FB censorship in the guise of help no one asked for is still censorship. FB may claim it is not, but it is one of the worst sort. It is insidious. FB censorship and censorship by Google, so as to direct and control what information we should get access to and even what we are to think or be concerned about, is a reality that should be of great concern to lovers of freedom of expression and of freedom of choice. There are growing concerns about that.
Decades, about 80 years ago, prescient, those concerns were expressed in this:
“In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?”
― George Orwell, 1984
I am getting the strong impression that FB does not like me. On first glance, one wonders why, on second glance, it appears obvious why not.
FB does not like the truth. It likes only its own truth or, rather, what FB’s thinks its version of the truth ought to be.
FB’s self-appointed mission appears to be twofold: a. Protecting all others against the truth being told, and b. Re-educating the ones telling it.
The way FB goes about doing the protecting and the re-educating involves doing both on a massive scale. It essentially involves every FB client on the planet. It is no longer necessary to do it to individuals by giving each transgressor the undivided attention of the Party, but to have FB assume the role of the Party and treat all FB clients like Winston Smith was being treated in ‘1984’, not by torture, but through making it impossible for all FB clients on the Planet to do anything other but toe the Party line.
With FB, there is no need to give individuals the treatment or to send them to re-education camps, to have them make it their nature to toe the Party line or even to love FB for making them do so. FB conditions each and every one of its clients not to transgress by deviating from the desired path, by making it impossible to deviate. The process is automated. Refinements are constantly being incorporated into FB’s censorship algorithms. FB apparently uses contractors to do the work of designing and refining the censorship algorithms.
Case in point:
Yesterday (2018 03 01) I posted a few comments, with links to objective, reputable sources of information on US gun violence (e. g.: John Lott and Thomas Sowell), to a discussion thread of a FB group. It only took minutes for FB to do something – repeatedly and in a short time – it had rarely ever done to me. FB marked those comments as ‘Spam’. Which means that no one can see them, unless I choose to undo what FB did. I did undo it, but if I were to neglect to do so (that can easily happen), the comments would be gone, regardless of how much interest they would spark.
[Today, 2018 03 02, FB went so far as to mark as ‘Spam’ and to prevent from being displayed at her FB Status a comment I had sent to one of my granddaughters (mother of one of my great-grandsons), and FB did not even indicate to me they had done so – I found out by accident, marked the comment as ‘not spam’, got an acknowledgment, but nothing happened to make the comment visible once more. I re-created the comment once more and posted it again. The modified version of it has not yet been marked spam, but I don’t know whether my granddaughter has seen it or can. (She did write to me this morning – 2018 03 04 – and let me know that she had seen and read it; thank God, FB let her do it this time, but was that because of the goodness of their heart, because it was the right thing to do, or was it merely because their censorship algorithm could not catch it on account of whosover wrote it not comprehending the rules of English grammar so well….?]
After we came back from a visit to our doctor, yesterday, I checked my FB notifications and found that FB not only decides which of my comments in other groups are spam, but FB also decides that I am receiving too much information from other FB groups.
FB Censorship, by any other name, is still censorship.
How in the World can FB decide what is relevant to my interests or not? The claim that FB can is presumptuous but not irrational. It is virtually certain that it is a pretense, namely censorship in the guise of unsolicited help.
FB notification about notification clutter Is it immediately obvious that such a notification is important? You better believe it is!
Just as with comments that FB marked ‘Spam’, anyone receiving a notification about notification clutter from FB (and notice well that in the list of notifications it is not identified who the originator of that message is, unless you are in the habit of paying a lot of attention to icons in the last line of such notifications) better make certain to click on it, and specify that the changes FB made must be undone (although no one can be certain that they will actually be undone — good luck to anyone who thinks he can ascertain that FB will do what it should be doing and do it correctly, to boot).
If the recipient misses that notification and does not click on “Undo Changes,” no or few notifications from many of the groups he decided to receive notifications from will be received by him anymore. In essence, the FB member will lose much or most of the contact he had with a lot of other FB users. That is bad, especially given the fact that I never complained and have no reason to complain about notification clutter.
I receive only few notifications each day (2018 03 01 there were 75). In the unlikely event that I should ever experience any notification clutter and become sufficiently bothered by it, I will be quite capable to do what needs to be done about it, thank you very much, without feeling the need to have FB make decisions for me. After all, being almost 82, I am sufficiently old and smart enough to be able to make such decisions. I do not need FB to make them for me. Possibly hundreds of millions of people all over the world feel that way.
Not all is lost. The problem of FB censorship will in short order go away. I bet that right at this time there is a number of young, wild geniuses, adept at figuring out how it can be done, who are hard at work in their parents’ homes to come up with better ways of letting people get in touch. They will have all the more incentive to get that done, the more the censorship of the Internet intensifies. They are the people who are the leaders, movers and shakers of the Internet-samizdat. At least one of them, quite likely more, will come to outperform and outrank Mark Zuckerberg.
_________ Note — 2018 03 02: The preceding commentary did not start the war that FB is waging against me (and against hundreds of millions of FB users). The commentary is a reaction to the war that FB began a long time ago against it clients.
FB is not a democracy. It is a medium for information exchange that is being used in the same ways as any monopoly that cornered the market for the services or goods it offers behaves. The richer it grows, the more powerful it becomes, the more dictatorial it will be.
Henry Ford said of the Model T, “you can have it in any color you want, as long as it is black.” The problem is that we are not talking about the colors of cars. We are talking about the quality, accuracy and meaning of information exchanged that people use to communicate with and to influence one another. We are talking about FB deciding not that we can have no color other than black for our cars.
FB censorship is about FB deciding what we need to think, how to think and what not to think, FB deciding what we may and may not pass on to others, and in what form we may pass on to others even only those thoughts that FB permits us to exchange with others! That is very bad. That is a combination of censorship and indoctrination that surpasses by far anything that George Orwell imagined ‘the Party’ could do to anyone who failed to perform and toe the party line. FB does not only do all that, but it also involves changing large parts of history by making it impossible to communicate with anyone about them and not even to be able to point them out, describe or quote them!
FB is not merely autocratic, it is becoming more and more dictatorial and becoming outright tyrannical. No one has much influence over either the goal, the objectives or the methods that FB applies in bringing its social engineering efforts to fruition. That social-engineering effort is not merely an experiment for which a prototype is being constructed that experiments on the minds of a few dozen people. It is a full-fledged social re-engineering project of massive size and proportions that involves hundreds of millions of people, every single FB client in the world. No man, woman, individual, organization, no single entity, regardless of its shape, size or intentions must be permitted to have that sort of power to change the nature and destiny of mankind, let alone be allowed to do it without any supervision by anyone, without any controls whatsoever!
It is a horror of indoctrination and mind control that surpasses anything George Orwell could ever have imagined.
Still, as mentioned at the end of the commentary, good, healthy, vigorous competition will fix problems posed by dictatorships through competition (or through resistance). That does not take a lot of money in the form of seed capital, it takes dedication and the power of the masses. I am convinced that the issue of FB censorship will be forced out of the way by what the people want.
It will be interesting to see what will evolve to that end, and evolve it will. I just hope that I will be granted the time to watch it happen.
This blog is closed for comments (other than by me). That is not because we hate people who browse and read it, but because I am only one and have no one to help me, and my wife is not into moderating. That does not mean that none of anyone’s comments can be expressed (some will be posted here, with desired credits to the originators). As long as FB reigns-in its greed for the power to socially engineer society and to mold it into the shape it wants, permitting people to write to me, that is, as long as FB does not censor me, get in touch with Dads & Things @ FB. If FB should ban me, anyone can still get in touch with me through e-mail. Look up the contact details for that at the dads&things or at fathersforlife.org.
The ideological foundation of Second-wave Feminism
Second-wave Feminism is (as are most other forms of feminism) firmly rooted in communism and in the prevalence throughout history of socialism and its never-changing goal, Utopia, Paradise on Earth. Communism can be made impervious to all criticism, by giving it a name that makes it untouchable, say, Feminism. Communism and any other ideology become intrepid, as soon as they assume the label or even only the appearance of being an aspect of feminism.
“Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism.”
— Catharine A. MacKinnon,
in Toward a Feminist Theory of the State, 1989
First Harvard University Press. Page 10.
“When I was in college it was the McCarthy era and that made me a Marxist.”
— Gloria Steinem in Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York, 1983.
»Feminism is the intellectual organization of gender hatred, just as Marxism was the intellectual organization of class hatred. Feminism’s business is fashioning weapons to be used against men in society, education, politics, law and divorce court. The feminist aim is to overthrow “patriarchal tyranny.” In this undertaking, the male’s civil rights count for no more than those of the bourgeoisie in Soviet Russia or the Jews in National Socialist Germany.«
— What civil rights has wrought By Paul Craig Roberts, July 26, 2000 Townhall.com – Creators Syndicate
Any student of history who is only slightly familiar with the evolution of communism and the prevalence throughout history of socialism and its never-changing goal, Utopia, Paradise on Earth, will have no problem with recognizing Second-wave Feminism, the complaints and recommendations in The Feminine Mystique, and the resulting 1966 agenda of NOW for what they all are: manifestations of communism, mission statements and lists of objectives for the re-engineering of society and civilization.
Wherever and whenever such a massive remaking of the existing order was called for and implemented, it involved deconstructing the existing social system. From the resulting ruins and rubble of society, whatever was necessary was then to be salvaged and to be used for the construction of a better socialist regime.
»The radical feminists agreed with the Marxists that the goal was a classless society, but the feminist revolution would do away with sex classes, through “control of reproduction.” Really radical thinkers, like Peter Beckman and Francine D’Amico consider that the labels men and women create fictitious beings and perpetuate inequality.
Marxism should have died with the fall of the Berlin wall, but O’Leary found that it is still alive on some American campuses. Why? One professor answered this question by saying that atheists need something to believe in…..«
Socialism, communism, the deconstruction of the family and the reconstruction of society to achieve the construction of a great, socialist, (if possible) totalitarian regime
In contemplating how we got from communism to Second-wave Feminism (that was the sort that ‘The Feminine Mystique’ catered to and helped to launch), was it not necessary to have First-wave Feminism before we could proceed to Second-wave Feminism? I wondered what Wikipedia had to say about First-wave Feminism.
»First-wave feminism was a period of feminist activity and thought, that occurred within the time period of the 19th and early 20th century throughout the world.[where?] It focused on legal issues, primarily on gaining women’s suffrage (the right to vote).
There is of course much more about all of that, but it bothers me that Wikipedia does not address the ocean of feminism that existed since before the ancestors of Man came down from the trees and started to walk upright (for which reason they were given the name, though quite recently, ‘Homo Erectus’).
Take for instance,
The Liberator (Mar/Apr issue 2000)
Recovering the American Past with Brian C. Robertson
Frank Zepezauer, resident philosopher
»Have you ever heard of the National Congress of Mothers? Until recently I didn’t know about them myself and I’ve spent a lot of time studying women’s organizations. It so happens that the NCM was actually the biggest women’s 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….
Who created the housewife role?
What are these misperceptions? The first is that the women’s movement of the 19th Century was like its 20th Century counterpart, an effort to liberate women from the bondage of housewifery.
The facts show exactly the opposite. Women’s organizations throughout that century fought to liberate women not from the kitchen but from the workplace….« More
Well, there are many things wrong with what Wikipedia states about the history of feminism, mainly the allusion that feminism did not begin to make waves until “within the time period of the 19th and early 20th century throughout the world.”
You may not think that it is worth worrying about any of that, but many others and I do. Communism has been around for as long as civilization, and feminism for much longer than that. Communism affects all of us, and, since even the feminists insist that “communism and feminism are one,” (as the Russians can ascertain, because they had a very feminist boss who threatened not-quite-so but almost equally feminist JFK and all of the US for an intense period of time), it is debatable whether in the symbiosis of socialism and feminism, feminism is not far more deadly than communism. (In case you wonder what feminism did for Russia, Russian men live now on average about ten fewer years than their women do, largely and most definitely thanks to feminist Nikita Khrushchev).
Rudyard Kipling would have said so. He more or less forgot to include that aspect of the circumstances in his poem, ‘The Female of the Species’. So, when anyone contemplates the symbiosis of socialism and feminism, never forget, as Kipling warned in his poem,
»That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.«
For those who wonder, and I won’t steal my thunder in revealing that right now, the road traveled by modern communism (a variant of socialism) was traveled arm-in-arm with feminism, first,
• radical feminism (a.k.a. socialist- or Marxist-feminism, incorrectly called 1st-wave feminism; a.k.a. “communism in drag”), then
• radical feminism (a.k.a. socialist- or Marxist-feminism, incorrectly called 2nd-wave feminism; a.k.a. “communism in drag”), then
• radical feminism (a.k.a. socialist- or Marxist-feminism, incorrectly called many sort of feminism, but a.k.a. “communism in drag”).
There you are. It is all quite simple. The symbiosis of communism and feminism, by any other name, still is the same.
Betty Friedan was one of the founders of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and a co-author of the original 1966 Agenda of NOW. Judging from some of the statements that the original Agenda of NOW contains, it may seem that what feminism was about in those days was nothing more than an attempt to get women a place in the sun. The 1966 Agenda of NOW stated:
“NOW is dedicated to the proposition that women, first and foremost, are human beings, who, like all other people in our society, must have the chance to develop their fullest human potential. We believe that women can achieve such equality only by accepting to the full the challenges and responsibilities they share with all other people in our society, as part of the decision-making mainstream of American political, economic and social life.” [my emphasis —WHS]
It was further stated that:
“With a life span lengthened to nearly 75 years it is no longer either necessary or possible for women to devote the greater part of their lives to child-rearing; yet childbearing and rearing which continues to be a most important part of most women’s lives-still is used to justify barring women from equal professional and economic participation and advance.” and that,
“We do not accept the traditional assumption that a woman has to choose between marriage and motherhood, on the one hand, and serious participation in industry or the professions on the other.” and further,
“WE REJECT the current assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman’s world and responsibility–hers, to dominate–his to support. We believe that a true partnership between the sexes demands a different concept of marriage, an equitable sharing of the responsibilities of home and children and of the economic burdens of their support. We believe that proper recognition should be given to the economic and social value of homemaking and child-care. To these ends, we will seek to open a reexamination of laws and mores governing marriage and divorce, for we believe that the current state of “half-equity” between the sexes discriminates against both men and women, and is the cause of much unnecessary hostility between the sexes. [my emphasis —WHS]
That does not sound so bad at first glance, but that was just the bait for the hook. The switch followed. Regardless of what it sounds like, it is but one way by which to attempt to entice women, the majority of whom are found in poll after poll to prefer to be stay-at-home, married moms, to enter the work force. Why would anyone promote an idea that most women don’t like? The answer to that question may be found in the fact that the goal to bring women into the work force is an ancient goal of communism and that, as Smith College professor Daniel Horowitz states in his new book “Betty Friedan and the Making of the Feminine Mystique,” Betty Friedan was well into her thirties a devout and active functionary of the Communist Party of the U.S.A..
This overview of Betty Friedan’s life and circumstances contains more: comments by her ex-husband, his observations and experiences that describe an extremely violent woman whose rages were often totally out of control, details of her life steeped in the promotion of Marxist ideology, and much more.
Marxist family policies and aims
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels stated in the Communist Manifesto:
The bourgeois sees in his wife nothing but an instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited cooperatively and naturally can’t think of anything else but that the lot of cooperatives will also affect the women as well….
The communists have been accused, furthermore, that they want to abolish the fatherland, the national identity. The workers don’t have a fatherland. It isn’t possible to rob them of what they don’t have. Because the proletariat must first of all conquer political rule, elevate itself to a national class (45), constitute itself as a nation, it will itself be national, even though by no means in the meaning of the bourgeoisie.
Nobody should have any illusions that the feminists consider any of the ideas presented in the Communist Manifesto to be outdated and archaic. The feminists use it as their bible. Erin Pizzey tells, when she speaks of her experiences with the radical feminists that usurped the women’s shelter movement, that a commonly-stocked book on their book shelves was Mao’s Little Red Book, and that Mao’s face was ever-present on posters in their living rooms. Mao most definitely based his ideas on the Communist Manifesto.
Do Betty Friedan’s and NOW’s objectives differ from, say, Mao tse tung’s? This is what Mao had to say about the structure of society with respect to the family:
“A man in China is usually subjected to the domination of three systems of authority [political authority, clan authority and religious authority]…. As for women, in addition to being dominated by these three systems of authority, they are also dominated by the men (the authority of the husband). These four authorities – political, clan, religious and masculine – are the embodiment of the whole feudal-patriarchal ideology and system, and are the four thick ropes binding the Chinese people, particularly the peasants. How the peasants have overthrown the political authority of the landlords in the countryside has been described above. The political authority of the landlords is the backbone of all the other systems of authority. With that overturned, the clan authority, the religious authority and the authority of the husband all begin to totter…. As to the authority of the husband, this has always been weaker among the poor peasants because, out of economic necessity, their womenfolk have to do more manual labour than the women of the richer classes and therefore have more say and greater power of decision in family matters. With the increasing bankruptcy of the rural economy in recent years, the basis for men’s domination over women has already been undermined. With the rise of the peasant movement, the women in many places have now begun to organize rural women’s associations; the opportunity has come for them to lift up their heads, and the authority of the husband is getting shakier every day. In a word, the whole feudal-patriarchal ideology and system is tottering with the growth of the peasants’ power.”
— Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan
(March 1927), Selected Works, Vol. I, pp. 44-46. The Little Red Book, Chapter 31. WOMEN, Full text [It’s only a little more than one page.]
Just in case you should be wondering what the aim of all of this was, it is no more than what Marx and Engels wanted, and what today’s feminists clamor for: the liberation of women from the drudgery of housework and from the raising of children. But why would anybody be intent on launching social revolutions over that and to turn all of society on its head? Well, the answer is in the rest of Chapter 31 of The Little Red Book. Here are just two more quotes from that chapter.
“[In agricultural production] our fundamental task is to adjust the use of labour power in an organized way and to encourage women to do farm work.”
Our Economic Policy (January 23, 1934), Selected Works, Vol. I, p. 142.
“With the completion of agricultural coöperation, many co-operatives are finding themselves short of labour. It has become necessary to arouse the great mass of women who did not work in the fields before to take their place on the labour front….China’s women are a vast reserve of labour power. This reserve should be tapped in the struggle to build a great socialist country.”
Introductory note to Solving the Labour Shortage by
Arousing the Women to Join in Production (1955),
The Socialist Upsurge in China’s Countryside, Chinese ed., Vol. II.
Fall-out from the symbiosis of communism and feminism
The creation of the U.S.S.R. brought about the abolition of marriage, with a vengeance. That was exactly what Marx and Engels had called for, and the Bolsheviks followed that prescription to the letter. Anyone who wished to become ‘unmarried’ merely had to go to the local magistrate, declare his intention, pay five kopecks (in purchasing power roughly the equivalent of a nickel at the time), and walk out with a divorce certificate.
It soon became obvious that neither Marx and Engels nor the Bolsheviks had understood the importance of marriage, and that marriages are essential for making any society function well. The hasty abolition of marriage turned into a social catastrophe of massive proportions.
Free love, as the early communists called it, is today called sexual freedom, but it it is not a good foundation for a well-functioning society. (See The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926)
Soviet propaganda from WWII — ex. (above) 1942 “Everything for the Victory: Women of the USSR for the Front” vs. (left) 1942
In the long run, the USSR (and its affiliated nations) never recuperated from the escalating social chaos that it had caused for itself by its early family-hostile policies. For instance, the population of the Russian Federation is currently about 145 million and is estimated to have shrunk in 2050 by about 50 million. Incredibly, though, the Russian divorce laws were imported, verbatim, to the USA in the mid-1940s and became, through the efforts of feminist law societies, part of family-hostile legislation and law in the USA, from where they were then exported to all nations in the so-called “free” West. (See this history of the evolution and destructive social impact of Soviet divorce laws.)
Frauen Warte (‘Warte’, as plural of ‘Wart’, can mean a number of things in the context: care takers, protectors, lookouts, etc. It can also be the singular and the plural of a high place or high places of refuge, from where lookout, etc.)
Throughout history, the place of women in society changed much to fit political expediency and the role of men in relation to women, but it took an extremist form of socialism to separate women from their role as mothers within families, and with men as protectors and providers within those very same families.
Second-wave Feminism managed to set that goal and make the efforts to bring that about without coercion by the state in the free West a reality. Who needs coercion by the state when women want what no state ever could bring about. In 1917, that became the new reality for women in USSR and it satellites. In 1966, Marxist feminists set the stage in the free rest of the World to make it happen there, too. They called it Second-wave Feminism, and it did not take a communist conquest to make it happen, it took radical feminism under another name. That is power of persuasion!
It should by now be abundantly obvious that the feminist social engineering – since Second-wave Feminism came on the scene in the mid-1960s – resulted in the systematic and endemic marginalization of fathers and families. That produced much harm and considerable social decay, not much different from what had happened in the few years after the Bolshevik revolution took place. The program for the re-engineering of society took longer, because of the trappings of democracy, but it happened just as irresistibly, and it was a Marxist revolution just the same.
It’s official: The experiment has failed
For the best part of thirty years we have been conducting a vast experiment with the family, and now the results are in : the decline of the two-parent, married-couple family has resulted in poverty, ill-health, educational failure, unhappiness, anti-social behaviour, isolation and social exclusion for thousands of women, men and children.
The earliest experiment in modern history to abolish the two-parent. married-couple family in the USSR was a massive failure. That was never a secret. We knew about it early on and should have learned from it; the USSR did and tried corrective actions but never succeeded with alleviating the terrible consequences of those early anti-family policies.
We refused to learn from the experiences of the USSR with the experiment to abolish marriage, because the failure of the USSR did not end the symbiosis of communism and feminism in the rest of the world.
“If at first you don’t succeed, try, and try again,” but when such exercises in futility fail to bring the desired results, they are frequently described with this definition of insanity (often wrongly attributed to Einstein): “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results,” except, that does not describe insanity, it describes the futility of repeating a course of action that does not, cannot and will not produce the desired results.
The most effective course of action for alleviating a problem and its harmful consequences is to eradicate the cause of the problem. The cause of the failures of the experiments with the family is the symbiosis of two ideologies (communism and feminism) that proved themselves to be, time and again, dismal failures. The worst of that is, time and again we allowed those two ideologies to gain control over social evolution. We must put an end to doing what does not, cannot, and will not work out well.
Walter H. Schneider, 2018 02 26
The observations in this just scratched the surface. For a far more informative, exhaustive analysis of the issues of concern, well referenced and linked to sources, refer to the following:
In the last half century, feminist thought has become the received wisdom. Whereas the original feminists saw themselves as radicals and freethinkers, today their views have reached a level of such universal assent that feminism can be regarded as a new orthodoxy and contemporary dogma.
Whereas social theorists, public intellectuals and assorted professional damned fools routinely subject other ideologies, philosophies and political movements to sustained analytical critique, male thinkers generally let feminists off with little more than a patronising and approving pat on the head – thus ironically demonstrating precisely the kind of patronising chivalry that feminists, when they are not benefiting from it, usually purport to oppose!
Neither has there been any significant popular opposition by ordinary men (marches, demonstrations etc.). Instead, as Esther Vilar observed in ‘The Manipulated Man’ [which I have reviewed here]:
“From The New York Times to the Christian Science Monitor, from Playboy to Newsweek, from Kissinger to McGovern, everyone was for Women’s Liberation. No marches of men were organized against them; a senator McCarthy oppressing Women’s Liberation was missing, the FBI did not lift a finger against them.”
The battle of the sexes thus became, as Ronald K Henry characterised it, “a war in which only one side showed up”.
Women’s liberation triggered population decline, not immediately, but it not only intensified the demand for birth control (that is, the prevention of conception), it also intensified the demand for “birth control” by means of abortion. The consequences of that are now becoming visible, because actions have consequences. We are harvesting what the feminists and other liberals of the ’60s have sown.
Any country that has total fertility rates (the number of children born to an average woman of fertile age) that are above replacement level, that is, they suffice to maintain the country’s population and then some, will see increasing prosperity and rising life expectancies. Average life expectancies have been declining in the US since 2013, and TFRs since long before that. Like it or not, the US has become a dying country. That is not an accident. It is planning policy, but consider this:
Lifespans in the United States
At the bottom of this article is a link to a discussion of that trend. The United States are not alone (misery likes company), as is the case with liberalism and feminism that drive the population decline. It is not happening by accident. It is by design. The shadow powers wish to reduce the world population down to between 300 million and one billion people. It appears that they will succeed, not overnight, but within a couple or three hundred years from now.
I will not insist that feminism is one of their tools. Let it suffice to say that what the feminists are doing, with respect to working on the planned destruction of the family, they would not be able to do better if they were being paid to do it.
It would not be totally fair to lay all of the blame for that at the feet of advocates of
Free love (that is what Marx and Engels and their contemporaries called it, but love is never free, especially not its consequences);
Sexual freedom (that is what it is called today, but it is nothing more than a euphemism for free love and still has identical consequences), and of
No-fault divorce (that was ostensibly the intent under which it was promoted, but, never fear, where the fault is always laid at the feet of the man) and other liberal divorce laws and even legalized lawlessness with respect to committed sexual relationships that last on average a handful of years and can end after a few days or weeks, but that everyone clamors is his entitlement to have and to have sanctioned by the state. The variety is large and bewildering. The best way to describe it is to consider it chaotic, that is, lacking order.
Sexual relations without fear of consequences, without the burden of having to raise children in families (or in taxpayer-funded orphanages) was a lure too hard to resist. NOW addressed that demand with Reproductive Rights in its 1996 agenda. Means of effective contraception came on the market. That launched the sexual revolution. Anyone who failed to use contraception would chance the risk of conception and having to take on the burden of raising a child.
Increasing numbers of mothers have whole passels of children. Many of those women have many children by different fathers. They use the children as sources of income derived from the never-ending generosity of Father State and, of course, a multitude of fathers for income diversification. After all, the more fathers and the more children, the less likely it is that the flow of income will dry up. Many women are quite practical about that, and – let there be no mistake – they insist that they are entitled to that income.
Never mind that all of that catered to instant gratification of current desire and gave little or no thought to what would happen to the people who did not want children now, when those people would become old and decrepit, when they would have to rely on other people’s children to pay the taxes and make the contributions to social safety nets that would then have to suffice to keep increasing numbers of elderly comfortable, if not
at least alive, let alone healthy and well.
Birth rates began to fall. The stage was set for population declines due to birth rates that fell below replacement levels.
Nature abhors a vacuüm. A population dearth, in an area of low population density, could be considered to be a vacuüm of sort. Areas with low population densities always were targets for migration from areas with high population densities, all the more so when governments in areas with low population densities fear that they cannot maintain their standards of living when lacking sufficiently large population sectors of young, productive people.
The example of Japan provided in the following is not as specific as it is generic. It applies to many and increasingly more developed nations.
Japan, Population Trend by Age
Actions have consequences. Declining population numbers intensify the demand for immigrants. Not all countries are rich enough to be able to house their elderly poor in their jails and prisons, such as in Japan.
‘This is death to the family’: Japan’s fertility crisis is creating economic and social woes never seen before
“…compared to other countries Japan’s case is extreme, particularly as it pertains to ageing. Adult diapers have outsold baby diapers in Japan for the last six years, and many jails are turning into de facto nursing homes, as Japanese elders account for 20% of all crime in the country. With no one else to care for them, many re-offend just to come back. Stealing a sandwich can mean two years of jail time, but it also means two years of free housing and meals….”
Japan’s case is extreme? Not at all! That is a misperception, perhaps due to insufficient inquiries. Japanese demographics are not too different from those in other developed nations, say, Russia or Germany (there are more like that).
Things are really bad in countries where there are neither sufficient social safety nets nor sufficient jails, where the only productive and constructive social safety net is a country’s children who may or may not be responsible, by law, to care for their elderly, non-productive parents and grandparents. In such countries, the only avenue open for vastly most of the elderly who have no children, is to starve and die, with no one to care for them.
No one should be under the illusion that things are necessarily better in wealthy, developed nations. Those are all deeply in debt. Their tax revenues are grossly and increasingly insufficient to finance their social safety nets. Their solutions to the crisis of the growing proportion of the elderly, non-productive population sector is pressing and involves very distasteful and even deadly solutions, such as that elderly people entering hospitals with relatively minor complaints, such as an arthritic knee, come back out in a pine box (because the instructions to the hospital staff, for their care, are “Sedate, withhold food and liquids.”). The comment by the administrator of a large hospital district in London, England, when that was discovered, was, “What do you expect us to do? We need the beds.”
No, Japan is not an extreme case. It is the norm and has, perhaps, one of the best sort of outcomes for the elderly in the developed nations, but Japan has very little immigration, compared to other nations.
Population-density equalization through massive population transfers
It remains to be seen whether a nation encouraged to import economic migrants or instant mitigation of its population dearth–after women’s lib helped to create it by deconstructing the traditional nuclear family and turning the womb from the safest to the most dangerous place for for human life in the history of mankind–will truly benefit. It appears doubtful that anything will be gained through having ready-made producers and consumers who don’t speak or understand the local language, and fail to let themselves be assimilated by a culture that even many of the locals hate.
Somehow it seems that we were better off to have and raise our own, even if it took a couple of decades for them to become full-fledged producers and consumers, who appreciated the ringing of church bells more than the cries of the muezzins.
Divorce causes escalating suicide rates, primarily for men and to a far lesser extent for women. It stands to reason that, if the suicide rates for the sexes were reversed, that the suicide rates of women would receive far greater attention than the far higher ones of men do now. Yet, it can be argued that virtually all of society conspires to downplay and preferably ignore that men die through suicide in epidemic proportions, in very large numbers, in each passing year.
There are reasons why men commit suicide at high rates, to a far greater extent than women do. Many men who are embroiled in the fallout of separation and divorce are little less disfranchised than the tramps George Orwell wrote about in Down and Out in Paris and London (1933), and things are still much the same for men. How much greater is the risk for men going through separation and divorce to hit skid row than it is for anyone who has not yet been removed from his family? For many the difference is only a matter of time. Many of them will wind up on skid row! It is not a matter of choice, it is one of inevitable circumstances. Some of them will be the poorest of the poor even on skid row.
Even though they may have jobs through which they earn good incomes, not enough will remain of their net pay to allow them to buy enough food or meals and pay rent. They’ll not even be eligible to obtain accommodation at a single men’s hostel, on account of having a job and an “income.” Most men, by far, will try to hang on to their jobs, because they feel that they must, to provide for their children. The men who default are vilified, deprecated and called deadbeat dads, but,
»In the largest federally funded study ever undertaken on the subject, psychologist Sanford Braver found that the “deadbeat dad” who walks out on his family and evades child support “does not exist in significant numbers.” Braver found at least two-thirds of divorces are initiated by women. Moreover, few of these divorces involve legal grounds, such as desertion, adultery, or violence (Braver 1998). Other studies have found much higher proportions, with one concluding that “who gets the children is by far the most important component in deciding who files for divorce” (Brinig and Allen 2000, 126–27, 129, 158).«
Sanford Braver illustrated that vastly most separated or divorced fathers pay the child support they are ordered to pay. Those who don’t comprise roughly six percent. A major portion of the latter default not because they are deadbeat dads but because they are sick, incarcerated, unemployed, disabled, and even quite literally dead. All of them are categorically called deadbeat dads. Yet, women who are ordered to pay child support are far more likely to default, even on generally much smaller monthly amounts, but there has never been a government-founded campaign to make deadbeat moms pay what they owe.
All of that adds to the depression men on the down and out are likely to experience. Worst of all, those men are not only cut off from any contact with women, they are disenfranchised fathers cut off from access to their children as well. Besides, what kind of a father wants his children to know that he lives on skid row? Can we expect such a man to commit suicide? You bet we can, and very many of them do. (More: When it doesn’t get any worse — The life of a tramp)
The life of a tramp (a.k.a., euphemistically, “a homeless – politically correct, because vastly most of them are men, and that fact is not to be stressed – person”) is the worst, unless one considers that a man who committed suicide to escape that fate has it better, because he made the right decision.
Fathers love their children as much as and often more than the children’s mothers do. It is devastating for fathers to be robbed of much or all contact with their children, but losing much or all contact with their children is common for fathers who go through separation or divorce. The following bar chart shows how that works out.
Separation and divorce create distance between parents and children; even compared to children living in married but unhappy families.
The text pertaining to that bar chart in the report it is shown in states: “…parental divorce tends to affect the relationship of the child and the opposite-sex parent more than the child and their parent of the same sex.” (Excerpt containing the chart.)
The report is not specific about that the parent losing the contact with his children is most often the father. Consider also that fathers going through separation and divorce are much more likely than their estranged spouses are to commit suicide.
»The work by Cantor & Slater (1995) is particularly valuable in that it identified people who were separated from various other categories of suicide….
Cantor & Slater (1995) show the risk of suicide is far higher for men in the period following marital separation––the suicide risk among separated men was 18 times that of separated women––but, after divorce, the rates for men declined to three times those of women. Separated men are also six times more likely to commit suicide than married men, with separated men under 29 being particularly vulnerable.«
Still, even women experienced a substantially increased risk of suicide on account of the deconstruction of the institution of the family. Women’s lib hurts women, too. Women who thought they would have it all, now find that they have to do it all, by themselves. women’s lib is not all good, not even for women.
Far from bringing general, widespread bliss, the Utopia that the divorce revolution and women’s liberation were to bring about did not quite deliver the promised goods, far from it. It created much misery and caused for many (and still does) deadly experiences.
Canadian suicide deaths, 1950 to 1992
The escalating suicide deaths could have been caused by many things, but it is clear from the trend lines in the following graph that the divorce revolution was a major contributing factor. Moreover, no matter what is being done to mitigate the detrimental impact of the
divorce revolution, it will take a long time (if ever) before things will be back to normal.
Canada — suicide rates vs. divorce rates over time; 1950-2008
The pursuit of an ideology at any price is not a good substitute for common sense and the creation of happiness. An ideologue may dream of Utopia, but the harsh reality is that divorce causes escalating suicide rates, and declining divorce rates cause declining suicides.
If anyone should wish to check where things are now, convenient sources of health indicators will permit to determine to what extent men and women are being served by the social changes that ostensibly make conditions better for everyone. A comparison of average lifespans vs. estimated average life expectancies, by sex and for specific years and countries, does that quite well. In the following, it is possible to determine how good the social planners are with estimating what we can expect, and how far reality differs from
Lifespans in the United States
In general, things are not going as well for men as they do for women, but why would one expect otherwise? (If you should have trouble figuring out how to check the data for a desired country, you may wish to visit this page.)
Generally (but exceptions always get the most attention), women always got what they wanted, longer, easier lives, and men always did the dying necessary to bring that about. Women’s liberation never was about equality by any objective measure. Women always had the lion’s share of it. Women’s lib was and is about giving women a bigger lion’s share.
Here is an example from a source that permits one to delve a little more into the history of health statistics for all countries in the world.
Russia — Life-Expectancies, History
Nevertheless, women’s lib and the divorce revolution brought about other problems worth mentioning, not the least of which is a pandemic of population decline, but some individuals rejoice over that.
What were Betty Friedan, The National Organization for Women (NOW) and their cohort thinking? Did they ever think of the consequences of their solutions to The Problem that has no Name? Were the lives of millions of people not sacred to them? Nevertheless, policy makers bought into the claims, decided what they thought needed to be done and rammed it all down our throats. No price is too high, when it comes to giving feminists what they want, but that is not the worst of it.
Divorce affects children negatively. This is an excerpt from a report on The Effects of Divorce on Children. The excerpt presents information on how different family structures compare with respect to the outcomes in children in relation to youth incarceration rates. It makes for interesting reading, especially for anyone who still thinks that the problem identified by Betty Friedan and cohort has no name.
The Effects of Divorce on Children
Here is an excerpt from that:
»V. Effects on Government: Increased Crime, Abuse, and Use of Drugs
A. Increased Crime Rates
Robert Sampson (then professor of sociology at the University of Chicago) reported, after studying 171 cities in the United States with populations over 100,000, that the divorce rate predicted the robbery rate of any given area, regardless of its economic and racial composition. In these communities, he found that lower divorce rates indicated higher formal and informal social controls (such as the supervision of children) and lower crime rates.237 In 1994, it was reported in Wisconsin that the incarceration rate of juvenile delinquents was 12 times higher among children of divorced parents than among children of married parents.238 In a British longitudinal study of males aged eight to 32, David P. Farrington, professor of criminology at Cambridge University, found experiencing parental divorce before age 10 to be a major predictor of adolescent delinquency and adult criminality.239 Adolescents from divorced families (particularly those in divorced single-father families) display more antisocial and violent behavior than adolescents in biologically intact families.240 An Australian parliamentary review of the literature found that divorce increases the likelihood that children will feel hostility and rejection.241….« —More p. 34
Family Structure — Comparative Youth Incarceration Rates
Robert J. Sampson, “Crime in Cities: The Effects of Formal and Informal Social Control,” in Communities and Crime, vol. 8, Crime and Justice, ed. Albert J. Reiss and Michael Tonry (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 271-311.
Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Youth Services, “Family Status of Delinquents in Juvenile Correctional Facilities in Wisconsin” (1994). The data from the report were merged with Current Population Survey data on family structure
in Wisconsin for that year to derive rates of incarceration by family structure.
David P. Farrington, “Implications of Criminal Career Research for the Prevention of Offending,” Journal of Adolescence 13 (1990): 93-113.
Kyrre Breivik and Dan Olweus, “Adolescent’s Adjustment in Four Post-Divorce Family Structures: Single Mother, Stepfather, Joint Physical Custody and Single Father Families,”
Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 44, no. 3 (2006): 114.
Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, House of Representatives, Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, To Have and To Hold: Strategies to Strengthen Marriage and Relationships (Canberra, Australia, Parliament of Australia: 1998), 36.
It is seems that the possibility that divorce affects children negatively ranked low on the priority list of Betty Friedan and cohort, when they did their best to launch the deconstruction of the family, no matter the cost. What were they thinking?
The divorce revolution ends the reign of the family
The divorce revolution – for all practical ends and purposes – put an end to traditional marriage vows that once meant much and were taken seriously:
“I, [name of groom], take thee, [name of bride], to be my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till in death we part, and with this ring I thee wed, and with my body I thee honor, and pledge my faithfulness.”
“I, [name of bride], take thee, [name of groom], to be my wedded husband, to have and to hold from this day forward, for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till in death we part, and with this ring I thee wed, and with my body I thee honor, and pledge my faithfulness.”
Regardless of which of many creative variations the exchanges of those vows now employ, and even if they are older, traditional ones, for most they have primarily nostalgic but no practical value. For some, those who marry themselves or their dogs, they have only nostalgic value, while for most onlookers they have become a joke.
Yes, we have come a long way in three generations. Marriage is no longer legally and morally binding for life, thanks to the divorce revolution pushed by people such as Betty Friedan, the other members of NOW, and by their collaborators.
Here are examples of the many aspects of the reality of that:
Marriage and Divorce Rates (h/t dadsdivorce.com)
The marriage and divorce trends are not driven by the desires of the grass roots. They are man-made, more correctly made by feminism and driven by the influence of the feminist ideology and feminists in all sectors and institutions of society.
The resulting marriage and divorce trends and their harmful consequences are not peculiar to just the U.S. or any other or just some of the developed nations. They are endemic in all of civilization, as much as the declining birth rates and total fertility rates are becoming increasingly more pervasive in all nations of the world.
German Divorce Trends
In Germany, 1977 was the Year of Divorce Reform, celebrated as the marriage law reform of the century. The divorce reforms made divorce more punitive and somewhat more difficult, more expensive, to obtain. It could be said that if marriage is the prerequisite for divorce, then it can also be said that the taxing of divorce is the consequence of the latter. More…
Still, although the German divorce reforms had an immediate impact and caused a substantial decline in divorces in Germany, German divorce trends soon recovered. By 1985, just eight years after the “marriage law reform of the century,” the German divorce trend had resumed, almost as if the marriage law reform had never happened.
Second-wave feminism is liked by many, but it is definitely not all good, far from it. “May you live in interesting times,” is a popular expression. Well, we now live in interesting times, as we watch ten-thousand years of civilization’s evolution reverse or at the very least go into unexplored, dangerous territory. The traditional nuclear family had for 10,000 years been the basic building block of society. It had been in a symbiotic relationship with civilization. It can and should be argued that the traditional nuclear family, in the greater context, is civilization.
The “family” in all ages and in all corners of the globe can be defined as a man and a woman bonded together through a socially approved covenant of marriage to regulate sexuality, to bear, raise, and protect children, to provide mutual care and protection, to create a small home economy, and to maintain continuity between the generations, those going before and those coming after.
It is out of the reciprocal, naturally recreated relations of the family that the broader communities–such as tribes, villages, peoples, and nations–grow.
— Allan Carlson, in What’s Wrong With the United Nations Definition of ‘Family’? The Family in America (August 1994), p. 3
NOW’s 1966 National Conference Resolutions became the prescription for how society and civilization ought to be changed to be fit for use by women, and thereby was launched the gradual deconstruction of not only American society but of civilization.
Ten-thousand years of social evolution cannot be undone over night, but we have come a long way in just three generations with the social deconstructing that has been achieved. There is a reckoning; actions have consequences.
“Contemporary (or second wave) feminism has aptly been described as “Marxism without economics,” since feminists replace class with gender as the key social construct. Of course, what society constructs can be deconstructed. This is the feminist project: to abolish gender difference by transforming its institutional source — the patriarchal family. Certain streams of the Gay Rights movement have taken this analysis one step farther. The problem is not just sexism but heterosexism, and the solution is to dismantle not just the patriarchal family but the heterosexual family as such.”
— F.L. Morton & Rainer Knopff, in The Charter Revolution & The Court Party (p. 75)
‘The Feminine Mystique’, the start of a bad ending
Betty Friedan, the author of The Feminine Mystique, had decided that women in the U.S. did have a problem, an undefinable problem that no one could put a finger on. She nevertheless decided to describe what it was and called it “the problem with no name.” Betty Friedan was by no means the first to express those sentiments, she merely popularized them in the U.S.A. and in doing so catered to a demand market. She went to great lengths describing that women with college and university educations were overqualified for what many individuals think of as the mundane jobs of mothers and housewives. Betty Friedan asserted that women could therefore not possibly be happy, because they were being subjugated and condemned to live out their lives in perpetual boredom.
Betty Friedan’s recommendation was to liberate women from the slavery of having children, having to change diapers and to wipe snotty noses, cook meals, make beds, clean homes, shop, and being all-around domestics for their husbands. Thereby, women would be able to escape their bonds and contribute more constructively to society by having rewarding careers, just as men had, which it was women’s right to enjoy and society’s duty to make allowances for. The result of that would be happiness (and who would not go out of his way to make women happy), as a result of which we would gain Utopia, Paradise on Earth.
Betty Friedan put the expressed in ‘The Feminine Mystique’ to work, by participating in the launching of NOW (The National Organization for Women).
The message in The Feminine Mystique is familiar to students of history and of social evolution. Many social reformers throughout history tried to motivate mankind to strive to attain Utopia, Paradise on Earth — through various means and methods, as explained excellently by Igor Shafarevich in The Socialist Phenomenon (1975, by YMCA Press; 1980
English translation–online, by Harper & Row). No one had ever tried to succeed with that by developing a marketing strategy and message that targeted just the female half of mankind as well as had Betty Friedan (she and the second chapter of her book had been influenced by Simone de Beauvoir’s The Second Sex). She was a messenger who became a prophet, because the message she brought filled a void, the perception (no matter whether it was right or not, it was desired — it is hard to resist the lure of Paradise on Earth) that women’s role in society need not be boring but should have meaning. Many of Betty Friedan’s collaborators surely saw it for what it could become. Women were entitled to have meaningful lives, and society, all of civilization, owed it to them.
“A society that puts equality—in the sense of equality of outcome—ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests.”
—Milton and Rose Friedman
in Free to Choose: A Personal Statement
Why stop at full equality when everything is up for grabs? In the perfect guise of seeking equality for women, Betty Friedan’s message was used as a Trojan horse that put mankind on the road to feminist supremacy.
The message in The Feminine Mystique proved to be irresistibly attractive to the nation’s women who had everything that women in the rest of the world envied them for. Women who had everything but their full share of responsibilities could feel that their eyes had been opened. The problem that had no name finally had received the recognition it deserved. The boredom and lack of duties and responsibilities that so many felt they were suffering under became duly recognized as insidious oppression by the patriarchy. The Feminine Mystique opened the eyes of millions of dissatisfied women who yearned for their place in the sun, because they deserved it. They were women. They wanted it, and they wanted it now!
Millions of bored, dissatisfied women suddenly had a mission worth going on (although the membership of NOW apparently never rose above about 250,000). Many of them realized that, of course, they would not have to stop at achieving equality, but that, with enough imagination, they could rule, which they set out to achieve.
The message in The Feminine Mystique got soaked up as a dry sponge soaks up water. The book became very popular.
During the year of 1964, The Feminine Mystique became the bestselling nonfiction book with over one million copies sold. In this book, Friedan challenged the widely shared belief in 1950s that “fulfillment as a woman had only one definition for American women after 1949—the housewife-mother.”….« —Wikipedia
Wikipedia also informs that,
»During the year of 1964, The Feminine Mystique became the bestselling nonfiction book with over one million copies sold. In this book, Friedan challenged the widely shared belief in 1950s that “fulfillment as a woman had only one definition for American women after 1949—the housewife-mother.” « —More (and links)
Betty Friedan’s The Feminine Mystique rose to fame, and so did its author. Perhaps that prevented her from delivering the promised sequel to her book. She became engaged in helping to launch the National Organization for Women (NOW) and, in 1966, was one of its co-founders (or at least on of the coauthors of its 1966 Statement of purpose.)
1966 Founding of NOW, The National Organization for Women
NOW was at first somewhat gender-inclusive or made some concessions to gender tolerance, but perhaps that was just a pretense, to avoid the creation of a bad impression, as it became soon obvious that NOW would wage war against all things male. NOW had a strong lesbian contingent, right from the start. One of the coauthors of its 1966 Statement of Purpose was a lesbian.
Analoyce Clapp wrote, “28 women met to set up a temporary organization for this purpose: To take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, assuming all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.” — NOW, in Founding: Setting the Stage
NOW’s 49 founders are…
From the June 1966 meeting — 28 women:
Ada Allness, Mary Evelyn Benbow, Gene Boyer, Analoyce Clapp, Kathryn Clarenbach, Catherine Conroy, Caroline Davis, Mary Eastwood, Edith Finlayson, Betty Friedan, Dorothy Haener, Anna Roosevelt Halstead, Lorene Harrington, Mary Lou Hill, Esther Johnson, Nancy Knaak, Min Matheson, Helen Moreland, Dr. Pauli Murray (later Rev.), Ruth Murray, Inka O’Hanrahan, Pauline A. Parish, Eve Purvis, Edna Schwartz, Mary-jane Ryan Snyder, Gretchen Squires, Betty Talkington and Dr. Caroline Ware.
From the October 1966 conference — 21 women and men:
Caruthers Berger, Colleen Boland, Inez Casiano, Carl Degler, Elizabeth Drews, Dr. Mary Esther Gaulden (later Jagger), Muriel Fox, Ruth Gober, Richard Graham, Anna Arnold Hedgeman, Lucille Kapplinger (later Hazell), Bessie Margolin, Margorie Palmer, Sonia Pressman (later Fuentes), Sister Mary Joel Read, Amy Robinson, Charlotte Roe, Alice Rossi, Claire R. Salmond, Morag Simchak and Clara Wells.
Wikipedia makes the same claim, that there were 28 founders, and it even provides a link to the source of the preceding quote with the names of NOW’s founders. Wikipedia asserts that thee were 28 original founders, lists their names, but it found a reason for including an additional one, that of Shirley Chisholm, although it does not specify why its list came to contain the names of 29 original founders of NOW, instead of the 28 it declares their number was, or why her name had to be included in the list.
NOW’s list of the 28 original founders does not contain the name of Shirley Chisholm, but it has another name that is not included in its count of names. Then again, Wikipedia can be forgiven for becoming confused, over the names of NOW’s founders, because NOW itself appears to be confused on the subject. NOW is the source of Wikipedia’s list of names and does neither identify Shirley Chisholm nor the name of another founding member and its very first vice president:
Richard Graham, 1920-2007
…. His dedication to feminism led to his election as NOW Vice President in October of 1966 during NOW’s first organizing conference. He went on to found the District of Columbia Commission on the Status of Women, and to serve as the Executive Director of the Center for Moral Development at Harvard. In 1975, Graham was named President of Goddard College, where he helped found the Goddard-Cambridge Center for Social Change, one of the earliest centers for women’s studies.
There were at least three other men who are listed in that document containing the name of the founding members of now: Phineas Indritz, Rev. Dean Lewis, and Herbert Wright. but they were part of the 21 additional founding members of the October 1966 founding conference. There are not many people who know that men were founding members of NOW. NOW itself doesn’t seem to know.
That is not the end of the problems with NOW’s forgetfulness. It appears that some time after 1998 and no later than February 22, 2018, NOW had either contracted organizational amnesia or felt that it had reasons for erasing Dr. Pauli Murray memory from its corporate consciousness or at least to remove all evidence of her from the copy of its 1966 Statement of Purpose that NOW had been publishing then at its website.
It seems that ‘herstory’ is as flexible and variable as were Stalin’s infamous photos, which at first showed him in the company of trusted party officials who were later removed from life, from his photos and from history. A side-by-side comparison of NOW’s 1966 Statement of Purpose to NOW’s 1996 National Conference Resolutions reveals substantial differences. The advent of second-wave feminism had not just changed all of society with the help and leadership of NOW, it had changed NOW as well.
In 1966, NOW had been somewhat benign, agreeable, and sedate. By 1996, NOW had become aggressively demanding, confrontational, belligerent, even shrill, and men were by then most definitely considered to be the enemy of women.
From the National Organization of Women (NOW):
The original may be accessed at: http://www.now.org/organiza/conferen/1996/resoluti.html
(The preceding link is broken, but the text of NOW’s 1966 National
Conference Resolutions was accessed in 1999 at that link, downloaded and
annotated. It can be accessed via the links in the preceding index.)
As can be seen, NOW’s 1996 Agenda had something for every woman. It had been vastly expanded, compared to the 1966 Statement of Purpose, and little was left out (except, of course, all pretense that women’s rights as seen by NOW had anything to do with equality for all, and that a functioning society needs respect for and coöperation with men.)
»No doubt, if you have read any of the documentation relating to the VAWA II [the Violence Against Women Act], you’ll recognize that much of what was contained in the 1966 Agenda of NOW is now firmly embedded in VAWA II. NOW is formulating national policy in the US, not only lobbying to formulate but actually controlling national policy.
Anyone may wonder why that should concern a Canadian. The reason for that concern is that NOW and other “women’s” organizations in the world, such as NACSOW (National Action Committee Status of Women) in Canada are closely collaborating to dominate world politics. That is done through their extraordinary influence at the UN, in every possible sector of the UN imaginable.«
Second-wave feminism prevails in today’s society. Many think that is good. The why and how that came about are not so clear, the consequences often not considered. Second-wave feminism was launched in the 1960s. These pages provide a summary of why and what happened after that.
Last year , the Ketchum consulting firm released a study22 showing that “49% of U.S. women … are now the primary breadwinner or on par financially with their significant others – a trend that is progressing more quickly than even recent major studies showed.”
In itself, this is a major shift from past decades. What this statistic does not capture, however, is that single mothers earn significantly less than do families with two parents. According to the Census Bureau, in 2013, the median income for families headed by single mothers was $26,148. In contrast, the median income for families with two parents was $84,916. ….
The income difference is substantial. It appears that many women have an aversion to being well off, or else they would not so eagerly opt for the life style of a single mother. That does not appear to make much sense. Consider:
When it comes to families with children, the average household income for single-mother families is about one-third that of households with two parents.
Husbands (fathers, protectors and providers in families) should obviously be in great demand. Women should be falling over themselves trying to get them and to try even harder to keep them. Still, it appears that most women and the vast majority of society, and virtually all social institutions are out to derogate, vilify and abrogate the intact, two-parent family.
Men and especially fathers in families are being vilified, obviously because they are the weakest links in the two-parent family and the easiest to break. That puts a steadily growing number of women on the road of hard, miserable lives, full of constant struggle. That produces deplorable outcomes in children of single-mother families. It does not do anything good for society and the welfare of nations. We know that. Nevertheless, those deplorable outcomes are being actively sought.
Beginning in the 1960s, there has been an all-out war against fathers in families. Who is at fault? If you believe the feminists, men are.
… and give them credit for nothing.
The caption for the cartoon should be amended to read: “It’s so cool! If you use your imagination, you can blame men for everything, and give them credit for nothing!”
So, what is this? What happened? Did something cause mass insanity?
I had posted the preceding thoughts to Facebook. A fathers rights activist
from California, Robert L. Cheney Jr., stated,
“It’s a religion, started by The Feminine Mystique. This was during a time, that America led every social indicator across the world, when woman were the happiest, when they and the nation lived in the highest living standard in the world, when both men and woman did well—it was destroyed for a “problem with no name” (happiness). Now feminist say we don’t want to go back to the ’50s and ’60s—but rather they want to push the world back into the social condition that existed on the plains of Africa 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.”
(Revision 2018 02 19: to identify a serious error in a report published by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, a report on aspects of suicides in India.) Actual average lifespans in the United States began to decline in the year 2013 and were still falling in 2016. Should one not have expected for that to have become front-page news in 2013 and to continue to be front-page news? Will President Trump help to make an improvement in that trend? It is a worthwhile effort. It seems to be far more valuable to improve the health of his nation than to try to make good on the failed promise … Continue reading →
Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blogs are being slandered and censored.
Whether you are a fathers-rights activist, a pro-family activist or a skeptic of environmental alarmism, it is quite likely that your website or blog is being slandered and censored, too. It is being done on the sly. No one will tell you about it. If it happened, you will have been found guilty and were sentenced in the Star-Chamber court of a multinational corporation (by an obscure clerk, in an obscure office), and it is not likely that you will be able to appeal.
Check the rating of your website or blog.
I had asked O2 to review and explain their website rating policy in regard to Fathers for Life. They did not respond.