Women - Weak and Pathetic?
I was incensed very many years ago to find
that my mother had been forced to give up a good teaching job when she
married my father, in the 1930's. She was a woman who clearly needed
something beyond the family to give her some interest in life. (She wasn't
typical, for those days.) And she clearly suffered later by not fulfilling
her potential in this respect. It annoyed me that she had been
discriminated against purely and
wholly on the basis of her gender, and particularly so given that
she was well-known to be very good at her job as a teacher. It seemed
My father explained the reasons in this way.
Within communities in those days, there was a great deal of unemployment.
Indeed, there was not much in the way of 'industry'. Families were seen as
economic units with responsibility for looking after themselves, and it
simply was not tenable for one family to have two wage earners in the house
while the next door neighbours had none. Such a thing would have been a
recipe for social envy, disaster and violence - and, of course, in those
days, there was no particularly effective welfare system to balance the
Neither was there much of a police force; which meant
that social unrest or disharmony would very quickly lead to real problems.
For example, the poorer would have been able to rob those who were
seemingly wealthier with impunity.
And why not? - if their families had no wage earners and very little food,
while the CHILDLESS couple NEXT DOOR had TWO wage earners, food and even
upon marriage, either the husband or the wife had to stop work.
So, the convention was that, upon marriage, either the
husband or the wife had to stop work. Since the wife was very likely to
have children (and, in this case, she did - me and my sister) custom and
convention dictated that she was the one who should stop working.
The overwhelming majority of women did not see this as discrimination.
They saw themselves as being lucky enough to have a system which allowed
just about each of them to collar a man prepared to go out and earn a
living in order to support her and her children.
to or not, like it or not, the man was EXPECTED to do this, by the
monumental social pressures that societies typically exert through
tradition and custom - and, in many cases, through the law.
Frank Sinatra was indicted for failing
in his promise to marry a young woman whom he had, allegedly,
as an example, in the USA, it was around this time that a young Frank
Sinatra was indicted for failing in his promise to marry a young woman
whom he had, allegedly, 'seduced'. He was only saved from prison when she
withdrew her complaint.
Given that most women had MANY children
fairly vicariously in those days, and would end up spending many years
looking after them, it was also silly to invest a country's, or a
family's, very limited
wealth in the education of women - because they were the very ones most
likely NOT to take any value from it.
Further, it was clearly best
for everyone that females, when children, spent much of their time being
trained for motherhood rather than being prepared for something that was
very unlikely to happen - like a having a full-time 'career', or a job, of
Also, looking after children in those days was
somewhat more time consuming, more complex an affair, and far more
laborious than it is today. There were no microwave ovens, washing
machines, fridges, vacuum cleaners, telephones, televisions, automatic
heating systems, cars, etc.. And there was little in the way of modern
materials, medicines and chemicals that we now rely on so heavily.
Cooking, cleaning, clothing and child-rearing were, therefore,
major domestic industries
Cooking, cleaning, clothing and child-rearing were, therefore, major
domestic industries in themselves, and
preparing young girls for dealing successfully with all of these things
was crucial for their well-being and for their survival in the rat race.
Moreover, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, societies that did not do this were not
going to succeed in the face of competition from those that did. In terms
of cultural 'evolution', therefore, societies whose women did not care
properly for the children, while the men laboured on their behalf, never
Indeed, such societies would have disappeared very
quickly - as more effective ones took over the land.
And you can see
this sort of thing happening even today.
For example, there are now many
pockets in Britain today where women are, indeed, failing to bring up
their children properly, and where the fathers are - thanks to feminism -
across the entire country, there are vast
areas where young delinquents terrify the inhabitants
And, as a result, across the entire country, there
are vast areas where young delinquents terrify the inhabitants and where
criminality is the norm. And the activities of these young anti-social
individuals spill out to affect the rest of British society.
pockets of deprivation, which they have now become, all have something in
common. They are places where a significant proportion of the fathers are
absent or ineffective. And it doesn't take more than a handful of their
dysfunctional offspring to terrorise and ruin entire neighbourhoods.
Yet they survive - but only because the rest of the country keeps
injecting millions of pounds into them and because it is prepared to
provide them with so many supportive services - police, health, education
etc. Without this support, they would fail. Indeed, they would destroy
And this is exactly what would have happened in the
In fact, even now in the UK, areas have literally had to close
down, so bad and uninhabitable had they become.
The best road to
success in the past was for women to bring up the children - and to be
trained to do so properly - while the men spent much of their time
developing the environment and tapping its resources, giving just some of
their time for helping out with the rearing of their own children -
particularly the boys.
And it wasn't only men who enforced these
'decisions' and norms, it was WOMEN. And I saw this with my own eyes
during my own early life.
Indeed, if the men had been given their
way, many would have been more than happy to have their daughters and
wives working out there - for money - in order to help to pay the bills.
But, I repeat, it would have been a recipe for social disaster for one
family to have both parents earning while their neighbours had no income
Given that women were biologically chosen by nature to be
the ones to bear children and nurture them, it is hardly surprising that,
throughout all of History, in all other areas, they have been 'held back'.
They have simply had other things to do.
And for feminists to keep
blaming men for what Nature gave to women is pointless, hysterical and
malicious. Indeed, if anything, the men of the past should be recognised
for having devoted most of their waking hours to working (or, rather,
slaving) in order to support their loved ones.
what this deceitful and gullible group of
women describes as 'oppression', was, in reality, men trooping
out to work, day in, day out,
While misandric feminists
like to portray men as having oppressed women by 'keeping them at home
with the children', it is clear that both genders benefited hugely from
the deal. The WHOLE of society did. Further, what this deceitful and
gullible group of women describes as 'oppression', was, in reality, men
trooping out to work, day in, day out, often to the most awful jobs
imaginable, in order for their families to survive as best as they could.
And if you younger folk in any way imagine that the jobs of men, 100, 200,
or even 50 years ago, were, in any way, comparable to the jobs of today,
you are poorly educated indeed. They were awful - and, at the very best,
utterly tedious. And the hours were long with very little in the way of
good transport to convey them to work and back, and with certainly not
much in the way of rights and pay.
Do feminists really believe that
women would actually have preferred to do these jobs rather than stay at
home with their children in the comfort of their surrounding friendly
Here's an extract from David Thomas' book Not Guilty
During that period, the proportion of
women in paid employment dropped from 75 per cent to 10 per
cent. This was regarded as a huge step forward for womankind
The desire to free oneself from work was common to all
classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College, London, has
studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930. During
that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75
per cent to 10 per cent. This was regarded as a huge step forward for
womankind, an opinion shared by the women whose writings Dr Bourke
researched. Freed from mills and factories, they created a new power base
for themselves at home. This was, claims Dr Bourke, "a deliberate choice.
. . and a choice that gave great pleasure."
In other words,
during that period, women did not like the jobs that were available, and
so they opted out of them.
The men had to do them instead.
The belief that women have been oppressed throughout History is only true
to the extent that EVERYONE was oppressed by somebody else. For example,
for every miner who 'oppressed' his wife at home, there was another man,
an employer or manager, who oppressed 100 miners in the pits. And the idea
that women were the only oppressed 'victims' in all of this is ridiculous,
and completely beyond belief.
One only has to look at the selfless
way that men sacrificed their lives on the Titanic, where 'women and
children first' was the order for escape and safety, to appreciate just
how valuable the female gender was regarded by men in the recent past.
This was the reality then, no matter what feminists will tell you about
the 'oppression' and the 'low status' of women in those days.
Indeed, if women had been truly oppressed and seen to be of low status,
then they would have been oppressed right back into their cabins while the
men escaped into the lifeboats.
The idea that women ... have not had power throughout recent History is,
of course, a feminist-inspired falsehood
The idea that women,
particularly western women, have not had power throughout recent History
is, of course, a feminist-inspired falsehood, and it was created mostly by
emotionally-deficient women to provide further fuel for their personal
campaigns of hatred against men.
Furthermore, the fact that, in the past, the women brought
up the children, and, hence, the very next generation, gave them untold
powers. Not only did they influence the values, beliefs and behaviours of
the next generation, they also benefited hugely from the fact that their
children, both sons and daughters, bonded very tightly to them,
emotionally speaking. This was a tremendous 'investment' for their own
futures which benefited them throughout their entire lives, well into old
age and death - not only financially and emotionally, but in almost every
This empowered them hugely.
And the further fact that the
fathers were so much engaged elsewhere, away from their families, gave the
mothers at home even greater relative influence, power and advantage over
the future generation. In fact, the men were often reduced to little more
than slaves and wallets when it came to 'the family'.
Thus, when it
comes to shaping the generations that follow, there can be no question of
which gender has, and has always had, real power.
And so, if women
of the past were truly 'oppressed' in any way, then it was with the full
complicity of the women themselves.
Further, if any group had come up with something better than 'marriage'
then it, whatever it was, would have been dominating our formal social
arrangements by now.
Instead, the reality is that ALL other systems governing the relationships
between males and females, particularly in connection with their
reproductive roles - and there must have been some other systems that were
tried out - have clearly failed abysmally.
They never got very far.
Not one of them turned into a strong successful society.
Another example that is often cited as evidence for
the oppression of women was the common 'inheritance' procedures, whereby
the oldest son inherited the property - the land, the money, the title and
But was this really oppression, given the circumstances
and limitations of the recent past and beyond?
For example, what
does one do when there is no enforceable, observable, common, sufficiently
complex legal system to deal with matters of property - or title, such as
'King'? Well, the best route is surely the simplest one. You hand the
property down to just one member of the family - the oldest one. You don't
even have to choose, and so stir up hostility in the unchosen. No piece of
paper is even needed to prove the deal (not that most ordinary people
could have read it even if there was one). And there are no arguments over
this and that. The first-born male is the solution throughout.
keeping all the wealth in the hands of just one person, this ensures that
the family's power base is not divided into smaller units which eventually
dissipate into relative insignificance.
You only have to look at the
situation in Afghanistan to see what happens when there is no definable,
undisputable 'heir to the throne'. Different warloads rise up, all
claiming their own legitimacy, and the country is torn apart by warring
factions struggling for power.
And the women are completely disempowered in the process.
Buy why did the male rather than the female always have precedence?
The answer is that the female is weak and pathetic in comparison to the
male - and this was especially so in more primitive times and places where
muscles were almost as important as brains.
She also has the children to bear and to look after.
Further, females will
have spent much of their youth preparing for motherhood and all its
ramifications. In other words, females had enough on their plates.
And what hope would there have been for any social groupings that gave the
most power to those members least capable of using it effectively?
Well, they would have been rapidly outgunned by those that didn't do this.
And so they would have quickly disappeared.
And so it is that, on
balance, both the men and the women benefited from the custom that gave
the male control of the family's wealth and power.
even today, those groups that are still very much attached to 'the
family' (such as found in many UK Asian communities) and the traditional
roles contained therein, are doing exceedingly well in comparison to those
where the 'family' is more loosely structured and where the men have,
effectively, been disempowered.
These latter groups (e.g. as found in many
council estates) are failures, and they would disintegrate completely were
it not for the fact that they are kept alive by tax burdens placed upon
the rest of us.
In conclusion, it seems that if any social groups from the past had handed
more power to their women and less to their men, they would, quite simply, have
And, indeed, this is exactly what seems to be happening now.
Feminist-dominated societies and cultures will soon be
Feminist-dominated societies and cultures will soon be washed away and
completely over-run by those wherein women prefer to stay at home and have
Very simple mathematics will demonstrate this.
And given that white western women currently make up only some 5% of the
Earth's population then, in 100 years time, they will barely exist at all.
Feminism is an ideology that promotes self-extinction.
It is a cultural and racial suicide pill.
It has no hope of succeeding.
It has no hope of surviving.
And it is going to cause huge problems to western societies as they slowly
continue to decay and decline under its malign and destructive influences.
Boredom Is The Problem
Here are some women from 150 years ago explaining the problems that women
face. The major problem seems to be that they are bored.
Not oppressed, hard done by, violated or abused; as the today's lying
feminists would have you believe.
The major problem for these women was that they found life to be
I refer, as this chapter must be understood especially to refer, not to
those whom ill or good fortune has forced to earn their bread; but "to
young ladies," who have never been brought up to do anything. Tom, Dick,
and Harry, their brothers, has each had it knocked into him from
school-days that he is to do something, to be somebody. Counting-house,
shop, or college, afford him a clear future on which to concentrate all
his energies and aims. He has got the grand pabulum of the human
soul--occupation. If any inherent want in his character, any unlucky
combination of circumstances, nullifies this, what a poor creature the man
becomes!--what a dawdling, moping, sitting-over-the-fire, thumb-twiddling,
lazy, ill-tempered animal! And why? "Oh, poor fellow! 'tis because he has
got nothing to do!" Yet this is precisely the condition of women for a
third, a half, often the whole of their existence. Dinah Maria Mulock
Craik - in 1858
So, the 'oppression of women' turns out to be that they had nothing to
I could do with some of that kind of oppression!
The link takes you to a whole book. It's not the easiest of reads, but
worthwhile browsing through. Notice how the FEMALE author clearly, and
throughout, acknowledges her belief that - in those times - it was the WOMEN who
MOSTLY determined how matters for WOMEN should be.
Here is another quote ...
"And looking around upon the middle classes, which form the staple stock
of the community, it appears to me that the CHIEF canker at the root of women's
lives is the want of something to do."
Reasons for and
against the Enfranchisement of Women Barbara Leigh Smith Bodichon - a woman
- writing in 1869 - 15 min - beautifully written - MUST READ, especially for UK
Her -> -> -> M-O-T-H-E-R <- <- <- would not allow her to study medicine, so
she decided to study mathematics at Girton College ... and other
'oppressed' women of the past