It seems to me that many men who are presently unhappy for a variety of reasons have only vague notions that some of their unhappiness at work, at home or in the courts, is caused by discrimination and anti-male sexism fostered by feminism. In essence, the reason for their dissatisfaction is that, throughout the world, feminism causes unhappiness.
Modern feminism came about to make women happy. It gained much popularity and support on account of that premise. For much of the ten-thousand years of the existence of civilization (and probably for much longer before that), mankind’s major objective was to make women happy, in attempts to regulate human sexuality, by instituting the concept of the traditional nuclear family, by assigning individual men and women to one another — either through design or by having them make their own choices — but, suddenly, the institution of the family was no longer good enough. It caused some women unhappiness that was often nothing more than boredom (as Betty Friedan put it when she put her finger on the mysterious reason for so many women’s unhappiness, in her 1964 book The Feminine Mystique). Right away, Mankind did an about-turn, after going into the right direction for ten-thousand years, declared marriage to be the cause of women’s unhappiness that needed to be fixed by discarding it, or that needed at least re-categorizing it as a social institution that was a convenient, temporary living-arrangement, from which women could remove themselves at their convenience (with men footing the bill for that), and that is one reason why it came that feminism causes unhappiness.
The law of unintended consequences set in. The cure for women’s unhappiness proved itself to be worse than the malaise it was intended to address. One should not confuse correlation and causation, but in view of the synchronicity of the rise of modern feminism and the rising suicide rates of primarily men but to a far lesser extent those of women, too (after all, women must be kept happy and be spared, at all costs), it should be permitted to at least contemplate whether there is such a correlation. Happy people may take more risks and thereby increase their risk of meeting their maker, but they don’t kill themselves in ever-escalating numbers — unhappy people commit suicide, the more unhappy they are, the more likely so, and they quite likely now do so more often, at least in some substantial part, because feminism causes unhappiness.
Ever since the ’20s the Canadian suicide rates for men were consistently higher by a factor of four or more than those for women. They reached an enormous peak during the Great Depression in the late twenties and early ’30s, then fell again, to experience another sharp increase in 1945 and 46, and climbed once more in conjunction with the 1968 Divorce Act Reform. Along with the increasing vilification of men that began in the ’60s, the suicide rate for Canadian men experienced a rapid increase that has only lately abated somewhat. Nevertheless, in 1971 the rates for men reached and then surpassed for a number of years the peak reached previously in 1930. It took until 1989 before the rates declined to that existing at the onset of the Great Depression in 1927. For men, three-and-half decades of “women’s liberation” have been a traumatic experience. For the male victims of suicide it was a deadly experience. It is continuing! More…
Those circumstances were similar, if not the same, all over the world, and coincided with the rise of feminism to power, everywhere, as everywhere during that time frame people had to experience, although it is being denied fervently by many but accepted by few, that feminism causes unhappiness. More…
If we go by the suicide rates for men and women, then the circumstance that feminism causes unhappiness does not only affect men, it does so for women as well, and for both to a considerable extent more so, now that men and women increasingly got to disrespect one another, than when it was more customary and even obligatory that they would attempt to love and respect one another in holy matrimony until death did them part. That is also how feminism causes unhappiness. It would be somewhat difficult to determine how it could be that, on the whole, people could become happier by substituting feminism for marriage and families. The former appears designed and hell-bent to ensure that feminism causes unhappiness through working on creating and widening a rift between the sexes, while the latter’s goal is the polar opposite of that.
However, rarely can a man put his finger on what exactly it is about feminism that causes anti-male discrimination or sexism. Primarily, such men can’t figure out what precisely feminism is and what it does, how it is that feminism causes unhappiness. They are not alone in that. Even feminists have difficulties figuring out what feminism is and what purpose it serves.
I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat, or a prostitute.
— Rebecca West, 1913
To paraphrase that sentiment:
I myself have never been able to find out precisely what rational and reasonable justification the feminists have for the vilification of all men: I only know that feminists call me a woman-hater whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a feminist, such as when I speak out in support of traditional family values.
— Walter H. Schneider, 2000
[Let there be no mistake. It is most often men who call me a woman-hater.]
When Rebecca West made her statement that became so popular with many feminists, a contemporary of her had this to say about feminists:
That love without marriage is holy, and that marriage without love is illegitimate.
That only a narrow soul would object to an intimacy between its mate and an outsider when the giving of love to the hungry was a real charity.
That marriage shall not require the sanction of priests, magistrates or other functionaries.
[A feminist a]dvocates a free contract in marriage, and that separation may occur at the will of either “mate.”
That divorce shall be made easy.
That there may be a “novitiate of marriage,” in other words, a “trial marriage,” and that after a period, if either party is not pleased, the final “mating” need not be consummated.
[That] If children should result from such “trial,” the duty of the state is to care for them, and the parties may enter into other “novitiates.”
If a Feminist wife works at household duties, she demands wages from her husband for domestic service, but household duties would be better done by expert “household engineers”the wife going to work outside, and the children being sent to a state nursery, kindergarten to school.
The whole Feminist cult is rankly atheistical, and they despise the teaching of St. Paul and of the church.
Like Herodias, they lay snares for John the Baptist and have their daughters perform “interpretative dances” and then demand the head of the Baptist on a charger [a serving platter].
They proclaim the “New Religion” and the “New Freedom of Women,” for by these they are “emancipated” from all moral and religious restraint.
As a tactic to advance their propaganda, they advocate Woman Suffrage, to gain the help of a sentimental class of women, who in reality desire to uplift and purify politics. Among other things they claim to Suffragets that by means of votes for women prohibition will be secured, child welfare will advance, when in fact the Feminists do not care a picayune for either. And it is certain that the plane of politics cannot be elevated when the heart and soul of the cause of suffrage is composed of Feminists-Socialist[s]–for no fountain can rise higher than its source, and if the fountain head is filthy the outlet will be impure.
Feminism advocates “votes for women,” and all Feminists are Suffragettes. Feminism declares for the economical freedom of woman, so that she may have a gainful occupation, independent of her husband and home, thus liberating herself from “sex slavery” to the end that she shall not be dependent on any man nor be “kept by any man.” This to the end that she may be free to leave her “mate” at any time she will, regardless of the “conventionalities.”
She declares that “motherhood” is a mere animal function, and that even a cat may have kittens; that motherhood has been made too much of in the past. [She] Advocates with the Socialists that the State has a superior right to the parents over the nurture, conduct and education of the children.
[She] Frowns on “compulsory” motherhood and advocates the “control of births” by artificial measures.
[She] Suggests that any woman may reject motherhood, and any woman with “mother love” may accept motherhood whether she is married or single.
They abolish the laws of Moses and in their places announce, “A new law give I unto you.” “Love yourselves and your sexes. Worship Eros and Venus as your goddesses.”
They make Cleopatra and Delilah their models, and if mere men do not bow down to their wills, they treat them as Delilah did Samson. [Holy Bible, Judges, 13 – 16]
The Feminist is a man hater, except as she may be able to use him for her purposes.
She claims that man has subjected her to “sex slavery” and “economical servitude,” from which she demands “liberation,” so she may be made a “free woman.”
In advocacy to this “New Freedom” she has many journals, among others being the “Bondwoman” and Harper’s Weekly. She tells all sorts of lies about the “inhumanity” of man to woman, men with their inborn chivalry have been maligned without protest, mistaking these female hyena iconoclasts for women.
—Benjamin V. Hubbard, in Socialism, Feminism, and Suffragism, 1915, pp. 142-144)
The more things change, the more they are the same. Almost a whole century later, men still have the same attitudes towards feminists. They are still being subjected to the same vilification, only more so and in ever new and inventive, scandalous ways – with a vengeance, along with the vast majority of women that still wish nothing more than to live in harmony with men, to raise their children with the help of their husbands and to live out their days in the far superior comforts and safety of marriage.
However, virtually all of the pathologies that Benjamin Hubbard foresaw are now stark reality.
Source: “Feminism? You want feminism? Which brand would you like?”
By Walter H. Schneider
The following is a comment that is not part of the web page on the definitions of feminist terms.
Feminism or “the women’s movement” is no more united than the men’s movement is. As the Index of Terms at the web page for definitions of feminist factions shows, there are at the very least about 40 different kinds or factions of feminism. One of those is lesbianism (in which there are at least 30 different sub-types or “sexual orientations”), while there appear to be far fewer categories of men’s rights factions. Mind you, men’s concerns and issues are not in the focus of human interests, women’s issues are, and that is why men’s issues have not been examined to the same extent. That is one of the many ways by which feminism causes unhappiness.
It is possible, although it seems that there appear to be far fewer men’s rights factions, that is an illusion. We don’t know how many men’s rights factions there are, because they simply have not received as much attention as women’s interests and concerns have and therefore remain in obscurity.
Although at best only about one-fifth of women consider themselves to be feminists, most women gladly avail themselves of the “women’s rights” and privileges that feminism brought about. However, very few women are lesbians (roughly two percent of women), and most feminist women have husbands or boyfriends.
The vast majority of those husbands or boyfriends connected to feminist women do a fairly good job of blending in with feminism as well as they can.
Mike S. Adams, in his series of articles on “Why I don’t take feminists seriously“, described how that works and what he thinks of it:
18. Feminists’ husbands are even more irritating than feminists.
In an earlier installment, I mentioned a free speech debate on my campus. A bunch of men debated a point for several days. When they were done, a campus feminist coalition issued a joint statement of their “collective” opinion.
But there is a part of the story I omitted. After the feminists issued their statement, the husband of the head feminist issued his individual opinion on the matter, which happened to reflect complete agreement with his wife. This spineless sissy was afraid to express his opinion until after he knew what his feminist wife thought — or, more accurately, felt.
Or maybe I’m wrong. Perhaps he just thought that a little more a** kissing would make him different than all the other men his feminist wife had previously divorced. What a pansy.
But he’s not the biggest pansy I’ve ever seen. That award goes to a guy whose feminist wife was rumored to be sleeping with one of my colleagues. After he got a few drinks under his belt one night, he told me that he didn’t mind if his wife was having an affair — that their friendship was strong enough to endure it. How liberating. He’s going to support her through thick and thin – even if another man is hiding his hoo-hoo dilly in her cha-cha.
I know I said it just a minute ago but it’s worth repeating. What a pansy.
Still, what better evidence could there be to prove that, once it comes to feminism, for every action by men, there is an opposite, disproportionately larger reaction by feminists, and that thereby feminism causes unhappiness. That is one of the hurdles the men’s movement must overcome before unification can happen. Only then will it become possible to begin the reconstruction of our society with the help of a unified men’s movement.
Fortunately, there are now many national and international and increasingly more powerful and influential pro-family organizations. Furthermore, feminism is slowly falling by the wayside, although its legacy lives on in business, the bureaucracy, our churches, in politics and in many more sectors of society. Feminism’s legacy even lives on in the rapidly growing pro-family movement.
Unfortunately, most men’s rights activists, being busy worrying about their lack of unification and being preoccupied with negotiating the terms of their surrender in the war against the family, are largely absent from the pro-family movement, thereby leaving feminism unopposed where opposition would count the most.
Originally posted 2007 09 20
Updated 2017 07 03, to show the connection between the creation of unhappiness and rising and high suicide rates.