex-prejudice, whence she and her confraternity may sally forth and by their raids on male sentiment not merely to buttress up existing female privilege, but wherever possible to increase the already one-sided injustice of the law and its administration towards men in the interest of the other sex.

Quote from Rob

The problem with articles such as this is that it STILL has the wrong idea about history and the suffragette movement.

The main objection to the suffrage movement, back in the days of the "evil patriarchy," was that it was readily acknowledged that women already had TREMENDOUS power over men because of how much men desired them sexually, and were also socially conditioned to treat women as superior beings to men. There is where we get the notion that "Nature has given women so much power that the law has wisely given them very little." Much of the arguments against women's suffrage was that women wanted ALL of the power that men had, while still being able to maintain ALL of the CONSIDERABLE power and influence that women had over men since the beginning of time. (What, did Delilah beat the information out of Sampson?)

What resulted from the suffrage movement was that women had double the power of men, and therefore, the suffragette movement was not about "equality" at all. In fact, what we have in Western Civilization is the exact gender opposite of what women face in Muslim societies. In Muslim societies, women have very little to no legal & political rights AND they have been stripped of their natural feminine wiles to influence men to do their bidding by denying their sexuality with the Burka etc. This gives men in Muslim society FAR more power than women. -- In our society we have given women ALL of the traditional male power base AND allowed them to keep ALL of their feminine wiles which they had already been using to get men to do their political and social bidding VERY successfully for millenia. Now women have the power to get everything they want while still being able to influence men to give them what they want too. A woman's political/legal power is tremendously more than a man's - and there is no "equality" in that whatsoever.

Couple this "over-power" women now possess with women's natural tendency to choose security over freedom (whereas men tend to choose freedom over security), you get a society that always drifts more and more towards women's totalitarian nature.

And this is the folly of people like the afore author. He still believes this claptrap nonsense that women were oppressed and needed to be liberated from dominant, oppressive males, and that the Suffragettes were the most noble, brave, egalitarian women that civilization has ever seen -- things would have been perfect if only the feminists of today were like the Suffragettes.

Oddly, the feminists of today are very much like the suffragettes of old, who were indeed advocating for women to have considerably much more power than the men. Remember, if one rules the ruler...

Here are some pieces I've recently posted on my blog which shows you how very similar the "noble Suffragettes" were to the Psycho Fembots of today:

-------

Excerpt from The Woman Question, by Stephen Leacock - written in 1916

http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/leacock.htm

I was sitting the other day in what is called the Peacock Alley of one of our leading hotels, drinking tea with another thing like myself, a man. At the next table were a group of Superior Beings in silk, talking. I couldn't help overhearing what they said--at least not when I held my head a little sideways.

They were speaking of the war.

"There wouldn't have been any war," said one, " if women were allowed to vote."

"No, indeed," chorused all the others.

The woman who had spoken looked about her defiantly. She wore spectacles and was of the type that we men used to call, in days when we still retained a little courage, an Awful Woman.

"When women have the vote," she went on "there will he no more war. The women will forbid it."

She gazed about her angrily. She evidently wanted to be heard. My friend and I hid ourselves behind a little fern and trembled.

But we listened. We were hoping that the Awful Woman would explain how war would be ended. She didn't. She went on to explain instead that when women have the vote there will be no more poverty, no disease, no germs, no cigarette smoking and nothing to drink but water. It seemed a gloomy world.

-------------

The following piece, written in August 1921, is an extract of a preface to the book The Fraud of Feminism:

http://members.garbersoft.net/spartacus/bax.htm

... Feminism in this and in some other countries has won well-nigh [near] all its formal demands.

...and so the pitch-forking of women into administrative posts proceeds galore. But the main contentions of The Fraud of Feminism have not been affected by the change in question.

Though women have been conceded all the rights of men, their privileges as females have remained untouched, while the sentimental "pull" they have over men, and the favouritism shown them in the courts, civil and criminal, often in flagrant violation of elementary justice, continues as before.

The result of their position on juries, as evinced in certain trials, has rather confirmed the remarks made in Chapter II. anent [concerning] hysteria than otherwise.

The sex-bias of men in favour of women and the love of the advanced woman towards her sex-self show no sign of abatement.

Proposals to the effect that in the event of infanticide by a mother the putative father should be placed in the dock merely because he is a man are received with applause.

The other day, at a court held in a fashionable town of the south coast, on a prostitute being brought upcharged with soliciting, a female "justice," recently appointed, declaimed against the wickedness of punishing prostitutes for soliciting while men were never brought up charged with the offence. (Needless to say, there was the usual male fool to be found in the body of the court, who shouted: "Hear! Hear!")

Now is it conceivable, I ask, that anybody can be so infatuated with Feminism as not to see that a prostitute who solicits nightly in the exercise of her trade-- i.e . for the purpose of money-making--is in a different position from a man who, once in a way, may, urged by natural passion, make advances to a woman?

Such a person must be unable to see distinctions in anything, one would think. Besides, it is not true that men, if charged with the annoyance or molestation of women, cannot be, and have not been, prosecuted for the offence.

The lady "justice" in question would probably like to see a man paired with a prostitute in the dock every time the latter gave occasion for police action. Such is the Feminist notion of justice.

There are a vast number of men who cultivate the pretence of having a contempt for, or prejudice against, their own sex. The idea seems to pander to the sex-vanity of the "New Woman."

Every popular writer caters for this prejudice.

No one can have failed to notice the persistent journalistic and literary "stunt" by which the man is portrayed in the light of a miserable and abject living creature as a foil [frustration] to the "noble animal" woman.

There is scarcely a play, short story or novel the plot of which in any way admits of it where this now stale device is not dragged in in some form or shape.

... This sourt of thing is not without its influence on the course of justice, as the daily papers still continue to show us. Times have not changed in this respect.

... There is no indication that the general public has a dawning sense that, to adapt the common metaphor, "What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."

Everywhere we hear the same old bogus grievances of the female sex trotted out as crying for remedy, but never the injustice of a man being compelled, whatever his economic position, to keep his wife, while a woman is under no corresponding obligation to keep her husband. No urgency is suggested for removing the anomaly that a husband is amenable for his wife's libels and slanders; none that a boy of fourteen is punishable for a sexual offence to which he has been incited by a girl of sixteen, who gets off scot-free; none that the obligation of a husband, whose wife wishes to bring an action for divorce against him, to furnish her with the money to fight him, should be abolished.

On the other hand, every law, every judicial decision, every case in the courts, civil and criminal, that on the most superficial view can be exploited by the conventional Feminist claptrap to prove the wickedness of "man-made law" to woman, is gripped by the beak of the Feminist harpy to help build up her nest of lying sex-prejudice, whence she and her confraternity may sally forth and by their raids on male sentiment not merely to buttress up existing female privilege, but wherever possible to increase the already one-sided injustice of the law and its administration towards men in the interest of the other sex.

100% !!

Yea, Rob, good input!

I intentionally left out of the quote the fist part of the article (patriarchal oppression in the past, etc.) which you point out and criticize. And I too wholeheartedly agree with you.

I also don't like this:

The practice of dishing out special paternalistic treatment to women during sentencing is belittling, degrading and discriminatory towards them.

Once again, women get preferential treatment and somehow they're the biggest victims yet again - and it's because of it.

Is it necessary for writers to include these sorts of concessions in order to get published? I don't want to be cynical but I wonder about the editorial policy in most media nowadays, straight criticism of radical feminism seems almost non-existent, while casual and not-so-casual misandry abounds.