Feminist propaganda debunked — A fathers rights activist wrote to me about the feminists having discovered a meeting of 160 FR activists in Switzerland. The FR activist had become concerned about the feminist propaganda talking points carted out in her critique of the FRA conference by feminist author Suswati Basu, who derogated the aims of the conference:
- Fifty or more years ago, women were oppressed;
- Before women obtained the vote, they were voiceless second-class citizens;
- Women get paid, on average, [insert number of your choice]% less than men;
- Women are the victims of male violence, and
- Feminists do not want to eradicate men and male power, and bring about female supremacism.
- A bonus reference: Rape – propaganda talking-point debunked (in a related blog post)
I wrote the following to the FR activist:
Unfortunately, the comments on the posting at your blog are closed. Therefore I will respond directly to you.
It is not as important for you to wonder how the author (Suswati Basu) of the article at thefword.org found out about you having posed as Batman as it is to debunk her assertions of historical factoids that clearly come out of the rummage bag of feminist “herstory”, the re-writing of history as we once knew it, and that the IGAF is addressing exactly those sort of false assertions by feminist propagandists.
Take just a few of the propagandist assertions by Suswati Basu.
- Now, I am not quite sure how far back IGAF are proposing to go. Perhaps 50 years ago when women were still considered ideal for housework and rearing children or better still, …
That lie is easily refuted, and that has already been done.
Recovering the American Past with Brian C. Robertson
A review by Frank Zepezauer
The Liberator (Mar/Apr issue 2000)
Recovering the American Past with Brian C. Robertson
by Frank Zepezauer, resident philosopher
Have you ever heard of the National Congress of Mothers? Until recently I didnt know about them myself and Ive spent a lot of time studying womens organizations. It so happens that the NCM was actually the biggest womens lobby in American history. Founded during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt, it had 190,000 members by 1920 and over one million by 1930. The National Organization for Women, even in its heyday, could never claim such numbers.
I learned about the National Congress of Mothers in a short but highly informative book, Theres No Place Like Work by Brian C. Robertson. It has a provocative sub-title: How Business, Government, and Our Obsession with Work Have Driven Parents From Home.  The title pretty well tells you what the book is about, an account of how the workplace has replaced the home as the center of our lives.
I found it particularly instructive because Robertsons account challenges recently formed misperceptions about our gender political history since the founding of the nation. It is in that sense an effort to recover the American past.
Robertson makes it clear who formed the misperceptions of our past 200 years. He writes that “in order to propagate the notion (central to their ideology of womens liberation) that before the dawn of modern feminism mothers stayed at home to raise their children only because they had no alternative feminist writers have been forced into a tortuous and self-contradictory interpretation of the pre-1960s womens movement, its goals and its guiding principles.” (Full Story)
That is laughable. Consider this:
Working on the Railroad in the Victorian Age
How much oppression by men could there possibly have been? The vast majority of men didn’t have the voting franchise (it was tied into assets, of whom most men didn’t have any), and men were generally treated like slaves. How could history possibly have been re-written so much that the products of our education system became indoctrinated with the belief that men were oppressors of women? Full Story
The Victorian Age
As seen through the comments by Michael Crichton in “The Great Train Robbery” (It took place in 1855) (Full Story)
The Voting Franchise for women, as seen through feminist eyes
Already under Ottilie Baader and Clara Zetkin, the most prominent fighters of the proletarian and later socialistic women’s movement, the original, all-encompassing concerns of the association were reduced to focus on the labour movement. The Leading principle expressed in the slogan “Woman and Worker have in common that they are oppressed,” identified the political liberation of the proletariat in connection with the political and labour-laws liberation of the woman — although what was meant by that weren’t all women in general, but merely women who were employed. The main goal of the efforts was the voting franchise for women.
England became the fighting example to be emulated by the German women’s movement. German women noticed with angry pride the first arrests of women’s right activists in England in the last years of the 19th century. From 1903 on, under the leadership of Sylvia Prankhurst, the suffragettes became visibly more aggressive. An external sign was the war of the fashion over the substitution of the more clinging suffragette-silhouette for the traditional crinolines. Malicious cartoons of goat-faced, skinny women without bosoms and bottoms amused the male world and those women who were excluded from the women’s movement — namely the non-employed housewives.
Lastly the voting franchise for women materialized, although not at first in the England of the suffragette pioneers, and in addition at a different time.
Finland became the herald in 1906. Germany approached the issue in small steps and introduced in 1908 the Reich Union Law. That permitted women to participate in political meetings and rallies. Even though the English women continued to fight vehemently, it was Russia which in 1917 became the first country to introduce the voting franchise for women. Germany followed in 1918 at the end of World War I; the USA joined in 1920. Great Britain was still a laggard. Although in 1918 it granted all women over 30 the voting franchise, it wasn’t permitted until 1928 for all English women to vote. France delayed women’s right to vote until 1944. Switzerland became the tail light in 1971. (quoted from The Wife at his Side, by Karin Jaeckel)
Still, remember what Hitler had said about effective propaganda. Never present the truth in academic fairness. Although Karin Jaeckel’s writing is largely pro-male and pro-family, even she is not totally immune to the damages caused by feminist propaganda.
The reality of the voting franchise by the masses is that men did not have it much better than women did, once it came to voting.
In essence, it was based on proportional representation based on assets owned by voters — a system that until just a few years ago existed even in Canadian municipal elections, preventing anyone who wasn’t a property owner from voting. According to The Penguin Atlas of Recent History (by Colin McEvedy),
- “One in every eight Englishmen had the vote in the early nineteenth century, a proportion that the Reform Bill of 1832 raised to one in five.
…only one in 300 Frenchmen had the vote in the 1820s …the Belgians …with a British-style Parliament elected a one-in-fifteen franchise. Note 1.) Things were not so good in the other parts of the United Kingdom: the post-Reform Bill proportion in Scotland was one in eight, in Ireland one in twenty. (Source)
For good measure, this shows what happened when women obtained the voting franchise:
That should help to dispel the myth that women did not have any power to influence in the early 20th century.
- Womens organisations such as the Fawcett Society are campaigning on issues such as equal pay. In the UK, women get paid, on average, 16.4% less than men….
That is just as wrong and as easily debunked. For one thing, all developed nations now have very strong laws that make all attempts to pay women less for equal work done illegal, but let’s look at some of the truth about the lie that women are getting paid less.
Pay equity for women doesn’t exist?
All evidence to the contrary, feminist “researchers” continue to claim that women earn less than men do. It used to be said that “A woman earns 59¢ to a man’s dollar,” or, more recently and today, “Women earn 72¢ for every dollar earned by men.”
As with all feminist “research”, in this area, too, the truth is stranger than fiction. That the feminist fiction is being maintained as “the truth” is the strangest part of it all. The evidence that feminist researchers have not been telling the truth about the lack of pay equity for women has been around for decades.
Well, what can one say? To understand that mystery, one has to go back all the way to what Hitler said about what makes propaganda successful.
…all effective propaganda must be limited to a very few points and must harp on these in slogans until the last member of the public understands what you want him to understand by your slogan.
Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Chapter VI
Hitler made it quite clear that with successful propaganda it will not do to present the truth in academic fairness, but that what needs to be presented is what you wish the masses to accept as the truth. That is quite obviously what feminist “researchers” have been and are very good at doing. Moreover, aren’t all feminists women (not true; there are more male than female feminists, and we are likely to call them chivalrous), and are not all women incapable of lying? (Full Story)
Yes, that is true, and even the placards held at this year’s Million Women Rise (at which considerably less than a million women rose) are true. There is violence against women.
However, remember what Hitler had said about effective propaganda. One should never present the truth in academic fairness. That is exactly what the feminist propaganda about violence against women does. It does not present all of the truth and nothing but the truth. Most of all, it does not present the truth about violence against men, absolutely no truth at all. It does not even mention violence against men.
Presenting the truth about violence against people of both sexes shows that without a doubt there is far more violence against men than there is against women. Irrefutable figures on that are relatively easy to come by, and here are just a few. The preceding link will take you to a list of links to articles on violence against men. To cut through the chase, look at just one of the articles and sources identified in that list:
REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS:
AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Martin S. Fiebert
Department of Psychology
California State University, Long Beach
Last updated: September 2008
SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 275 scholarly investigations: 214 empirical studies and 61 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 365,000.
There is no doubt that more men than women die on account of violence, roughly two men for every woman, but the feminist assertion about violence against women implies that we have an epidemic of violence by men against women.
It may help to give the last word on this to Warren Farrell, Ph.D.. After explaining in Chapter 12 of his book The Myth of Male Power, titled “Women Who Kill Too Much and the Courts That Free Them: “The Twelve “Female-Only” Defenses”, how those 12 female-only defences cloud public perceptions about women’s violence, Warren Farrell stated:
In brief, it is impossible to know the degree to which the sexes kill each other. The only thing we know for certain is that both sexes kill men more than they kill women. (p. 282)
That leaves the last wrong claim in Suswati Basu’s feminist polemic that caught my eye to be debunked.
- According to an IGAF member, the feminist message clearly implied here is male slaughter, female supremacy.
Well, yes, the IGAF member is right. There is the slaughter of men, and it is being done to bring about female supremacy, even if that is not exactly what the polemic by Suswati Basu wanted to bring across. In short:
and as per the words of a somewhat longer comment:
There is absolutely nothing the feminists state that you can or must accept at face value. Nevertheless, what they say about you means virtually nothing compared to their objectives in their larger scheme of things.
All the best, and keep doing the right things,