Feminism appears not so much dead as obsolete.

That is the good news. 

The bad news is that women are still being heavily indoctrinated with the view that the 70's feminists achieved great things for women.

And, as we know, they did not!

For example, one only has to look back over the past few centuries to realise that when women wanted to go out to work, they did!

If anything, 70s feminism retarded the progress of women with their gender-divisive policies and their family-breaking agendas.

Life is much more pleasant now for women both at work and in the home because of the progress in science and technology - which had nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with the natures and obsessions mostly of clever men - and because ordinary people were gradually able to loosen the grip over them exerted by the traditional sources of authority e.g. the state, the church, psychoanalysts and employers.

Millions of individual people chipped away at achieving these ends, in their own little way, and many other groups also took significant parts in the battle - e.g. trades unions, students, gays, racial groups, and, most influential of all, pop stars.

And yes, the feminists.

But their agenda was totally selfish and divisive, as it still is today.

Indeed, if the west had not been forced to spend so many billions upon billions of dollars having to cope with the negative consequences of feminism, we would have made much more progress by now.

 Women are just as overworked now as they ever were.

The streets are less safe for women than they were fifty years ago. There is more violence against women. Women are just as overworked now as they ever were. They are less likely to be able to hold on to their marriages. They are less able to afford not to have to work if they are married with children. And they are less likely to be cared for properly in old age.

It is also the case that I was actually alive well before the arrival of the 70s feminists. And there is absolutely no question in my mind that, for example, gays and blacks were, at the very least, often frowned upon - to put it mildly - but the same was not true of women.

For example, here in the UK during my childhood, young boys of the 50s and 60s were being brought up to respect women (open doors for them etc) to treat them kindly, and to take pains to look after their interests. This was the message that was constantly relayed to the growing youth from every quarter in the land - e.g. the media, the churches, the schools.

Nowadays, this might all sound rather 'silly', but the point is that women in those pre-feminist days were not seen as inferior beings to men, they were simply seen as different, more fragile, and worthy of greater consideration than men - and with definite talents of their own.

But this is not the image of the past that the feminists have ever wanted to portray. 

For example, they would prefer to describe the men of the 50s and 60s who brought up their youths in this 'silly' way as 'oppressors of women'!

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Think about it.

"Now you look here young AH. You open that door for that Lady. Offer your seat to that one over there. Don't you ever raise your hand against a woman. Go and help that woman carry her shopping bags."

And yet, according to feminists, these were the men of the 50s and 60s who hated women and oppressed them!

This is nothing but a pretty disgusting slur - and one that is still propagated throughout the west by feminists, women's studies teachers and the politically correct, all of whom continue to do their best to undermine and demonise men.

Can anyone really believe that women in those days were seen, by men, as being of a lower status than men?

Can anyone really believe that women in those days were seen, by men, as being of a lower status than men? Open the door for her. Give up your seat to her.  Pull the chair back for her so that she can be seated properly at the table without any effort on her part.. Stand up when she walks into the room. Rush over to the other side of the car and open the door so that she can get out. Walk on the side nearer the (dangerous) cars when walking together on the sidewalk. Raise your hat and bow slightly should you accidentally meet in the street. 

On and on it went.

Also, as a teenager during the late sixties, I, needless to say, made a great many friends - such was my beguiling nature. And I got to know many families.

In not one did I know of a father who ruled the roost at home. 

Not one!

This is not to say that this did not happen, and that there were no homes wherein the fathers did, in fact, rule their roosts. (Indeed, since that time, I have met quite a few people for whom this was definitely the case.) But my point is that this was clearly not the rule, by any means. And that, for every man who might have terrorised his family, there were probably just as many women, if not more, who did the same.

And so the notion that the husbands of the 50s and 60s were happily oppressing their wives until the feminists came along in the 70s is utter nonsense. It is pure fabrication.

Now, for all you youngsters out there who might still have some doubts about this, take the following leaf out of my book and do some research while sipping a beer.

Being something of an obsessive anti-feminist, whenever, perchance, a bit of old film footage appears on the TV screen, for any reason, my mind automatically disconnects from whatever topic happens to be under scrutiny at the time, and I focus, instead, solely on examining the faces and the demeanours of any men and women who appear in it, in order to answer the following questions.

Who looks happier in these old pieces of film - the men or the women?

Which gender appears to be the more relaxed, the more comfortable, the less harassed, the less worn, the better cared for?

Well, look for yourself while sipping that beer. 

Keep your eyes open. 

And see what you see!

Were women regarded as inferior to men?

14/10/02

USA "Women get short shrift in the court system. I don't think an injury to a woman has the same value in the court as an injury to a man."(NOTE: Link defunct)

Here we go again.

For years the feminists were squawking about the 'fact' that women received harsher sentences than men when it came to sentencing in the courts.

 it turned out that they were lying, as usual

And, of course, it turned out that they were lying, as usual. The objective research showed the complete opposite.

The trick that they usually employ is this one.

The women's groups come up with a load of hocus-pocus that makes men out to be better treated than women, or that they are far more abusive than is currently recognised. They base these lies on virtually anything that they can get their hands on.

Air will do.

Their feminist cronies in the media wet themselves with delight and publish the falsehoods with large headlines accompanied by exaggerated tales of female misery and woe. (See Spin Sisters by Paige McKenzie to see how feminists purposely and continually orchestrated such things right across the media.)

The public is outraged. The politicians are blackmailed (literally) into supporting their malicious causes both vocally and with funding. If they refuse, they are publicly and vociferously castigated as being closet supporters of violence against women and child abuse etc.

In the meantime, the men's groups have no funding to test or to counteract the 'research' and they do not have very much access to willing accomplices in the mainstream media. So there is no protest, and no public outrage at the feminist lies.

A few years later, with any luck, someone, somewhere, manages to prove that the feminist groups were lying all along, but it hardly gets a mention in the media. Besides which, it's too late. The damage has been done. The female population has been enraged successfully against men for a few years over the matter (and over all the other slanders against men that are running concurrently) the laws have quickly been changed to disadvantage men, and the feminists just keep coming up with other lies to replace them.

"Women get short shrift in the court system" ?

Hogwash!

Here is another example of the little tricks that feminists use to turn up the hatred towards men.

In certain parts of the Middle East (e.g. Iran) if you kill someone, you might have to pay blood money to your victim's family, as a form of compensation. Typically, the compensation for the death of a man is about twice the amount for the death of a woman.

This is outrageous, say the feminists. It just goes to show you how little valued are women.

A man is worth twice as much!

A man is worth twice as much!

But the truth of the matter is this.

In areas of mayhem and poverty today, a man is worth far more to the progress and survival of a family - or, indeed, of a nation - than is a woman. His greater strength, his greater mobility (e.g. his relative freedom from harassment and rape) his freedom from childbearing and a host of other advantages give him far greater power than does a woman have when negotiating with the world that exists outside of the family. And, of course, he will more likely have a job that brings in some money!

His loss will therefore put the family at a greater disadvantage - financially - than would the loss of a woman.

Financially, the man is worth more!

Rightly or wrongly, this is the case.

And so it is absolutely proper to adjust any compensation so that it better reflects the needs and the circumstances of the bereaved families.

And this means paying out more in compensation when a man in the family dies.

Furthermore, of course, it means that when the spouse of a man is killed, he only gets his hands on half the amount that a woman would get if her spouse was killed!

In other words, a bereaved woman gets paid more than a bereaved man!

But feminists would rather that nobody noticed this. And they do their best to discredit this well-meaning system by portraying it as something which devalues women.

And only malicious fraudsters who are out to deceive and to stir up hatred towards men could actually describe a mechanism which pays out more money to women than to men as an example of devaluing women!

And if you read more articles on this website you will discover that it does not matter what the facts and figures show, feminists will always twist them in such a way as to stir up hatred and antagonism towards men.

 a hatred of men is the very core of feminism.

Indeed, a hatred of men is the very core of feminism. And it is only when you really begin to understand this that the various pronouncements and behaviours of the feminists begin to make sense.

19/02/04

I came across this photo taken in 1904 of a long time married couple.

And whenever I see old photos or films of a documentary nature, I always scrutinise the faces and the demeanours of any human subjects that might be contained therein - especially if both the genders are present.

And I can tell you quite categorically that they usually do not portray anything that remotely suggests that women were any more oppressed than men.

If anything, the opposite seems to be true. And the above photo is quite a good example of this. Just look at their faces.

Of course, in the above photograph, the subjects were clearly posing, but if you look at old photographs or films wherein the subjects were not even aware that they were being visually recorded in some way (often to be found in 'crowded' scenes) you will see that the very same sorts of characteristics apply.

And women from the past, on the whole, look far happier and relaxed than do the men - who, in fact, often look fearful, stiff and downtrodden.

This is not to say that every picture reveals a similar profile. There are certainly photos that give the impression of men domineering their women and their families. But there seem to be far more that reveal women to be holding the upper hand.

And below are two further photographs for which the subjects clearly posed. Notice how the men are shoved to the back of the picture as if they did not count for very much.

And this was clearly the 'convention'.

How would such a convention have arisen if women were genuinely seen as inferior to men?

How would such a convention have arisen if women were genuinely seen as inferior to men?

1905

1910

Feminist-inspired deceits have also attempted to give the impression that until the 1970s the advertising industry put down women by the manner in which they portrayed them. But, as usual, an inspection of their claims shows them to be highly deceptive.

The truth of the matter is that women were not portrayed in any manner of which most women at the time would have disapproved and, further, men were not portrayed with any greater favours awarded to them.

There is nothing in them that would have been considered by women at the time to be remotely insulting, but feminists would later claim that such adverts were insulting to women - because, apparently, and for example, they 'associated' women with domestic chores, and that this was done to demean them in some way.

The truth of the matter, of course, is that the advertisers were simply targeting their products at women who had families and who did, in fact, spend much of their time doing domestic chores.

What a crime!

And, while on the subject of the past, the missus and I were watching a programme on the development of the domestic electricity supply in the USA during the 1920's (LOL! - What a really sad pair we must be, eh?) and we saw a cinema advert from the 1920s that tried to sell electricity to women - housewives. The idea was to make them realise how electricity in the home could really help them out.

Well, as you know, one of the ubiquitous lies perpetrated by the feminists is that women rather than men were portrayed negatively in adverts during the past. And this electricity advert is just another example demonstrating that even in those days it was, in fact, men who were being portrayed in a derogatory manner. 

In this case, they were described as 'animals'.

I quote from the advert, ...

"Come on now, get him to sign up to the thing [i.e. sign up to get electricity]. It'll cost him [her husband] far less than all those doctors bills for his indigestion [mocking tones]. That's not salesmanship, it's just kindness to animals!"

Another area in which men should take the trouble to make themselves consciously aware of gender issues is when they happen to be watching serious documentaries where gender is not, in fact, one of the issues under discussion.

For example, if you watch the various Science, Art and History channels, it should not be long before it becomes blatantly obvious that men outnumber women overwhelmingly in all areas involved in the process of progressing and bettering the human condition (even when it comes to cooking!) and, also, that they have been mistreated and victimised far more badly than have women.

Keep your eyes open.

You will see that I am not exaggerating.

...

End Note: 

Remember the Titanic? 

Remember the Titanic? 

"Women and children first."

How come, eh? 

How is it that the lives of the women and children were given priority over the lives of the men if, in those times, they were being oppressed by men, and if they were also viewed by men as their inferiors?

Well. The answer is very simple.

It is just not credible that when their very lives are at stake human beings will choose to sacrifice those whom they consider to be superior and more deserving but save those whom they consider to be inferior and less deserving.

It is just not credible.

It is quite clear from the way in which this disaster was handled that women were considered to be superior and more deserving than men in those days.

There can surely be no doubt about this.

the feminists and the politically correct have been perpetrating downright lies

But the feminists and the politically correct have been perpetrating downright lies throughout the past three decades and, by using the various weapons of political correctness, they have managed to bamboozle, blackmail or bludgeon most people into believing their lies.

The real truth of the matter is this. When it comes to oppression and being treated pretty much as fourth class citizens, the evidence shows quite clearly that men are mostly the ones who have endured the worst of such things.

And, if you get to know your history, you will also discover that in times of conflict and war, the men usually get killed - and even massacred following a victory - whereas the women are usually spared. This has been the norm across the planet for as far back as recorded history.

But, yes, some women from the defeated groups are also badly mistreated by unruly victorious soldiers, but their suffering is nowhere on the same scale as that experienced by the men. Indeed, it is usually not very long before these women are happily fraternising with the very men who have killed off their supposed loved ones; e.g.

After years of war misery, it was hardly surprising that large numbers of German women dreamed of escaping their devastated city, and starting life anew as brides of GIs, or of British and French soldiers also based in the divided capital.

Annemarie Lauenstein may have been the first German-born bride to be allowed entry to the United States after World War II, but soon thousands of other German-American couples were heading to the U.S. Some of their stories are told at the Allied Museum.

You still don't believe me, eh?

Then look for yourselves.

Whenever you see pictures - particularly photographs and film footage of the past - just take notice of which gender seems to be the more downtrodden, the more worn out, the more overworked, the more tired, the more demeaned, the more insulted, the more regimented, the more disfigured, and/or the more dead.

Also see, ...

No Evidence Required

Like A Fish Needs A Bicycle