The Fish and The Bicycle

.

”The most insidious effect of affirmative action quotas is a kind of psychic castration… the removal of the source of a man’s identity. By contriving the nonsense that women can do whatever a man can do (which they obviously can’t), they’ve leveled men’s purpose to the extent that men effectively have no purpose. The equivalent would be to remove women’s wombs, and render them sterile.

It’s not just messing with the laws of supply and demand and cheating men out of their rights… its about annihilation of identity and purpose.” -- codebuster, from a comment at The Spearhead



”I remember the first time I saw the slogan "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle", I knew my face had just been spit in. Men were not just useless to women, we were irrelevant. We had no purpose in a woman's life, and did not belong in her world at all. It was a message of hate, dismissal, and refutation. But, I also saw it as a warning of what was to come. It was like seeing clouds on the horizon, and knowing that it is time to get under cover because a storm is brewing. And, since it was obviously smearing shit in my face, it was going to be a shit storm.” -- zenpriest, Hate Bounces


”The problem here is women are totally lying about wanting to be empowered. To have power, one must have independence and be self-reliant. This is the exact opposite of what women and children have been for most of human history. Instead of being independent and self-reliant (ie having power) they have been dependent and relied on men for everything. In return, there is a bunch of stuff they are expected to give men…..certain roles they must perform for the system to work.

Now, a handful of women have always been an exception. I can totally see how more women would want to have power by becoming self-reliant and independent. BUT THAT’S NOT WHAT THEY ARE DOING! Instead, they want to be empowered but still rely and depend on men for everything. They think they can do this by creating various ways and means to force us to take care of them, both as individuals and a society, without giving anything in return. They don’t want marriage but they still want money from men via alimony and child support. They want to vote but don’t exercise wisdom in what they vote for. They want jobs but are pathetic as employees, but God forbid you fire them, you’ll get sued (plus they will trade sex for promotions).” -- The Most Feminacentrist Statement of the Twentieth Century

"...Traditionally, the raw sexual and economic facts of marriage have been politely concealed by superadded ideas such as romantic love and gallantry. In the years following the Second World War, such antiquated fashions were with increasing rudeness torn from the sexual act by fraudulent sex "scientists" and pornographers. But the economic realities have not similarly been dragged into the light of day. On the contrary, our prosperity has made it easy to downplay them even more than in the past.

An example of such polite concealment is found in the traditional etiquette with respect to greeting newly married couples. It was customary to say "congratulations" to the man, but never to the woman; to the bride one offered only "best wishes." The pretense was that the man was receiving an unmerited windfall. The reality, of course, is that the man assumes the principal burden in marriage. For women, it is an economic bonanza.

One factor in the disintegration of marriage and sex roles is that, spoiled by prosperity, women actually came to believe the chivalrous pretense and forgot the underlying economic reality. They expect men to be grateful for the opportunity to support them. ... It is a case of gallantry being abused by its beneficiaries. Under such circumstances, men cannot simply go on behaving in the old manner as though nothing were wrong. It is incumbent upon them to fight back against the forces arrayed against them, in part by emphasizing some home truths about the economic realities of marriage. Perhaps it is time for young men to stop paying for dates and coyly explain that they are "saving their wallets" for marriage. If that sounds cynical to a traditional sensibility, my answer is that such cynicism may simply be the price for reestablishing the natural family as the basis of our civilization." -- F. Roger Devlin, Home Economics II

”In truth, women are no more “independent” than they ever were, but because they’ve transferred the job of protecting and caring for them from the men they personally know to the State, they can pretend to themselves that they no longer need men. Modern women are as “independent” as a tropical fern in a greenhouse in Iceland. All that’s changed is that men, who still do all the dirty, dangerous jobs that must be done, and pay all the taxes and alimony and child-care payments, and fight the wars, etc. etc., that enable women to have the comfortable world they want, no longer get the respect we used to get in return. In the long run, this is a recipe for disaster. We may be stupid, but we’re not harmless.” -- Philalethes #27 – In the Battle of the Sexes, If She Wins, She Loses

Click for "The Amazon Women (The Science of Why Males Exist)"

”Women only have what rights we give them. The real core of the problem with women is other men. The men who open their wallets in a snivelling desire to get laid. The men who pass foolish draconian laws to solve problems that don’t exist. The men who promote women in return for sexual favours. The men who marry obviously inferior women. And most of all, the men who swallow the most outrageous of lies, rather than bother to think critically about what is happening both to them and everyone around them.

The bottom line is women have no real power, no intrinsic power. They are totally, completely and permanently dependant on men for power. This situation is deeply rooted in our biology and is not going to change just because some wacko broads think it should. We created this hobgoblin ourselves, feed it and keep it alive despite its obviously odious nature. The very moment we stop, it will evaporate in a puff of smoke. Women know this. Their biggest fear is we will wake up and know it too. -- The Most Feminacentrist Statement of the Twentieth Century

Click for "The Liberation of Men"

”…there is no equity between the sexes. They are indispensable one to another, but one is the leader and the other led. The ram is the master of the ewe; the reverse would be an aberration and monstrosity. The pride of the American women will bring about a reaction; for whatever these ladies are they owe to man. If the latter wearies of his generosity and leaves them to their own merits, the expiatory plunge will oblige them to measure the immensity of their ingratitude.

Nature has willed the subordination of woman. Civilized man dignifies his companion, submits willingly to grace, sweetness, frailty, creates for her the right to protection, gives her a privileged place. But the condition is such that, if she denies the benefaction and claims to have earned what has been given to her and to be indebted to no one, her benefactor may bring this course to an abrupt end.

The illusion consists in this: superiority constitutes a moral duty on the part of the superior towards the inferior, but inferiority does not constitute any legal right on the part of the inferior over the superior. Generosity is beautiful and noble, but it is optional; the cripple who demands that he should he carried dispels one's desire to aid him. Man enjoys protecting woman, but when woman imperatively summons him to serve and protect her, he whom an entreaty would have softened loses his inclination at once.

By substituting the legal sphere for the moral sphere, the emancipation of women will desiccate society, as legal charity destroys real charity, as love by command would sterilise the marriage-bed. -- In asking more than civil equality and economic equality, women are playing a dangerous game. Equality in services will be demanded of them, and this will serve them right.” -- The Intimate Journal of Henri Amiel, August 8, 1876


"...That woman is by nature intended to obey is shown by the fact that every woman who is placed in the unnatural position of absolute independence at once attaches herself to some kind of man, by whom she is controlled and governed; this is because she requires a master. If she is young, the man is a lover; if she is old, a priest." -- Arthur Schopenhauer - On Women (1851)
.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.

Social Strategy: Why Men Shouldn't Argue With Women

.

Dominating Clock -- by Mathieu of Boulogne, 1295 A.D.

This female clock is really driving me mad, for her quarrelsome din doesn't stop for a moment. The tongue of a quarrelsome woman never tires of chiming in. She even drowns out the sound of the church bell. A nagging wife couldn't care less whether her words are wise or foolish, provided that the sound of her own voice can be heard. She simply pursues her own ends; there's not a grain of sense in what she says; in fact she finds it impossible to have a decent thought. She doesn't want her husband to be the boss and finds fault with everything he does. Rightly or wrongly, the husband has no choice: he has to put up with the situation and keep his mouth shut if he wants to remain in one piece. No man, however self disciplined or clear-sighted he may be, can protect himself adequately against this. A husband has to like what the wife likes, and disapprove of what she hates and criticize what she criticizes so that her opinions appear to be right. So anyone who wishes to immolate himself on the altar of marriage will have a lot to put up with. Fifteen times, both day and night, he will suffer without respite and he will be sorely tormented. Indeed, I believe that this torture is worse than the torments of hell, with its chains, fire, and iron.

Men and women are after different things when they “debate.
.
Men tend to, but not always, hold the truth to be the decider of the debate. (Manginas excepted – thus the name). The man who illustrates the truth the best, is generally considered the winner of a debate. Women, not so much. And don’t forget, women scoff at our “school yard rules.” Nothing seems sillier to a woman than the male “code.” When women fight/argue, there are no rules she adheres to. Women decide who “wins” a debate by who has been the snotty-mouthiest and by who emotionally manipulates the other into submission. The truth matters not a bit to women.

"If men are always more or less deceived on the subject of women, it is because that they forget that they and women do not speak altogether the same language, and that words have not the same weight or the same meaning for them, especially in questions of feeling. Whether from shyness or precaution or artifice, a woman never speaks out her whole thought, and moreover what she herself knows of it is but a part of what it really is. Complete frankness seems to be impossible to her, and complete self-knowledge seems to be forbidden her. If she is a sphinx to us, it is because she is a riddle of doubtful meaning even to herself. She has no need of perfidy, for she is mystery itself. A woman is something fugitive, irrational, indeterminable, illogical, and contradictory. A great deal of forbearance ought to be shown her, and a good deal of prudence exercised with regard to her, for she may bring about innumerable evils without knowing it, capable of all kinds of devotion, and of all kinds of treason, "monstre incompréhensible,'' raised to the second power, she is at once the delight and the terror of men." -- The Intimate Journal of Henri Amiel, Dec. 26, 1868

Here's a comparisson that might make it more clear how this works:

Men love to watch sports. They will spend hours watching men kick balls, shoot pucks, pot golf balls etc. etc. They will memorize stats, and they will see strategy everywhere in a game of sports. Men positively thrive upon these things.

But women?

Not so much.

However, when women watch Soap Operas, they do the same things as men watching sports – except they do it for social strategy. Women see social strategy everywhere in soaps… how Kathy manipulated her love interest David into lying to his wife Ruth, causing them to have a big argument, driving David right into Kathy’s loving arms… and the affair begins.

Social Strategy.

That's why soap operas are popular with women. It's what Cosmo magazine is chock full of: How to socially manipulate people.

Socially manipulating people is what women do.

In fact, it is one of the only things they do.

"Truth" as men know it does not exist in the same way for women. Women are "herd creatures" and thus women find "truth" or right and wrong through the consensus of the herd. It is what the herd believes is correct that women believe is "truth." Thus you see women are much more attuned to eternally changing notions such as fashion, or how they use social proofing - the consensus of whom the herd finds a sexually desirable man - to decide for their individual selves which man they find sexy. Men simply "know" what they find sexy in a mate, but women find men sexy because of other women's sexual preferences.

"... Women may have happy ideas, taste, and elegance, but they cannot attain to the ideal. The difference between men and women is like that between animals and plants. Men correspond to animals, while women correspond to plants because their development is more placid and the principle that underlies it is the rather vague unity of feeling. When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated--who knows how?" -- G.F. Hegel

When women argue, they are not trying to find the objective truth but rather are after manipulating the other(s) into feeling unified with them towards their opinion. If the herd believes 1+1=3, then it is correct - because the herd believes it is so. If tomorrow, the herd believes 1+1=1, then that will be correct - because the herd believes it is so. It is men who insist upon the objective truth - based on principle and universality - and continue to argue 1+1=2, no matter how much you cows moo at me. Women are not after finding the correct answer, but rather they are after manipulating others into feeling they are right and their opponent is wrong. In other words, they are socially manipulating their opponent when they argue, rather than seeking the actual, objective truth.

- The consciousness of how one stands with other people occupies a relatively larger and larger part of the mind, the lower one goes on the scale of culture.  Woman's intuition, so fine in the sphere of personal relations, is seldom first-rate in the way of mechanics.  Hence Dr.  Whately's jest, "Woman is the unreasoning animal, and pokes the fire from the top." -- William James, Principles of Psychology

I think one of the absolute best things men can do with women is follow the advice of so many of those “misogynists” of old, and view women as “the most responsible teenager in the house.”

Of course, it is not actually that they are children. It is more likely that they do not develop the same sense of principle and justice to navigate the world, because society enables them not to have to. Regardless of whether they are or not, I think in almost every aspect – from seduction to simple conversations – a man is advantaged by continually reminding himself that “women are teenagers.” They exist somewhere in between child and man.

This does not mean a man can be foolish and disregard women as harmless children, for as Schopenhauer observes, women are naturally furnished with the tools of dissimulation - the behaviours akin to a pool hustler - and this feature is innate in women and is found as easily in the stupid as well as the very clever. Men should be very guarded when in an argument with someone who naturally dissembles.

"So that it will be found that the fundamental fault in the character of women is that they have no “sense of justice .” This arises from their deficiency in the power of reasoning already referred to, and reflection, but is also partly due to the fact that Nature has not destined them, as the weaker sex, to be dependent on strength but on cunning; this is why they are instinctively crafty, and have an ineradicable tendency to lie. 
For as lions are furnished with claws and teeth, elephants with tusks, boars with fangs, bulls with horns, and the cuttlefish with its dark, inky fluid, so Nature has provided woman for her protection and defense with the faculty of dissimulation and all the power which Nature has given to man in the form of bodily strength and reason has been conferred on woman in this form. Hence, dissimulation is innate in woman and almost as characteristic of the very stupid as of the clever. Accordingly, it is as natural for women to dissemble at every opportunity as it is for those animals to turn to their weapons when they are attacked; and they feel in doing so that in a certain measure they are only making use of their rights. Therefore a woman who is perfectly truthful and does not dissemble is perhaps an impossibility. This is why they see through dissimulation in others so easily; therefore it is not advisable to attempt it with them. From the fundamental defect that has been stated, and all that it involves, spring falseness, faithlessness, treachery, ungratefulness, and so on. In a court of justice women are more often found guilty of perjury than men. It is indeed to be generally questioned whether they should be allowed to take an oath at all." -- Arthur Schopenhauer, On Women, 1851

I can well understand why in the old days, when there were such things as "gentleman's clubs," that even all of the staff were male. Once a woman enters into group of men, the group automatically becomes feminized.

It also makes perfectly good sense to me why religions such as Christianity try to remove women from philosophizing about their doctrines and they state that women are not allowed to speak in the church nor hold office or authority over men. They naturally lead away from the Truth. Just because a woman says something that makes sense once, is no guarantee that the next thing out of her mouth also makes sense... and they all, by human nature, put the female's needs before the male, and manipulate away from the Truth with the ease, taking men along with them like the Pied Piper. Buddhism also says that women cannot become Buddhas for much the same reasons.

Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Truth"

When discussing matters, men and women are not even after the same things.

Because women are based in relative truth, it doesn’t matter how often you pin them down, as soon as you do they create a new truth in their minds and just carry on – because her goal is not to find the Truth at all, but that is what the man she is arguing with is after and he thinks she is after Truth too.

Truth, as well as morals, are only important to women when it suits them. The instant the Truth conflicts with their agenda, they have no problems at all changing it and carrying on – because what they are really after is manipulating you. The most manipulative is “the winner.” The one who manipulates the most crapola upon the other is the one who walks away being “right.”

Truth matters not a bit in deciding who was “right.”

You can catch a woman dead to rights in a lie, like a child with cookie crumbs still stuck on the corner of her lips insisting she wasn’t in the cookie jar – it simply does not matter to them. They just create a new truth in their heads and carrying on as if nothing matters.

"...it is just such responses — citing a single, artfully mischaracterized example to “refute” a carefully made argument — that long ago led to the bit of male traditional wisdom that advises, “Never argue with a woman.” Because women don’t ordinarily engage in discourse to discover the truth — as men do, not always, but men can be held to it if confronted, while women will dodge (a.k.a. “change the subject”) — but merely to “win.” And “all’s fair in war and love.” “Love” here defined as any encounter between the sexes, and “all’s fair” because that’s how women fight" -- Philalethes #8 - When the Cow Rides the Bull, Priest, Watch Your Skull.

There’s really no point in trying to “convert” them. It matters not a bit to convert such a creature any more than it does good to convince three year olds Ron Paul is the right candidate for President.

Even the women that have been “converted” are simply incapable of rising above these things, and as soon as circumstances change, making her previous stance unsuitable for her, she rearranges the truth and carries on as if she has no clue to what you are talking about – nor can you hold her to what she said yesterday. So, what’s the point?

Click Pic for "A Guide to Birdwatching"

There was a very well-known Meritorious Mediocrus in the MRM a few years back. She had everyone bamboozled that she was “not like that.” She spoke and blogged and moralized and agreed and agreed and agreed… and all the men were happier than pigs in shit that there was, finally, such a good example of woman… they didn’t have to take women off the pedestal – not all of them, anyway. "Phew!"

However, suddenly a lot of shit hit the fan. (I don’t know the details, just bits and pieces which are not important). She got herself onto the divorce-conveyer belt.

“Shared- Parenting? Huh? What you talkin’ about, Willis? Unreasonable child support? But I neeeeeeeeed it!”

Yeah, uh huh. What a waste of time and effort for all the men who pedestalized her. She was no different than the rest and her “principles” were subject to change simply upon the convenience of where she was in life.

 - For woman the temptation to misuse cunning (for example, to deceive) corresponds to man's temptation to misuse power.  The fact that the woman's guilt is always more strongly emphasized than the man's is basically an indirect compliment to the woman, an admission of the degree to which she is the stronger sex in cunning. -- Woman/Man - from Kierkegaard's Journals

Click for "The Garden of Eden, Empty Vessels and Relative Truth"

Even in relationships with men, women are completely malleable. The girl you dated at 21, who screwed you over at 23, is not even the same person when you speak to her again at 28. This is because women are “like water seeking a container to give them their form.” Each time a woman gets together with a new man, it is based upon hypergamy – he becomes her new hero, and thus she completely adapts her morals and character to be his view of the ideal woman. When she grabs hold of the next branch, erm, man, all of her morals and character again change to adapt to be the new man’s ideal woman. When you look at it that way, how can one then ever assess a woman’s “true character?” It doesn’t exist.

There is no point in arguing with them, and there is no point in having their input into Men's Issues.Having a woman "help" with Men's Issues is like having a five year old "help" you put up wallpaper. No thanks!

"...the influence of the Lacedaemonian women has been most mischievous. The evil showed itself in the Theban invasion, when, unlike the women of other cities, they were utterly useless and caused more confusion than the enemy." -- The Politics of Aristotle: The Spartan Women

It is best for men simply to take a position and staunchly never budge. Do not bother explaining yourself to women; it is futile. Either they find your logic to be sound and they will conform themselves around you, or there is no further hope in converting her to your way of thinking. A man has to come from the attitude of "it's my way or the highway." A woman - or especially her friends - may call this asshole behaviour, simply because you are not willing to grovel like a servile worm for her approval, but deep down every woman loves this about a man. There is a difference between being an asshole and being confident and assertive.

We have entirely different strategies and entirely different views of reality. It’s best to just chase them off so the men can get back to business.

Interview with a Womenfirster: Phyllis Schlafly

Click Pic for "The Wife of Noble Character"

Jack Kammer: What if I was the kind of man, like a lot of men who have confided to me, who is sick to death of the corporate world and in a heartbeat would stay home to take care of their kids because they love them so much and they know the business world is a crock?

Phyllis Schlafly:… That’s their problem. As I look around the world about me, I just don’t find there are many [women] who want the so-called non-traditional relationships. – a radio interview, WCVT-FM (now WTMD), Towson University, Maryland, January 5, 1989

Off to the koffee-klatch with you and the other clucking hens!
. 

Previous / Index / Next

.

.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further Reading:
Tom Pry's Wife -- by Charles Lamb, (1775-1834)
Wisdom and the Weather -- by G.K. Chesterton
.
  - Woman's reflection is almost overpowering to her; this is why it is so dangerous for a woman to reflect.  A woman's reflection usually goes like this: if she has won on one point or another, she is so overcome herself that she cannot avoid gazing at her victory - and then she stumbles.

.      The man is more essentially character; and character consists not so much in winning as in continuing after having won, keeping in character.  The woman endures something and counts on the approaching moment when she can take a deep breath.  This moment is precisely the danger.  Character is essentially continuity. -- Man/Woman, Kierkegaard's Journals
.

The Suffragettes versus The Republic

.
Feminism started as an organized movement in 1848 at the Seneca Falls Convention on Women's rights, which had an attendence of around 300 people. It was here that the Declaration of Sentiments put down the foundations of women's demands. It's principle author was Elizabeth Cady Stanton and it was signed by 100 people: 68 women and 32 men.

I'm going to post this in full, since I will be referring to various aspects of it in later sections:

The Declaration of Sentiments, Seneca Falls, N.Y., 1848
.
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of those who suffer from it to refuse allegiance to it, and to insist upon the institution of a new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled.

The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Sentiments:

1 - He has never permitted her to exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise.

2 - He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.

3 - He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men - both natives and foreigners.

4 - Having deprived her of this first right as a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.

5 - He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.

6 - He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.

7 - He has made her morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master - the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.

8 - He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women - the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of a man, and giving all power into his hands.

9 - After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.

10 - He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration.

11 - He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction, which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.

12 - He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education - all colleges being closed against her.

13 - He allows her in church, as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.

14 - He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man.

15 - He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God.

16 - He has endeavored, in every way that he could to destroy her confidence in her own powers, to lessen her self-respect, and to make her willing to lead a dependent and abject life.
. 
Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half the people of this country, their social and religious degradation—in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed, and fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that they have immediate admission to all the rights and privileges which belong to them as citizens of these United States.

In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule; but we shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our object. We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the State and national Legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the pulpit and the press in our behalf. We hope this Convention will be followed by a series of Conventions, embracing every part of the country.
.

***

.
Despite being later known as the "suffragettes," at the time of the Declaration of Sentiment's signing, "the vote" was considered the most controversial of the sentiments, in-so-far as it even made some of the signers hesistant to endorse the document in its entirety.

Click Pic for "The Truth About Misogyny"

I can see people's reactions already,, "Aha! Proof of the misogynist old days!"   
No, it wasn't really "misogyny" that was behind it - not entirely anyways. You have to keep in mind that this was 1848 and America's War for Independence had finished only 65 years earlier. It was about as fresh in the minds of the people as the Second World War is to us in the modern day. Many people's parents had lived through the American Revolution and their grandparents had fought in it. The people of that time were quite aware of the principles behind the Declaration of Independence and the nature of their rights under the framework of a Constitutional Republic.

Thus, the very first of the sentiments - that man has never let woman exercise her inalienable right to the elective franchise - is making a patently false claim.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- The Declaration of Independence

Voting is NOT an "unalienable" (inalienable?) right - which means a natural right, or, what it means to be a person. Voting is a legal right, and nothing more - it's like being able to obtain a driver's license once you reach the age of 16.

"While natural rights are innately part of being human, and exist prior to any culture or society, legal rights are those that are acknowledged and protected by a given government. So, in the Founders’ understanding, natural rights would include the right to life itself, the right to think for oneself, the right to self-defense, and the right to keep what one has worked honestly for, among others. Legal rights would include the right to vote, the specific methods by which fair trials are conducted, and copyrights and patents–all of which might be defined and protected in different ways in different countries or states, based on their particular customs and beliefs." -- Documents of Freedom
.
When the Declaration of Sentiments was created in 1848, universal man-suffrage wasn't even in place yet. Landless white men didn't get the vote until around the Civil War and black men got suffrage in 1870. In Canada, universal male-suffrage was granted in the 1850's, but then rescinded with property restrictions being re-introduced in the 1860's. Also, certain other groups were often denied the vote for a variety of reasons, such as Catholics (because of their allegiance to the Pope). Plus, some states had granted women the right to vote already - New Jersey, for example, allowed women to vote from 1790 to 1807, whereas in the colony of Canada, New Brunswick rescinded women's right to vote in 1848. This quite clearly indicates that women having the vote was not an unpracticed concept.
.
"Voting was long a limited privilege, as Harvard historian, Alexander Keyssar shows in his book, "The Right to Vote." In 1790, most of the original 13 states restricted the vote to white males who either owned property or paid local taxes. Perhaps 60-70% of white men could vote, Keyssar says. By the Civil War, most property restrictions had disappeared.

But there was constant tension between the demands to expand the electorate and more restrictive pressures: selfish fears by ruling elites. But even in 1824, not all states allowed citizens to vote directly for president; some state legislatures still selected presidential electors. 

Later, war often served to expand voting. Congress passed the 19th Amendment (guaranteeing women's right to vote) in 1919, partly because women had helped so much in World War I. 

In the Vietnam War, Congress lowered the voting age to 18; it was hard to ask soldiers to die if they couldn't vote. After the Civil War, blacks received the right to vote via the 15th Amendment, ratified in 1870." -- Robert Samuelson, "An Inalienable Right to Vote - Right?", Milwaukee Journal Sentinal, Oct. 28, 2004   

It's odd that all of the talk about "suffrage" is in regard to "women's right to vote," when the fact is that during the entire 19th Century, there was a long, ongoing debate about suffrage in general.

The fact is, the USA was not founded as a democracy in the first place - and universal suffrage was certainly not the intention, although that's what we more or less have ended up with.

Shortly after the US Constitution was completed, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what kind of government they had created. His reply to her was, "A republic, if you can keep it."
Although a republic means government that derives authority from the people (res publica in Latin), it does so by the rule of law, not through democracy. In fact, America's Founding Fathers mentioned the word "democracy" nowhere in their founding documents - although they did discuss it elsewhere afterwards. Democracy is mob-rule and has only the majority's consensus to decide right and wrong - without lawful principles protecting the minority.

"It had been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience had proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." – Alexander Hamilton, June 21, 1788

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." – Benjamin Franklin
.
The Consent of the Governed
.
Sentiments #2 and #3 are also directly related to the vote:

2 - He has compelled her to submit to laws, in the formation of which she had no voice.

3 - He has withheld from her rights which are given to the most ignorant and degraded men - both natives and foreigners.

These two charges are indeed true - although it must be noted that as shown above, many men also had to submit to laws in the formation of which they had no voice. And for that matter, you nor I had much of a say in the creation of the Constitution either, nor the plethora of laws that are on the books - I didn't vote to have murder and theft be against the law, did you?. If we had to have each person approve the law before we can expect them to submit to it, we would be holding referendums on a regular basis simply to keep laws valid that were in place before the current generation of people were even alive - and we don't do that, do we?

We have principles which are regarded to be timeless. Since we have the inalienable right to life, we don't allow murder. Since a man has the right to keep what he has honestly worked for, we have principles regarding private property and theft. We don't need to keep voting on these things because they are timeless principles. The reason why the Founding Fathers attached these inalienable rights to "the Creator" (The Absolute) is because what God gives only God can take away. If we ever remove "the Creator" from these documents, I sincerely hope they will declare I get my rights from the Easter Bunny rather than the State and its subjective laws, for that's how the constitutions of totalitarian countries are worded. In a free country, you don't need to have a vote to have inalienable rights - those rights are "higher truths" than the government's subjective truths and civil laws. The Founders framed things specifically to protect the people from the government's subjectivity, which it had used to overwhelm the American colonies with laws and taxes and bureaucracies which did not benefit them. In other words, it was a fundamental part of what America's War for Independence was about!

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it,and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." -- United States Declaration of Independence

The consent of the governed is not exercised through the vote. The consent of the governed is granted by the right to alter or abolish a tyrannical form of government. In otherwords, to hold a revolution and shoot everyone in the government - which is why Americans are armed to the eyeballs by the Constitution.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. 

"Yeah, alright. You can govern me... but if you piss me off... POW!"

...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson
.

Although the suffragettes were perfectly within their rights to make the demands of society they were making, they were blatantly untruthful to claim that the vote itself was an inalienable right. The consent of the governed is given from the barrel of a gun, not through the vote.   

This ordering of truth is why the Founders still wouldn't have given women the vote. They did not adhere to the notion that "gender was a social construct" like we've been propagandized to believe today.

"The appointment of a woman to office is an innovation for which the public is not prepared, nor I." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Were our state a pure democracy there would still be excluded from our deliberations [...] women, who, to prevent depravation of morals and ambiguity of issues, should not mix promiscuously in gatherings of men." -- Thomas Jefferson
.

The Founding Fathers, remember, established their republic based upon the ideas of John Locke, who philosophised upon an ordering of truth inspired by the Absolute Truth of the Bible, where the lower truths must be contained by the higher truths so that we remain anchored to reality. 
.

Click Pic to read "The Masculine Principle"

1 - God's Law/Absolute Truth
2 - Natural Law/Objective Truth = Masculine Principle
2 - Civil Law/Subjective Truth = Feminine Principle
.
If a natural law contradicts the Absolute Truth, it is a false law. And if a civil law contradicts a natural law, it too is a false law. 

But a democracy, you see, is very much the political embodiment of the feminine principle. Like all things female - from herds & hives, to social proofing & harems,  to attention to ever-changing fashions and a fixation with gossip, and even to co-ordinating the rhythym of their menstrual cycles to eachother when living in close proximaty to one another - they all derive their truth from opinions and consensus. And what better illustrates this than the mob rule of democracy and its subjective truth?

Click Pic for "Useless Idiots Play Checkers, Marxists Play Chess"

Here's how the philosopher G.F. Hegel put it:

"... When women hold the helm of government, the state is at once in jeopardy, because women regulate their actions not by the demands of universality but by arbitrary inclinations and opinions. Women are educated--who knows how?" -- G.F. Hegel

A republic based on universality and principles which are protected by laws, is the political embodiment of the masculine principle - the principle which created and maintains civilization. You can see this in the Constitution itself, which is designed to protect a citizen's rights regardless of what the populace votes for. The "principles" of the republic (masculine principles) are to be held in higher regard than the current voting whims of the day (feminine principles). Why would you "un-order" this at the outset by placing the feminine principle at an equal level to the male principle? You wouldn't base a republic on known successful principles only to immediately subject it to the very force that would remove such principles.
 
You can see from the very first of the sentiments, as discussed above, that the Declaration of Sentiments is already trying to subvert the objective truth with the subjective truth. As we go through this list of sentiments over the next sections, I'll be pointing out more falsehoods - all of which actually strengthen the case for not allowing women to decide with their subjectivity which objective truths society ought to follow. 

A further reason for voting restrictions (including on the men) was so those who relied upon others for their very survival would be prevented from directing their actions legally. A welfare recipient, for example, should not be able to vote for the productive classes to give him more free benefits. When the parasite leads the host, it destroys both organisms. But when the host leads the parasite, both organisms can survive - it just takes an ordering, like the ordering of truth shown in the diagram of the Russian dolls above. 
.
We know from the research of John Lott and Lawrence Kenny's study titled, "Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?" that indeed, women, who tend to vote for their collective security, grew the government far more than men did, who tend to vote for individualism and freedom.
.
"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one" ~ Benjamin Franklin

I regularly read financial and politically focused blogs and often it is pointed how, since the advent of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the dollar has lost 96% of its value. This is true - and a significant portion of the debt they created from doing this has gone to fund vast government bureaucracies and welfare entitlements that we simply can't afford, thus why we keep borrowing money from the Central Bankers to fund our defecits. 
.

. 
"Democracy is the road to Socialism" -- Karl Marx 
.
What I rarely see pointed out, however, is this exponential rise in government spending also co-incides with women being given the vote in 1919. The majority of government bureaucracies, educational institutions and medical-care facilities are staffed by women - in fact, I've read that 70% of government employees (all earning 30% more than the private sector can afford to pay them - plus benefits!) are women. And, the majority of tax dollars spent on welfare programs, healthcare and other such government services also goes to women (something like 65% - aside from maternity issues). Yet, it's the dreaded, misogynist, racist, white males working in the actually productive private sector that are providing over 65% of the tax dollars to keep the whole system afloat. Doesn't that sound like the parasites leading the host to you? 
 
"Give us suffrage and we'll give you Socialism," quipped Susan B. Anthony.
"Give us Socialism and we'll give you the vote!," replied Eugene V. Debs.  
(Eugene V. Debs was a 5-time Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America)

How the framework for this was laid down by the suffragette movement's undermining of the nuclear family with points 4 to 8 of the Declaration of Sentiments' will be explored in the next section.   
. 

Previous / Index / Next

.

.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
. 
“Remember, Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself! There never was a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’” -- Samuel Adams
. 
“...democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” -- James Madison
.
“Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos.” -- John Marshall, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, 1801-1835
.

. 

Previous / Index / Next

.

.

The Suffragettes versus The Patriarchy

.

Click Pic to Read "The Declaration of Sentiments"

In the last section we examined points 1 to 3 of the Declaration of Sentiments and how the suffragette movement's demand for the "unalienable" (inalienable?) right to vote was against the concept of the Republic formed by America's Founding Fathers. America was never intended to be a democracy but adhered to principles which were the political embodiment of the masculine principle and the ordering of truth as put forth by John Locke.

As we carry on through the 16 sentiments made in this document, which is obviously based upon the United States' Declaration of Independence itself (since its preample is almost a word for word copy of it) we are presented with the 4th sentiment:

4 - Having deprived her of this first right as a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.

When I looked at this point, I struggled a bit whether to include it in the last section, which was about the nature of the State and the difference between inalienable rights and legal rights, or whether it should be included in this section - which will deal much more with the notion of "equality" in society. It belongs in both because we first must clarify what is exactly meant by this statement.

Although the first three points of the Declaration of Sentiments are in regard to the vote, and this is what Elizabeth Cady Stanton is referring to as the "first right of a citizen," it's already been shown that voting is not an inalienable right, but a legal one.

The phrase "a stopped clock is right twice a day" comes to mind here, because although she was wrong about the vote, she actually is right to say "the first right is equality" - and in fact, she is perfectly valid when, in the beginning of her drawing off the Declaration of Independence, she only makes the single alteration of inserting "and women" into it:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; -- The Declaration of Sentiments.

Our "first right" is that we are all created equal, but this is not the kind of "50-50 quota system" of equality we think of today. No. This equality is another of those "unalienable" rights which exist outside of the State.

"While natural rights are innately part of being human, and exist prior to any culture or society, legal rights are those that are acknowledged and protected by a given government. So, in the Founders’ understanding, natural rights would include the right to life itself, the right to think for oneself, the right to self-defense, and the right to keep what one has worked honestly for, among others. Legal rights would include the right to vote, the specific methods by which fair trials are conducted, and copyrights and patents–all of which might be defined and protected in different ways in different countries or states, based on their particular customs and beliefs." -- Documents of Freedom

Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Republic"

The equality referenced to in the Declaration of Independence is saying that all men (and indeed women) are equal before The Creator. Therefore all the rest of the unalienable rights granted by Him - such as the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness - are applicable to everyone because it is part of being a human being - and women, I've heard, are part of the human race. This is not the same as "the right to vote," or "the right to an education" or "the right to free healthcare," because those are legal rights provided by the State - and which the State can take away. Unalienable rights exist outside of the State - therefore the State has no authority over them, which is actually the point of the Declaration of Independence making such a statement.

You are not guaranteed any other equality than that of: before the Creator, we are all seen as equally human... because he created us. Therefore, all the things that are part of being human, the government is prohibited from trying to control, for it is not their right to do so - but only the Creator's. 

It is not, however, an unalienable right to have civil and legal equality. If it were, five year old children would be permitted to drive their cars to the voting polls. We don't allow that because they obviously are not capable of doing such things. A five year old child is, however, as equal before "The Creator" as any other human being.

Phew! I'm glad we got that out of the way!

As we carry on through the 16 sentiments made in the Declaration of Sentiments, you will see that points 5 to 12 are in regard to women's position in marriage, the workplace, and education. While a lot of these points seem reasonable to us in the modern day, things were different back in 1848 when the sentiments were written and under closer examination, it was not entirely unreasonable for people to be opposed to their demands.
.
The Declaration of Sentiments:
.
5 - He has made her, if married, in the eye of the law, civilly dead.

6 - He has taken from her all right in property, even to the wages she earns.

7 - He has made her morally, an irresponsible being, as she can commit many crimes with impunity, provided they be done in the presence of her husband. In the covenant of marriage, she is compelled to promise obedience to her husband, he becoming, to all intents and purposes, her master - the law giving him power to deprive her of her liberty, and to administer chastisement.
.

***

.
Point five declares women were civilly dead in marriage. This was no doubt true, since all the legal titles went to the husband and even the woman's last name changed to show she was now part of a new family. The point of marriage is to become "one flesh" - to become a family unit - the only system of "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" that has ever worked! The family is pure Socialism, but aside from perhaps extended family, it has never worked at any level higher than this. You'll notice that Socialist countries also don't adhere much to individualism. Private property is appropriated in Socialism for "the Greater Good" - if the concept of private property is present at all. The same thing happens in the family unit.

Click Pic for "Woman: The Most Responsible Teenager in the House?"

And let's also be clear here: She voluntarily entered into the marriage contract. She chose her husband, she chose to exchange vows with him, and she chose to leave a life of spinsterhood and civil autonomy behind.

It's been a long time since arranged marriages were the norm for anyone but royalty in our culture - and it certainly wasn't the case in 1848 that women were brought kicking and screaming to the altar by their evil fathers, forcing them to marry ugly frogs.

It's the same as volunteering for the army means you agree to submit to the authority of your commanding officers. You are willfully entering into a hierarchal system. The private cannot lead the general. The employee cannot lead the employer. The wife cannot lead the husband, and the child cannot lead the parent. 

Point six - that he has taken from her all rights to property, even to the wages she earns - is something that benefited women in marriage far more than men. As has already been discussed, the point of marriage is to become "one." If wives would be allowed to keep their property and wages outside of the marriage, then logically it extends that husbands should be permitted to do so as well.

Click Pic for "Sex Sells (Hypergamy Explained)"

Women, however, are hypergamous - they tend to "marry up" rather than down. In most cases, marriage was an economic bonanza for a woman because she joined her far lesser assets with his much more substantantial wealth - and his future ability to create ever more wealth. Holding all property together meant that in practice, "the pool of marital assets" would be substantially contributed to mostly by the husband - all of which the wife would have access to during his life, and title to after his death. It wouldn't take you too long to decide to co-join your assets with Bill Gates, would it?

Also, keep in mind that in 1848 society had not yet been propagandized into believing "Gender is a Social Construct" and they pretty much acknowledged there were innate differences between the sexes. (It's pretty hard to live on a farm and believe anything but!). As has been pointed out before - both in Rome because of their dowry laws, and in Sparta because of dowry and inheritance laws, when their cultures allowed women to hold property outside of marriage, divorce rose, birthrates plummeted, and the culture collapsed. Obviously there is something about structuring marital holdings under the male that works!      

Point seven can hardly be made into a case for the oppression of women at the hands of men. Let me get this straight. You breaking the law and me doing the time in jail for it is me oppressing you? Have a look at how this man oppressed his wife:

Sends Husband To Jail To Aid Suffrage Cause -- The Milwaukee Journal, Sept. 21, 1912
.
Mrs. Mark Wilks, whose husband is in jail because she refuses to pay her taxes, is credited with discovering a new and formidable weapon for the suffragettes. The suffragettes are generally women of property and they will follow Mrs. Wilkes example immediately, it is said.

The plan will work only in cases of husbands whose wives have independent incomes. Nor will it work in cases where the husbands pay taxes on their wives' incomes. Some husbands, like Wilks, haven't enough money to pay their wives taxes. Suffragette husbands who can pay are counted on to refuse to do so. Thus will a large portion of the Englishmen with suffragette wives be in jail shortly.

Under the married women property act a husband has no jurisdiction over his wife's property and income. Under the income tax he is responsible for her taxes. If the taxes are not paid, the husband, not the wife, is imprisoned. Mrs. Wilks refused to pay her income tax - $185 - and her husband was locked up. He will spend the rest of his life in prison unless his wife pays or the law is changed. When at liberty he is a teacher in Clapton.

.

After they changed the property laws, splitting husband from wife, they still didn't remove the responsibilities from the husband.

Click Pic for "A Woman's Right to Choose"

Can you imagine it? Your wife inherits a $5 million estate that requires $50,000/year in taxes. You make only $45,000/yr, and when your wife refuses to pay the taxes, you go to jail for tax-evasion on her behalf. You have no way out. You have no right to take the funds out of her estate to cover the expenses. It kind of makes sense why all property was put into the husband's name, wouldn't you agree?
.
As you can tell, I agree with Elizabeth Cady Stanton - that women are considered morally irresponsible beings and shouldn't be allowed to break laws with impunity, then have her husband blamed for it. But society just doesn't work this way - and it never has!

Society bends over backwards to try and lay blame at the hands of men rather then women - even today:

- If a man cheats on his wife he's a lout for betraying her, but if the wife cheats on the husband, he's a lout for not keeping her happy.

- When a man hires a prostitute, society tries to consider her a victim and him the criminal. This not only occured before women's suffrage (As is illustrated in The Fraud of Feminism) but it still occurs today. Canada, for example, has been tripping over itself lately to "help prostitutes" by increasingly laying the blame on men for using their services. We do this nowhere else but when men and women are together. For example, we don't consider drug dealers to be the innocent party, and lay all the blame on the college kid trying to score a joint. But we actually do this with prostitution, and have been ever since the government stuck its nose into the oldest profession.

- When Lorena Bobbit viciously attacked and mutilated her husband by severing his penis as he slept, society went out of its way to excuse her. Not only was she not properly prosecuted for her violent crime, but she was invited to appear on the Oprah Winfrey show and was hailed as a hero by feminists clear across the land. "Bobbit jokes" became all the rage of the 1990's. Could you ever imagine a man carving his wife's uterus out of her body while she slept being hailed as a hero and greeted with standing ovations? 
.
- We've had several cases over the last few years where men have been charged with rape for having sex with a woman who is intoxicated, even though she consented at the time. The exact same excuse, that he was intoxicated when they had sex too, is not a justifiable defense on his part, but instead he is held fully responsible for his actions. Furthermore, if this same woman got behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated, she would not be excused from her actions but considered to be responsible for them. But whenever it comes down to doling out justice between men and women, the blame is nearly always shifted to the man. Belfort Bax noted already a century ago in The Legal Subjection of Men that the only time it appears the legal system is capable of delivering justice to a woman is when she has harmed another woman.  

"Nature has given women so much power that the law has wisely given them little." -- Samuel Johnson
.
This is not so much a legal or social problem as a biological one rooted deep within us. We are naturally inclined to blame men over women - just as we naturally tend to blame parents when a child does something morally improper. Women are not only prosecuted for committing crimes less than men, when they're convicted they aren't held equally to account either:
.
"Men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts. females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted."
.

And make no mistake, it's not just the men that do this excusing of women. Men don't "impose" this upon women, as Elizabeth Cady Stanton suggests. In the case of Lorena Bobbit, it was the entire feminist movement which made excuses for her. In the more recent case of the Duke Lacrosse Team's Fake Rape Trial, every single person from the feminist movement to the Duke University's "80 Professors," to the media to the eventually disgraced District Attorney, Mike Nifong, all bent over backwards to blame men rather than examine where the fault actually was - with the woman. Even after it was shown she had committed several crimes and innocent men were purposefully being railroaded, she was hardly held accountable - in fact, she was offered assistance to help her out of her situation. 

It happened this way in Sparta too:
.
...in those states in which the condition of the women is bad, half the city may be regarded as having no laws. And this is what has actually happened at Sparta; the legislator wanted to make the whole state hardy and temperate, and he has carried out his intention in the case of the men, but he has neglected the women, who live in every sort of intemperance and luxury.
.
"...But, when Lycurgus, as tradition says, wanted to bring the women under his laws, they resisted, and he gave up the attempt." -- The Politics of Aristotle, The Spartan Women
.

Click Pic for "The Rule of Thumb for Wife-Beating Hoax"

So, if society can't keep women under control and will always be seeking to blame the man anyways, then the man ought to at least be empowered to have authority over her. You can't blame parents for not keeping their children under control if you remove any and all means of actually keeping them under control, can you?

This is the simple logic of hierarchy, the same as in the army. The general has authority over the colonel and the lieutenant has authority over the enlisted men. But the reverse is also true: the officer is held accountable more than the subordinates he commands.

Furthermore, unlike children, women seem to get enjoy getting a few smacks on the rear - so be it, as long as he doesn't use a rod thicker than his thumb.
.

***

.
8 - He has so framed the laws of divorce, as to what shall be the proper causes of divorce, in case of separation, to whom the guardianship of the children shall be given; as to be wholly regardless of the happiness of the women - the law, in all cases, going upon a false supposition of the supremacy of a man, and giving all power into his hands.

The eighth point is the one which undermines the ancient contract of marriage entirely. It is, in my opinion, THE most significant thing the suffragettes did - and it wasn't a good thing.

“I would die before I will give up the child to its father.” -- Susan B. Anthony, Quoted in Phyllis Chesler, Patriarchy: Notes of an Expert Witness (Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1994), p. 38.  

The ancient contract of marriage is not about romantic love - as Elizabeth Cady Stanton insinuates when she says divorce laws give no regard for women's happiness.

Click for "The Wife of Noble Character (Would Make Me a Sandwich!)"

These notions that men are obligated to make women "happy" are relatively recent. No, marriage was an economic contract between a man and a woman, whereby the man traded his lifetime's work of generating "excess resources" for children that are his own. In other words, he would have 100% presumed custody of any children produced from the woman's sexuality for the duration of their time together. It was about the concept of property rights, or in this case, of custody rights. The products of his wife's sexuality (children) became "his" and the products of his life's work became "hers."

I will be going into this again later in this chapter, so I will keep this short here.


Women have a natural right to have children - it's "unalienable" because it's part of what it is to be human. Women do not require society for it - nor the concept of marriage.

All they really need is a six pack of beer, a clearing in the bushes, and a sultry look in their eyes. Even if it was frowned upon in the past, it was still entirely possible for women to choose to have children outside of wedlock.

Click Pic for "The Fraud of Modern Marriage"

Marriage is a vehicle for men to have children - not women. When she "sells" her reproductive ability to the man, who pays for such ability with his lifetime of labour, his "unalienable right" to keep what he has honestly worked and paid for has been violated if she can retain custody of the children in divorce.   

A brief history of what happened is as follows: The (British) Custody of Infants Act of 1839 already gave judges some power to over-ride a father's custody rights in certain instances, particularly in establishing mother-custody for children under seven years old. By 1873, Parliament extended the age of mother-custody to sixteen years, effectively undermining father-custody altogether. (In some states, the age was thirteen). This is known as the Tender Years Doctrine, and although it was first established in Britain, it spread around the world fast as the British Empire was at its peak in the late 19th Century. The Tender Years Doctrine was similarly used in the USA as a principle in the courts to establish the arguments of parental custody. This is the beginning of the "Best Interests of the Child Doctrine," (something which is purely relative, whereas custody laws are exact and absolute) and we have been dealing with it ever since.

Also, while Elizabeth Cady Stanton claims this practice of father-custody was built on the presumption of the supremacy of man, this is another obfuscation of the truth. The reason why ancient marriage was structured that way is because of the hierarchy of how "love" works. It kind of goes like this:

Click Pic for "The Legend of the Selkie"

Men love women --> Women love children --> Children love puppies.

Men's love for women is greater than women's love for men, just like parental love for children is greater than children's love for their parents. The Bible indicates this concept when it commands men to love their wives, but commands wives to honour their husbands in return, just as children are commanded to honour their parents, not love them.

When children are placed in the position of 100% presumed custody of the father, it strengthens the weakest bond in the family - that between father and children. Fatherhood mostly doesn't exist in the animal world, while motherhood is positively everywhere. By attaching fathers and children directly to one another, the mother now equates her children with the father. If she divorces the father, she knows she will lose access to her children. Therefore, in order to maintain her love with her children she must also maintain her love with their father.

If one believed that men and women were the same, one might project the female behaviours of the present day, where women leave their husbands simply to "Eat, Pray, Love" whenever they please, as how men abused such rights in the past. However, this was not the case. Men's greater love for women than women have for men made it so the vast majority of men never tried to remove their wives from the children. However, after presumed custody was shifted from father to mother by around the 1870's, divorce rates began rising... and kept rising right up until the present day. 
. 

Click Pic for the free online book, "The Case for Father Custody" -- by Daniel Amneus

There were only a few thousand divorces annually in the mid-nineteenth century when divorce cost wives their children and Dad’s paycheck. This family stability began eroding as later nineteenth century divorce courts, under pressure from the rising feminist movement, began awarding child custody to mothers. -- Daniel Amneus, The Case for Father Custody, p360

“Between 1870 and 1920 the divorce rate rose fifteenfold, and by 1924 one marriage out of seven ended in divorce" -- James H. Jones, Alfred Kinsey: A Public/Private Life (New York: W. W. Norton, 1997), p.292.

Probably the one single largest problem of marriage and divorce today stems from the custody changes the suffragettes introduced a century and a half ago, when they undermined the ancient contract of marriage which had held marriages strong and divorce rates low throughout the West's long history. This was far more significant than anything the second wave feminists did with "no-fault divorce," but this will be explored in depth later in this chapter.
.

Previous / Index / Next

.

.