History of child- and youth-mortality rates

Especially with respect to the history of child- and youth-mortality rates, one should never judge the past by today’s standards.

There is a serious flaw in the reasoning related to children who died while attending Canadian residential schools. Was the mortality rate for children much better in general society?

Never blindly trust statistics that are shown in isolation and don’t permit comparisons. Invariably, such statistics present advocacy numbers that brush the history of objective mortality statistics out of existence.

The reality of mortality rates for children in developed nations during the interval the Canadian residential schools were in operation was that during the end of the 19th Century, in general society, about one-third of children died before reaching age 12.

That means that about one out of three children died in general society before reaching age 12, while some of the estimates of the mortality rate in Canadian residential schools cite a mortality rate of one in twenty. That means that children in residential schools may have experienced better life expectancies than those in general society or those living on reservations.


Many researchers have independently studied mortality rates for children in the past: in different societies, locations, and historical periods. The average across a large number of historical studies suggests that in the past around one-quarter of infants died in their first year of life and around half of all children died before they reached the end of puberty. Since then the risk of death for children has fallen around the world. The global average today is 10 times lower than the average of the past. In countries with the best child health today an infant is 170 times more likely to survive….

Historical estimates of mortality

This visualization shows the historical estimates Volk and Atkinson brought together from a large number of different studies. Shown with the blue marks are estimates of the share of newborns that died in the first year of life – the infant mortality rate. And shown with the red marks you see different estimates of the share that never reached adulthood – what we here refer to as the ‘youth mortality rate’.

Across the entire historical sample the authors found that on average, 26.9% of newborns died in their first year of life and 46.2% died before they reached adulthood. Two estimates that are easy to remember: Around a quarter died in the first year of life. Around half died as children.

What is striking about the historical estimates is how similar the mortality rates for children were across this very wide range of 43 historical cultures. Whether in Ancient Rome; Ancient Greece; the pre-Columbian Americas; Medieval Japan or Medieval England; the European Renaissance; or Imperial China: Every fourth newborn died in the first year of life. One out of two died in childhood…. »

More: https://ourworldindata.org/child-mortality-in-the-past 

While the average youth mortality rate was 46.2% across 23 historical societies during the past 2400 years, up to the year 1900, the global youth mortality rate fell to 27% by 1950 and to 4.6% by 2017.

In Canada, youth mortality had fallen to 5.62% by 2050 and 0.62% by 2017. It would have been substantially higher for much of the time during which Canada’s residential schools operated. Consider that the “Average youth mortality rate across 20 different hunter-gatherer societies [had been] 48.8%.

Posted in False Allegations, Health, Propaganda Exposed | Comments Off on History of child- and youth-mortality rates

The face of FB shadow banning

2021 04 11: to show FB censorship in the guise of a support message
2021 05 31: to illustrate FB censorship of a link to an article in Canada’s National Post

The face of FB shadow banning shows itself quite clearly in this:

Given that they are interesting if not hot topics for which I had wanted to start discussion threads, and that I have close to 3000 FB friends, it seems hardly possible that as much as a week or even a month later there has not been a single like or comment on many of my initial postings at my FB timeline. Postings since just May 1:

For more instances of FB shadow banning, go down the entries in my FB Timeline.

Update 2021 05 27

Of course, often, and lately increasingly more often, FB employs straight censorship, over and above plain old shadow banning, such as in this case, where I had tried to post a comment to someone’s remark that giving the U.S. voting franchise to women was not necessarily a good thing:

FB cesorship in the guise of a support message

FB censorship in the guise of a support message

Update 2021 05 31

Facebook sent me a notification that informed me that sharing a link to a National Post article about “The (very strong) case of COVID-19 leaking from a Chinese lab” is spam. That is even though lately there were news that Facebook relented on its customary censorship of all information about a COVID-19 leak from the Wuhan lab. Obviously the news of Facebook relenting on the censoring of such news are fake news, but here is a screenshot of the notification FB had send to me:


FB deems an attempt to share a link to a National Post article to be spam. 

The screenshot is linked to the censored National Post article.


Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on The face of FB shadow banning

Is this FB shadow banning?

Is this FB shadow banning? On 2021 04 29 I posted a link to an ABC article on my FB timeline. 19 hours later the posting had not received a single like or comment. Here is a screen shot of the posting:

Given that it is a hot topic for which I had wanted to start a discussion thread, and that I have close to 3000 FB friends, it seems hardly possible that almost a whole day later there has not been a single like or comment on the initial FB posting.

The posting is listed in my FB activity log. I have no problem with accessing it on my timeline.  It is fairly obvious that no one else has seen the posting. That is shadow banning.

The following article explains some of the circumstances and aspects of shadow banning.

How to Tell If Your Content Is Being “Shadow Banned” on Facebook

A screenshot of the facebook app which is know for shadowbanning.

Published November 9, 2020

Facebook has not exactly been the role model in privacy and security, as they have undergone numerous investigations for how they handle user data. The world’s largest social media platform reportedly uses user data as a bargaining chip in striking deals with competitors. Consequently, the government plans to slap antitrust lawsuits against Facebook by year’s end for apparently using its powerful market position to stifle competition. These are just among the several privacy issues raised against Facebook, and that’s without mentioning “shadowbanning.”….

See the full article.

More postings I made during the last little while were shadow banned. Just check my FB timeline for the last week or the last month.

gab is a good alternative to Facebook

I am now subscribed to gab, where there is no censorship. I like it.

See also:

Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on Is this FB shadow banning?

FB censorship reaches absurd levels

FB censorship reaches absurd levels. Today I tried to post a comment on a FB-friend’s timeline. Facebook prevented me from doing so, twice, without offering an explanation. Here is the comment that offended Facebook.

My previous comment vanished into the black void.

To put the COVID-19 pandemic [în India] into context, have a look at the appended graph (interactive at its source).

Source of appended graph: https://tinyurl.com/4vb87562

The curious aspect of that is that not even the fact that the graph came from a reputable source (Our World in Data), and that the data displayed in the graph comes from an impeccable source (Johns Hopkins University) prevented Facebook from censoring the comment. That is not all.

It cannot possibly be a coincidence that, after I had made the two attempts to post the comment, my keyboard layout mysteriously got changed to the QWERTZ layout. That did not happen by accident and required hacking into my laptop.

You can comment on this posting here.

Posted in Censorship | 1 Comment

FB censorship intrudes into family life

FB censorship intrudes into family life but not only that. In the name of political correctness, it censors the truth and not merely opinions.

The other day, on Facebook, I shared a photo that showed a car with a sheet of plywood stuck in the windshield.  The caption was, “Was gonna go through insurance but sold the plywood and bought a brand new car.”

Lumber prices have gone through the roof. The caption of the photo is almost too true to be funny. My daughter shared the photo and posted it at her FB time line, as the initial posting for a new discussion thread. She explained there to someone that lumber prices had gone up due to supply and demand. 

Supply and Demand

In some cases lumber prices have doubled and tripled during the past year.

I responded to that and posted two links, one to a chart displaying a trendline of lumber prices during the past five years, and another one to a CBC article that explains how much and why COVID-19 measures contributed in Canada to the enormously increased Lumber prices.

Lumber price history:

historical lumber prices as of 2021 04 21

historical lumber prices as of 2021 04 21

What the CBC article states:

COVID-19 has wreaked havoc on just about every industry — sticking a wrench into the normal forces of supply and demand — and lumber is a prime example.

When the pandemic hit, lumber mills were forced to close. Then, a nation of people stuck at home started building more decks and fences. People renovated to accommodate their new work-from-home lives.

And that’s left [saw]mills scrambling to get logs, lumber yards short on supply, and contractors forced to pay more for what supply is available.

To my surprise, yesterday I received a notification from Facebook, informing me that my response to my daughter Nancy’s comment on lumber prices being driven by supply and demand violates their “community standards” on spam, and that only I was able to see my response to Nancy. Who did my response spam?

FB notification

Facebook judges that the truth violates their “community standards” on spam

Well, what do you know? Facebook does not want anyone to tell the truth about what caused lumber prices to go up, even though the truth about that has nothing to do with my opinion on it, other than that my opinion on that is that it is futile to argue against the truth on that.

See also:


Posted in Censorship | Comments Off on FB censorship intrudes into family life

Support, a euphemism for censorship

2021 04 11: to show  screen shot of FB spam notification
2021 04 12: to describe the next stage of FB censorship

Support, a euphemism for censorship — A “support message” is not a support message when FB sends it to its clients. That is when the  support message is a notification that a comment a FB client had wanted to post in a FB discussion thread will not be displayed by FB.

The other day I wanted to post a comment but found that it never made its appearance in the FB discussion thread it had been intended for. Today I received a Facebook “support message” that solved the mystery:

When a FB Support Message is a notification of censorship

It does not matter how intensely one tries to understand why that comment deserves to be censored, it is impossible to discern the justification for censoring it.

Perhaps the graph that was appended to the comment is the problem.  Here it is:

Interest over time in MGTOW vs feminism
(Click on the image to get to the source of the graph. That will enable 
you to make comparisons to other terms, such as Trump or COVID.)

It is hard to see what, if anything, in that graph deserves to be censored.

Well, just now I received another notification from Facebook. This time they called the comment that they for unknown reasons don’t like, “Spam”.

FB "spam" notification

No explanation was offered why they consider the comment to be spam. Who does the comment spam? Facebook doesn’t say. I insist that, going by hard and cold logic, no spam is involved and that the graph I had appended provides a perspective of the impact of the influence of MGTOW that no one other than I ever presented to anyone, and, as I recall, I did it no more than once or twice before over a good number of years.

The odd thing about Facebook’s objection, namely that they “have these standards to prevent things like false advertising, fraud and security breaches,” is that my comment does not falsely advertise anything, commits no fraud and breaches no one’s security. My comment and its appended graph does nothing more than present the truth. What possible harm could that truth represent? Why does Facebook try so hard to censure that truth? Facebook needs to examine its algorithms.

Facebook wants to rule the world through algorithms, but algorithms, as imposed by Facebook, are a very poor substitute for intelligent exchange of intelligence. It should not surprise anyone that Facebook’s censoring of my “objectionable” comment occurred for no other reason than that the comment mentioned nothing more objectionable than the word “Trump”, which gave Facebook’s censorship algorithms something to latch on to.

Facebook’s censorship affects how billions of human communicate with one-another, but it will be a long time and perhaps take forever before Facebook’s collective intelligence equals that of all of human intelligence.

Update 2021 04 12

Yesterday a link to this blog article was provided at the FB discussion thread at which FB had prevented me from posting my original comment. This morning it was found that FB had deleted the comment containing that link. 

Regardless of how one looks at all of what FB did and does to censor my original comment and the reactions to it on that discussion thread, it is evidence of a deep determination by FB to micro-manage its efforts to censor the communications of billions of people.

Certainly, Facebook’s algorithms serve that purpose very effectively, but that still does not provide them with any intelligence. The principle of GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) applies, to the detriment of humanity.

See also:

Posted in Censorship, Civil Rights, Feminism, Men's Issues | Comments Off on Support, a euphemism for censorship

Recovering All the Past with Amaury de Riencourt

Recovering All the Past with Amaury de Riencourt, a review by Frank Zepezauer (first published in the Jan/Feb 2000 issue of The Liberator)

Recovering All the Past with Amaury de Riencourt

By Frank Zepezauer, Resident Philosopher

In 1974, Amaury de Riencourt wrote a book which helped to recover a past that feminists were busily trashing. It was Sex and Power in History[1]. The title is somewhat misleading. Feminists at the time were trashing the entire past, all of humanity’s story going back to our departure from the higher primates. Which meant not only all of history, what has been written, but all of pre-history everything that happened before the written word.

And feminists were saying that the entire process, all of humanity’s history, started wrong and the woman’s movement was here to set everything right. Feminists always thought big and planned big, supplying us with a new example of “chutzpa.” The word means big time brazen boldness, breathtaking nerviness. An often-used example was the man who killed his parents and then begged for mercy on the grounds he was an orphan. Feminists have given us a better example: a small group of determined woman who believe they know how to reinvent the universe and are hell bent on getting the job done.

Among the critics who examined this megalomania was Amaury de Riencourt who went with feminists all the way back to the beginning, and concluded that they got the whole thing wrong. He then issued a warning, that if they ever got enough power to bring off their hare-brained project, they would generate a disaster. He said that the feminist revolt, “if not understood and coped with at its cultural root, could destroy Western society.”[2]

It’s now twenty-five years later and events have proved Amaury de Riencourt a prophet. We are just now beginning to understand the feminist project—what these madwoman ideologues really want to do—but we have not yet adequately coped with it. Radical feminists in the 1990s were the big gorilla in domestic policy, shoving through one piece of legislation after another, and, at the beginning of the 21st century, they enjoy enough power to push through still more, enough to destroy our culture right down to its roots.

Amaury de Riencourt is therefore worth reading, but his Sex and Power is out of print and hard to get. In this and following columns I will try to give you enough of a summary so that you will get the substance of what he said. At this point, I’d like to offer you an overview of his main ideas, but before I do that I want to say something that needs to be said as a preface to any discussion about women and power in society. It is the demographic reality that nearly every society seeks to perpetuate itself, to become a people with a future as well as a past. We see ourselves as Americans, for example, not only in terms of who we have been and who we are now but who we will be in the future. The “we” we talk about includes the living and the dead and those yet to be born.

To perpetuate ourselves we must have children who will continue our story. And to perpetuate ourselves at the same level, each woman living today must bear at least two children. Demographers take into account women who can’t or won’t bear children so the replacement rate is something like 2.2 children per woman. This demographic truth is not part of a patriarchal conspiracy. It is not something men conjured up to bedevil women. It is what each woman has to do to take us into the future. Simone de Beauvoir, who incidentally de Riencourt finds to be terribly wrongheaded, called this reality women’s enslavement to the species. It may be so. But it hasn’t been men who did the enslaving.

Throughout most of history, nearly every society not only wanted to keep its population at replacement level but to grow larger. That meant that each woman had to bear more than the basic two children. She had to bear three or four or five or more. And she had to bear them under circumstances that obtained in most societies throughout history. They included the fact that many children did not survive their infancy. It was a common experience to lose at least one child, and many families lost two or more. That meant that each woman had to bear more than four children to insure that at least two would grow into adulthood.

Another circumstance was the fact that many women did not survive childbirth. It is a terrible truth. In most societies in most of the past until well into the 19th Century, each woman risked her life to bear a child. It is a terrible truth but it is not a condition imposed on women by men and men have had their own terrible truths to live with. In most societies in most of the past right down to the 21st Century men have also had to risk their lives, often in defense of their wives and children. Throughout history, motherhood and fatherhood were risky professions and every decade has piled up casualties.

These facts have applied throughout most of history, but they do not apply to American society going into the 21st Century. We have since 1970 experienced a great fear of population explosion and have sharply cut back our birth rate. At present, it is just about at replacement level and we have achieved “zero population growth.” It is now going past that level to a point where our population will shrink. We have not noticed the effects because we have boosted our immigration rates. But even with immigration, if we continue the way we are going we will shrink.

A lot of people believe that’s a good thing and are celebrating. But Amaury de Riencourt sees it as a sign of cultural decline. It has happened before in Western history. The great Greek civilization died out fairly soon after it had reached its greatest achievements in the fifth century BC. And it died out in large part because Greeks were no longer reproducing themselves. Some spirit in them had shriveled and many of them stopped having children.

The same thing happened later to the Romans, which is why I will now repeat de Riencourt’s warning, this time quoting it in full: “…the feminist revolt which, if not understood and coped with at its cultural root could destroy Western society as a similar movement destroyed Roman civilization. [3]

The “feminist revolt” de Riencourt is speaking of began in Augustan times and was a major cause of Rome’s decline. There had been a similar feminist revolt in Greece, which began at the end of the great Periclean Age. There have also been feminist revolts since then, during the Renaissance for example, at the beginning of the 19th Century, and once again in the middle of the 20th Century.

These revolts constitute evidence for a point that de Riencourt makes throughout Sex and Power in History. It is that Western Civilization is the only civilization that has had feminist revolts. He attributes that fact to a fundamental imbalance between the masculine and the feminine principle that set in at its very beginnings. De Riencourt follows Jungian psychology on this point, that each individual as well as the society at large has a combination of anima, the feminine principle, and animus, the masculine principle. In a healthy individual both principles are at work, but in men the animus should dominate and in women the anima should dominate, but it should not prevail exclusively. Each man should have some anima and each woman should have some animus. In that sense, de Riencourt says, we are all psychologically androgynous.

(This is, incidentally, not the kind of androgyny feminists have tried to foster. Feminists believe that masculinity and femininity are social constructs, essentially fictions created by the patriarchy. Thus neither exists naturally in the male or female. It is only imposed on them by society. All we are, feminists believe, are packages of human potential. Each male or female has the same potential, all the same feelings and appetites and instincts, and, in the kind of society feminists would establish, each male and female would be free to develop their potential as they please without having to accommodate to artificial “sex roles.” Thus, in the feminist view, we are all born free androgynes and are enslaved by the imposition of a femininity and masculinity which pleases the patriarchy, and enslaves the individual man or woman.)

By the same token a healthy society has a balance between the anima and the animus. In that sense Western Civilization has not been as healthy as it could be. From its beginning the animus has been too dominant, suppressing the anima almost, sometimes, to the point of extinction. This is due in large part to the fact that it was formed by a blending of Jewish and Greek culture and both cultures were emphatically, exuberantly masculine.

De Riencourt’s theory is that both cultures were founded by nomads and nomadic societies tend to be strongly masculine. Agricultural societies, which prevailed during a great part of pre-history, tend to emphasize the feminine. In such societies women are involved in the farm work, and women enjoy more social equality. In addition, farmers rely on the bounty of “Mother Earth” and adapt themselves to a seasonal cycle which sees growth, harvesting, death, and rebirth… and this cycle inclines societies toward worshipping female deities, in particular “the Great Mother.” In those societies the anima is very strong if not dominant.

Nomadic societies, on the other hand, are less bound to the earth and its cyclic rhythms. They develop no attachment to any particular piece of terrain and guide their movements by the sun and the stars. They are thus inclined to worship sky gods, particularly the sun. Historians who traced a major shift in mythology from Great Mother families to sky god families, call the shift “solarization.” Worshipping the sun was a guy thing and that’s what nomads tended to do.

The early Hebrews, for example, were mostly sheepherders who moved up and down the fertile crescent. They had little to do at that time with farming, a disinclination which appears in the story of Cain, the farmer who is rejected by Jehovah and Abel, the shepherd who enjoys his favor.

Orthodox Judaism has since remained heavily masculine, retaining for example an all-male clergy and sharply dividing the sexes. To this day a woman may not pray at the Wailing Wall.

The early Greeks were also herdsmen but they did not originate in what is now Greece. They came in from the Asian steppes where they had roamed for centuries. They were tough and warlike and macho, and when they came down into Europe in the second millennium BC, they tore up the place. This event is called the “Dorian Invasion,” and it initiated a dark age.

Little is known about what happened during a three century period. What little we do know tells us that the existing civilizations, based on Great Mother worship, were all but extinguished. By the end of the period the Greek pantheon was headed by a male god, Zeus, and the entire mythology was male oriented. However, the barbaric Dorians slowly became civilized themselves, largely by assimilating the cultures they conquered. We see them moving in that direction in the Homeric epics where they are still tough, warlike, and macho but are showing signs of the cultivation which flowered in the Periclean Age.

But that great epoch was so heavily masculinized that women, who had more status and power in the pre-Homeric ages, rebelled. I will tell about that event in Part 2 of this series.

It turns out that Western Civilization was not only founded by two heavily masculine cultures. It has been periodically reinvigorated by still other masculine cultures. There have been a number of invasions into Europe initiated by barbaric Asian tribes, such as the Goths, the Huns, and the Mongols, all of them herdsmen, all of them super macho. I’ll tell more about them in parts of my review of Sex and Power in History. Till then, have a happy new year, century, and millennium.


1.Amaury de Riencourt, Sex and Power in History, (New York, NY: Dell, 1974.

2.Amaury de Riencourt, p. ix.

3.Amaury de Riencourt, Sex and Power in History, p. ix. My emphasis.

See also:

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Recovering All the Past with Amaury de Riencourt

Recovering the American Past with Brian C. Robertson

Recovering the American Past with Brian C. Robertson, a review by Frank Zepezauer (first published in the Mar/Apr 2000 issue of The Liberator), presents information about gender roles that modern feminism opposes, censors, or derogates.

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 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.

I learned about the National Congress of Mothers in a short but highly informative book, There’s 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 Robertson’s 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 women’s 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 women’s movement, its goals and its guiding principles.”

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.

The nineteenth was also the first century of capitalism, and as early as its first decade it was pulling women and children into the workforce because businesses needed workers and wanted to depress wages. To combat this system a movement was organized, led largely by women. It was these activists, family-centered Christian women, who fashioned the “separate spheres” concept which feminists would later claim was the work of the woman-enslaving Patriarchy.

The term itself was coined by a woman, Catherine Beecher, who, Robertson says, “saw the mission of the homemaker and mother in explicitly Christian terms.” He quotes her as saying, “The distinctive feature of the family is self-sacrificing labor of the stronger and wiser members to raise the weaker and more ignorant to equal advantages. The father undergoes toil and self-denial to provide a home, and then the mother becomes a self-sacrificing laborer to train its inmates.”

Alexis de Tocqueville took note of how the separate spheres concept was working in the America of the 1830. “American women engaged themselves exclusively in “the quiet circle of domestic employments…in no country has such constant care been taken as in America to trace two clearly distinct lines of action for the two sexes and to make them keep pace one with the other, but in two pathways that are always different.” In other words, Americans responding to the guidance of the early woman’s movement worked out a separate but equal gender role system.

Who created unequal wage rates?

These developments reveal the fallacies of the second feminist misperception. It is that “the Patriarchy” connived to subject women to separate but unequal wage rates. The facts, as Robertson discloses them, again show otherwise. The women’s movement of the 19th Century struggled to establish not a male but a family wage. It did not favor men; it favored breadwinners. This policy derived from their primary concern that mothers should be able to devote full time to raising children and managing a home. To do that they had to be provided for, and it was the husband and father who had to do the providing, which meant that he had to earn a wage sufficient to support not only himself but his entire family.

The long enduring effort to institutionalize the family wage eventually succeeded. Robertson writes that “it has been estimated that by 1960 a family wage was paid by 65 percent of all employers in the United States and by 80 percent of the major industrial companies.” He adds, “Although feminist historians today call the family-wage ideal a ‘myth” designed to keep married women oppressed, few myths have come closer to becoming reality.” He later states that “the family-wage economy that prevailed from 1945 to 1970 was the product of an ideal pursued deliberately, primarily by women’s organizations, through the political process….”

A third misperception is that the beginnings of the modern feminist movement was a brave and lonely effort by a few women fighting against great odds. They were a vanguard which gradually gathered enough strength by 1970 to launch the high-powered woman’s movement we live with today. It’s a movement whose leaders consider equality as equal distribution of men and women throughout the workforce, at every level in every enterprise…50/50 across the board. It is therefore the sworn enemy of the homemaker role that so many women struggled to establish during the previous 150 years.

This misperception about the small lonely vanguard is wrong in several ways. It’s wrong first of all in its depiction of the opposition these new feminists faced. It was supposed to be the established order, the Patriarchy. In fact, a great part of the opposition to the new feminism were leaders of the old feminism. They were the family-friendly women who in the mid-twentieth century came to be known as “social feminists.” There were social feminists like Frances Perkins, the first female Secretary of Labor, who fought to maintain the family wage system and who helped establish mother support systems, such as Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) based on the traditional family structure. The effort to ensure that mothers would be adequately supported extended to mothers who had lost their providers. But governmental support for such women was limited to once-married women who lost their husbands through death or disablement. Unwed mothers were not eligible. Social feminists wanted it that way, not Patriarchs.

Also consider the fact that the major opposition to the new feminist’s first major campaign, the effort to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment, did not come primarily from men but from women. A coalition of women led by Phyllis Schlafly, who were very much like the activists in the old National Congress of Mothers, led the successful fight to kill the ERA. If it had been left to men to oppose it, it would be a part of the constitution today.

The new and radical feminists [more accurately called redfems — WHS] that emerged in the 1960s, the ones who pushed the “ratify ERA campaign,” were in the beginning not all that lonely, nor were they all that impoverished. Even before the Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan’s trashing of the housewife, appeared in 1963 there was increasing hostility to the traditional family in the academy and the government There was, for example, a 1957 conference on “Work in the Lives of Married Women” which was already outlining the great social transformation that would occur in the next decade.

One of its speakers, Katherine Brownell Oettinger, stated that “we cannot realistically expect to reverse” the trend of mothers working in ever larger numbers…On the basis of our present information we do not believe it is necessarily damaging to a child to be separated from his mother for substantial periods during the day, if adequate substitute care is provided. [No known study] “has established a causal relation between maternal employment and either juvenile delinquency or the maladjustment of children.”

The reversal of the traditional family order, the work of countless family women and men during the previous century, quickly accelerated. By 1963, President Kennedy had established a Women’s Commission which was stacked with career oriented women and in the same year Congress passed an Equal Pay Act, which dealt a blow to the family wage concept.

In 1964, in an attempt to kill a civil rights bill, a Southern congressmen inserted the word “sex” among the groups who would be protected from discrimination. His ploy failed because there were already enough feminist Congresswomen to recognize the opportunity the proposed addition opened up. The word “sex” was retained in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, another severe blow to the breadwinner/housewife system.

The feminists who helped engineer these revolutionary changes had help from another source, the business elites. It appears that capitalism has not been all that family friendly. It took enormous effort in the 19th Century to protect women and children from the forces pulling them into the workforce and it would require the same effort in the 20th Century. But by the middle of that century, the business forces were stronger and, by supplying aid and comfort to anti-family radicals, they managed to bring women back into the workforce.

To bring this off, the same market efficiency arguments were put to work. For example, the Economist magazine published a “Survey of Women and Work” which Robertson said, “summarized the advantages to employers of an expanded labor pool in which the great majority of married women work. One is that as the formerly non-monetary functions of the household are commercialized, new markets are created.” And there are other advantages: “In America, with its booming economy and tight labor market, women are proving a godsend to many employers. They usually cost less to employ than men, are more prepared to be flexible and less inclined to kick up a fuss if working conditions are poor….Employers like them because they allow more flexibility and command lower pay, and because part-timers can be pushed harder while they are at work.”

Thus, as Robertson put it, the old system was destroyed “By conscious effort on the part of a feminist and business elite [as well as] neglect on the part of a comfortable society that had ceased to see any need to shield home and family from destructive market and state pressures.”

If one defines “the Patriarchy” as the male power elite, then it is clear that it was not the Patriarchy who put the housewife in the home nor was it the Patriarchy that resisted efforts to take her out of the home and put her back in the workplace. The Patriarchy wanted her there all the time acting not as radical feminism’s worst enemy but as radical feminism’s best friend.

Who killed fatherhood?

Robertson’s story therefore corrects a pile of misperceptions laid on our doorstep by the feminist movement. It also tends to confirm a theory I have about the fate of fatherhood in the late twentieth century. I believe that the separate spheres system helped to undermine the father role. It had always consisted of three basic responsibilities: to provide, to protect, and to parent. When men separated from their household to earn money for their families, they however tended to concentrate more on providing and less on protecting and parenting.

This tendency was reinforced by the exaltation of motherhood which was part of the 19th Century woman’s movement. Women’s separate sphere became women’s domain and increasingly most of the essential parenting in the family was handled by women. The focus throughout was, therefore, mother-centered. The basic social policy question was “How can we support the work of mothers.” The family wage system was devised as the best way to resolve that problem. Contrary to what feminists have claimed for the past thirty years, it was devised not to serve the interests of men but to serve the interests of women.

Fathers nevertheless remained integral members of the family because they were needed as providers. Their contribution as parents was however increasingly downplayed and the average family came to resemble a military platoon with a second lieutenant officially in command but with a master sergeant really running the outfit.

In the 20th Century, with the drive to send women into the workplace, the titular head of the family was no longer needed. There was then another answer to the question, “How can we support the work of mothers?” It was by making mothers financially independent and by assisting mothers with tax-supported daycare and by assisting mothers, married or not, with government outlays. Of all the blows to fatherhood, perhaps the single most significant was the decision, made somewhere in the Johnson Administration bureaucracy, to open AFDC to unwed mothers.

From that point on, the final answer to the question was “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”  Fathers had become disposable. 

Additional Reading:

The protectors of women time and again praise to ‘Wessi’ (Westie) women the wonderfully complete world of the ‘Ossi’ (Eastie) women, ever since the end of the GDR, whose all-encompassing children-crèche system secured full-time earning potential and thereby the personal freedom of mothers.

What a full-day program for the children of fully-employed looks like has been thoroughly experienced by the mothers of the former GDR. Marlene, herself a crèche-child and subsequently an educator for child-‘educatetresses’ from Potsdam, told it to me. [Full Story]

— Karin Jäckel, in Germany devours its children — Families today: Exploited  and burned out

Posted in Civil Rights, Family, History | 1 Comment

The 1966 Agenda of the National Organization of Women (NOW)

The 1966 Agenda of the National Organization of Women (NOW) was only the first of many such agendas and has undergone numerous changes and transitions since the first in the long series was published.

During the 1990s, I downloaded the 1966 agenda of NOW, because I feared that at some time in the future the agenda wouldn’t be available at the NOW web site anymore, either because NOW will become defunct, or because NOW might find their 1966 agenda to become an embarrassment, or both.  The 1966 Agenda is quoted here unabridged, except for the comments I provided after each of the portion of the quoted text of the 1966 Agenda of NOW.

Aside from the flawed and skewed statistics presented in the first Agenda of NOW, shown below (the radical feminists, better called redfems, still use the same tactics in the presentation of such statistics), a lot has changed that indicates that the aims set out in the agenda have been met or surpassed.

Why are we now engaged in an all-out war on men?

The answer to that may be in the comment shown in Michael Crichton’s The Great Train Robbery:

Victorians also witnessed another rivalry, centering around a new social institution — the organized police force.  Almost immediately, the new force began to form relationships with its avowed enemy, the criminal class.  These relationships were much debated in the nineteenth century, and they continue to be debated to the present day.  The similarity in methods of police and criminals, as well as the fact that many policemen were former criminals — and the reverse — were features not overlooked by thinkers of the day.  And it was also noted by Sir James Wheatstone that there was a logical problem inherent in a law-enforcement institution, “for, should the police actually succeed in eliminating all crime, they will simultaneously succeed in eliminating themselves as a necessary adjunct to society, — and no organized force or power will ever eliminate itself willingly.”

The question here is: to what extent does a bureaucracy contribute to bring about the conditions that it was created to resolve?  If it is possible and likely that a bureaucracy perpetuates itself, will it not be an absolute requirement that it creates or finds enough reasons for its own existence?  How does that apply to all aspects of jurisprudence and social services?

There is no question that NOW was an organized power in 1998.  There is no questions that its members, sympathizers and collaborators had by then permeated all sectors of politics and the bureaucracy.  Should there be any question that NOW and its supporters govern under the premise expressed by Sir James Wheatstone?  Read the 1966 Agenda of NOW shown below and judge for yourself. Here it is:

The National Organization for Women’s 1966 Statement of Purpose

NOTICE: This is a historic document, which was adopted at NOW’s first National Conference in Washington, D.C. on October 29, 1966. The words are those of the 1960’s, and do not reflect current language or NOW’s current priorities.

To our sorrow we are only too well aware of that.

We, men and women who hereby constitute ourselves as the National Organization for Women, believe that the time has come for a new movement toward true equality for all women in America, and toward a fully equal partnership of the sexes, as part of the world-wide revolution of human rights now taking place within and beyond our national borders.

Done and surpassed

The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.

Done and accomplished, except for the equality for men. That got lost in the process of implementation.

We believe the time has come to move beyond the abstract argument, discussion and symposia over the status and special nature of women which has raged in America in recent years; the time has come to confront, with concrete action, the conditions that now prevent women from enjoying the equality of opportunity and freedom of choice which is their right, as individual Americans, and as human beings.

Done and accomplished–except that women now have a far more pronounced special status than they ever had.

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.

Full equality and then some more has been attained, however, the “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” has not come about. There is no military draft for women. Women are absent in all walks of life that involve exposure to the elements and to the risk of physical danger.

The result is that the gap between the life spans of men and women in all developed nations of the world stands now at seven years or more in favour of women.

We organize to initiate or support action, nationally, or in any part of this nation, by individuals or organizations, to break through the silken curtain of prejudice and discrimination against women in government, industry, the professions, the churches, the political parties, the judiciary, the labor unions, in education, science, medicine, law, religion and every other field of importance in American society.

That goal has now been far exceeded. Women enjoy unprecedented advantages over men in  all of the areas mentioned.

Enormous changes taking place in our society make it both possible and urgently necessary to advance the unfinished revolution of women toward true equality, now. 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.

An enormous deviation from that goal has occurred. Although the life-span of women has lengthened by several years since then, no-fault divorce has pushed many women deeper into the role of mothering than ever before. They have thus managed to place themselves deeper and more firmly into the role from which they tried so hard to liberate themselves.

Today’s technology has reduced most of the productive chores which women once performed in the home and in mass-production industries based upon routine unskilled labor. This same technology has virtually eliminated the quality of muscular strength as a criterion for filling most jobs, while intensifying American industry’s need for creative intelligence. In view of this new industrial revolution created by automation in the mid-twentieth century, women can and must participate in old and new fields of society in full equality — or become permanent outsiders.

Woman are graduating in unprecedented numbers from educational institutions. The majority of graduates are women. However, their desire to make their way in social science, politics, and the liberal arts has prevented them from accepting careers to the required extent in the technical fields, engineering, and to some extent in medicine. Many women would still rather teach kindergarten than drive a truck.

Despite all the talk about the status of American women in recent years, the actual position of women in the United States has declined, and is declining, to an alarming degree throughout the 1950’s and 60’s. Although 46.4% of all American women between the ages of 18 and 65 now work outside the home, the overwhelming majority — 75% — are in routine clerical, sales, or factory jobs, or they are household workers, cleaning women, hospital attendants. About two-thirds of Negro women workers are in the lowest paid service occupations. Working women are becoming increasingly — not less — concentrated on the bottom of the job ladder. As a consequence full-time women workers today earn on the average only 60% of what men earn, and that wage gap has been increasing over the past twenty-five years in every major industry group. In 1964, of all women with a yearly income, 89% earned under $5,000 a year; half of all full-time year round women workers earned less than $3,690; only 1.4% of full-time year round women workers had an annual income of $10,000 or more.

Female university graduates in the U.S. , in 1998, earned 98% of what men with identical tenure and credentials earned. In Canada, such women have had pay equity with men since 1992, if they worked the same number of 44 hours per week as men did, and earned more than 110% of what men earn if the weekly number of hours worked by both sexes are in the range of 60 hours. Levels of unemployment are higher for men. There is preferential hiring of women and preferential lay-offs for men.

Further, with higher education increasingly essential in today’s society, too few women are entering and finishing college or going on to graduate or professional school. Today, women earn only one in three of the B.A.’s and M.A.’s granted, and one in ten of the Ph.D.’s.

Done, accomplished and exceeded! The drop-out rate is far higher for men now. The majority of graduates are now women, except in the hard sciences, and whose fault is that?

In all the professions considered of importance to society, and in the executive ranks of industry and government, women are losing ground. Where they are present it is only a token handful. Women comprise less than 1% of federal judges; less than 4% of all lawyers; 7% of doctors. Yet women represent 51% of the U.S. population. And, increasingly, men are replacing women in the top positions in secondary and elementary schools, in social work, and in libraries — once thought to be women’s fields.

Done, accomplished and exceeded! This is were some of the greatest advances by women were made. Women receive preferential treatment in all of these fields. A woman can become a judge far more easily and far quicker than a man.

A woman rises to the rank of General in the Canadian Armed Forces in only a third of the time that is takes a man to reach that position.

The educational field is practically a female monopoly. If woman are still under-represented in any of the fields mentioned, it is because there are no qualified takers for the positions that are available for them–even with the relaxed physical, educational, and professional standards that are generally applied in considering women for job positions.

It appears that women are still reluctant to take advantage of what is offered to them.

Official pronouncements of the advance in the status of women hide not only the reality of this dangerous decline, but the fact that nothing is being done to stop it. The excellent reports of the President’s Commission on the Status of Women and of the State Commissions have not been fully implemented. Such Commissions have power only to advise. They have no power to enforce their recommendation; nor have they the freedom to organize American women and men to press for action on them. The reports of these commissions have, however, created a basis upon which it is now possible to build. Discrimination in employment on the basis of sex is now prohibited by federal law, in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. But although nearly one-third of the cases brought before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission during the first year dealt with sex discrimination and the proportion is increasing dramatically, the Commission has not made clear its intention to enforce the law with the same seriousness on behalf of women as of other victims of discrimination. Many of these cases were Negro women, who are the victims of double discrimination of race and sex. Until now, too few women’s organizations and official spokesmen have been willing to speak out against these dangers facing women. Too many women have been restrained by the fear of being called `feminist.” There is no civil rights movement to speak for women, as there has been for Negroes and other victims of discrimination. The National Organization for Women must therefore begin to speak.

And speak they did! By 1998 Men were the discriminated class.

In all imaginable sectors of society, men were as a rule being discriminated against. Jurisprudence was actively pursuing a course of persecution of men. Men were completely helpless in obtaining equitable justice. Governments at all levels were supporting programs in favour of women and virtually none that were in favour of men. Hate language and gender-hatred against men had become part of everyday life and was actively being promoted and sponsored by governments–the reverse had never been the case. Women’s groups received generous funding out of tax funds. Men’s rights groups received none.

Women were considered incapable of committing crimes. Men were considered the sole perpetrators of them. That had reached proportions where women were encouraged to commit violence against men at an ever-increasing rate. Women could with impunity murder their spouses and the men in their lives, and their children—all under the guise of P.M.S., the “Learned Helplessness Syndrome,” the “Battered Woman Syndrome,” “Automatism,” etc. None of those defences were available to men.

Provided a woman’s crime came to trial at all—which it often did not—her chance of being convicted was far less than that of a man.

If a sentence for a violent or any other crime committed by a woman was handed out, she received on average a sentence that was only one third of what a man received for perpetrating a crime of equal severity.

If incarcerated, a woman was likely to serve far less of her term of incarceration than a man would. Women’s prisons were far more amiable than men’s prisons–in general they were described as “country club settings.”

In 1998, the sex ratio of inmates in our correctional facilities in Canada was 100 men for every woman, and in the U.S. 17.2 men for every woman.

The effort to house women in comfortable settings had resulted in the average cost for the accommodation of female inmates to exceed by far that of the average cost for male inmates.

Our Jurisprudence had become so distorted that it was possible for a woman to get a university professor sentenced to a two year term of incarceration for sexual assault, simply by alleging—supported by no evidence other than her say-so—that he “leered” at her in a public swimming pool, and to completely ruin his professional career in the process by forcing him from his teaching position.

A man who dared to use a worm instead of a fly to fish for trout would serve 30 days in jail, whereas a woman who murdered her child or her spouse was most likely not incarcerated even for a single hour.

WE BELIEVE that the power of American law, and the protection guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution to the civil rights of all individuals, must be effectively applied and enforced to isolate and remove patterns of sex discrimination, to ensure equality of opportunity in employment and education, and equality of civil and political rights and responsibilities on behalf of women, as well as for Negroes and other deprived groups.

Done and surpassed by far! However, the 1996 version of N.O.W.’s agenda still alleged that there was a looming presence of bias against women in our courts and in all other sectors of society. Furthermore, in both Canada and the U.S. a constant stream of legislation was being aimed against the men in our society, abrogating their constitutional rights to an ever-increasing extent.

Is it not time now to insist instead that equitable justice and rights for ALL be established? Should equitable justice and rights not now—where they have been taken away—be restored, implemented and protected for men?

We realize that women’s problems are linked to many broader questions of social justice; their solution will require concerted action by many groups. Therefore, convinced that human rights for all are indivisible, we expect to give active support to the common cause of equal rights for all those who suffer discrimination and deprivation, and we call upon other organizations committed to such goals to support our efforts toward equality for women.

Is it not time now to take the sexist language out of the wording? What would be wrong with demanding “equality for all”?

WE DO NOT ACCEPT the token appointment of a few women to high-level positions in government and industry as a substitute for serious continuing effort to recruit and advance women according to their individual abilities. To this end, we urge American government and industry to mobilize the same resources of ingenuity and command with which they have solved problems of far greater difficulty than those now impeding the progress of women.

Done, accomplished and exceeded by far!

WE BELIEVE that this nation has a capacity at least as great as other nations, to innovate new social institutions which will enable women to enjoy the true equality of opportunity and responsibility in society, without conflict with their responsibilities as mothers and homemakers. In such innovations, America does not lead the Western world, but lags by decades behind many European countries. 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. We question the present expectation that all normal women will retire from job or profession for 10 or 15 years, to devote their full time to raising children, only to reenter the job market at a relatively minor level. This, in itself, is a deterrent to the aspirations of women, to their acceptance into management or professional training courses, and to the very possibility of equality of opportunity or real choice, for all but a few women. Above all, we reject the assumption that these problems are the unique responsibility of each individual woman, rather than a basic social dilemma which society must solve. True equality of opportunity and freedom of choice for women requires such practical, and possible innovations as a nationwide network of child-care centers, which will make it unnecessary for women to retire completely from society until their children are grown, and national programs to provide retraining for women who have chosen to care for their children full-time.

Women aren’t retiring from society, regardless of whether they decide to become fully involved in raising their children.  If the women who make the choice to dedicate themselves are not removed from society, they are still part of it, doing the most important job imaginable, raising the next generation of well-functioning citizens.

However, nothing is new under the sun.  Chairman Mao expressed very much the same sentiments as did Betty Friedan.

That won’t surprise anyone who is aware of the fact that both had a past with a solid Communist upbringing and a long history of being functionaries of the Communist Party.

Nevertheless, the women who choose not to devote their lives to the upbringing of their family’s children now kill them off in numbers that far exceed any horrors ever visited upon humanity. In 1998, 1.6 million viable children were being thrown into North-American trash cans every year, a holocaust far greater than anything anyone could have ever imagined.

The number of these throw-away children in the whole world amounted to 55 million annually (about 45 million annually by 2020).

WE BELIEVE that it is as essential for every girl to be educated to her full potential of human ability as it is for every boy — with the knowledge that such education is the key to effective participation in today’s economy and that, for a girl as for a boy, education can only be serious where there is expectation that it will be used in society. We believe that American educators are capable of devising means of imparting such expectations to girl students. Moreover, we consider the decline in the proportion of women receiving higher and professional education to be evidence of discrimination. That discrimination may take the form of quotas against the admission of women to colleges, and professional schools; lack of encouragement by parents, counselors and educators; denial of loans or fellowships; or the traditional or arbitrary procedures in graduate and professional training geared in terms of men, which inadvertently discriminate against women. We believe that the same serious attention must be given to high school dropouts who are girls as to boys.

Done and accomplished. More boys than girls now drop out.

More women than men graduate. There are no more all-male institutions. More and more all-female institutions are coming into existence. Is it possible to ask for more without eliminating men altogether?

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.

Done and accomplished — in some fashion. Few families find it possible now to survive or exist solely on the father’s income — even if they wanted to. That is largely due to an ever-increasing tax-burden placed upon them for the purpose of addressing the social problems that our social engineers created over the past three decades in the name of “Individual Rights,” and “Gender Equality.”

However, the lamented gender-role assignment:  “…. 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….” has not been eliminated. Only the context has changed. Nevertheless, women still are, as they always were, the domineering force in our society — now only more so….

Our social engineers have shifted men’s role from their being the sole providers and protectors for their families (if we grant that this was actually an accurate description of the relationship between between fathers and their families) to that of a wage earner enslaved to the Department of Maintenance Enforcement (or pick any other equivalent).

Men’s ability to protect their families has been usurped — a better term would be “eliminated”. A father who has been forced out of his home and family — indeed forced even to live in jail — can’t be a protector of his family any longer. He can’t even be a good supporter, no matter how hard he tries.

 Reality governs. One single household is a more efficient user of the available resources of a set of parents and the resources that society offers to a family than two separate households are. It is not in the best interest of our society to grant surmounting rights to individuals and to destroy its families in the process.

When Pierre Elliot Trudeau said in the 1960s that “The government has no business in the bedrooms of its nation,” he apparently ruled out with that statement many other rights and privileges that families had become accustomed to during the history of civilization.

Single, unprotected women and their children live in ever-increasing poverty. Single mothers experience a disproportionate amount of violence and abuse.

The suffering of the children of single-mother families has reached proportions that have never before been seen. These children comprise by far the largest single group of our prison inmates. They are, compared to children from functional and whole families:

  •   5 times more likely to commit suicide,
  • 32 times more likely to run away,
  • 20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders,
  • 14 times more likely to commit rape,
  •   9 times more likely to drop out of school,
  • 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances,
  •   9 times more likely to end up in a state operated institution,
  •   8.5 times more likely to end up in prison.
  • 33 times more likely to be seriously abused
  • 73 times more likely to be murdered

There is no alleviation of these problems. Governments, in their attempts to address the symptoms of the problems caused by single-mother families are forced to impose ever-increasing levels of taxation on business and all wage-earners.

WE BELIEVE that women must now exercise their political rights and responsibilities as American citizens. They must refuse to be segregated on the basis of sex into separate-and-not-equal ladies’ auxiliaries in the political parties, and they must demand representation according to their numbers in the regularly constituted party committees — at local, state, and national levels — and in the informal power structure, participating fully in the selection of candidates and political decision-making, and running for office themselves.

Done and accomplished. Woman and the male supporters of their aims are now the most powerful force in our political systems.

IN THE INTERESTS OF THE HUMAN DIGNITY OF WOMEN, we will protest, and endeavor to change, the false image of women now prevalent in the mass media, and in the texts, ceremonies, laws, and practices of our major social institutions. Such images perpetuate contempt for women by society and by women for themselves. We are similarly opposed to all policies and practices — in church, state, college, factory, or office — which, in the guise of protectiveness, not only deny opportunities but also foster in women self-denigration, dependence, and evasion of responsibility, undermine their confidence in their own abilities and foster contempt for women.

Done and accomplished. Now men are the ones who are being denigrated through enormous and all-pervasive propaganda campaigns that depict them as violent and brutish batterers, rapists, deadbeat dads, sexist, etc. in spite of a plethora of evidence to the contrary.

NOW WILL HOLD ITSELF INDEPENDENT OF ANY POLITICAL PARTY in order to mobilize the political power of all women and men intent on our goals. We will strive to ensure that no party, candidate, president, senator, governor, congressman, or any public official who betrays or ignores the principle of full equality between the sexes is elected or appointed to office. If it is necessary to mobilize the votes of men and women who believe in our cause, in order to win for women the final right to be fully free and equal human beings, we so commit ourselves.

It is very questionable that this goal has actually been reached. Political parties and radical women’s groups are actively wooing each other. There is indiscriminate appointment of women to positions of power, often without regard for the academic or professional prerequisites needed for the positions to be filled.

WE BELIEVE THAT women will do most to create a new image of women by acting now, and by speaking out in behalf of their own equality, freedom, and human dignity — not in pleas for special privilege, nor in enmity toward men, who are also victims of the current, half-equality between the sexes — but in an active, self-respecting partnership with men. By so doing, women will develop confidence in their own ability to determine actively, in partnership with men, the conditions of their life, their choices, their future and their society.

They stated “partnership,” not “domination,” but it is a goal that has not been met. In fact, the current state of affairs could not have deviated more from the stated objective if people had actively tried to get away from it, and that, as we can see in the trail of the NOW agendas that they have produced over the years, is exactly what was done. For example, see the 1996 Agenda of NOW.

This Statement of Purpose was co-authored by Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique, and Dr. Pauli Murray, an African-American, Episcopal minister.

Source: http://www.now.org/history/purpos66.html [As of 1998 06 28, that link was still functional. As of today, 2021 04 05, the link returns a 404 error. — Walter H. Schneider]

Where do we go from here? Is it still possible to salvage anything for our society, our children, and for their future, or will we go the way of the USSR–into total and absolute social and economic chaos? We are well down the road to that end. Is it too late to stop and take look at where we are going?

As agendas go and as has happened to so many of them, the NOW agenda too evolved over time. It has undergone a constant stream of changes and modifications until it reached its current state. It would be well if more people would take a close look at NOW’s 1996 agenda and compare it to NOW’s original intentions.

When the goals of the current NOW agenda have been reached and surpassed—they most certainly will do that in the absence of any effective opposition—and when the dust settles, we will be living in a society that even George Orwell and Aldous Huxley would not have dared to think of in their wildest imaginations. We should all mourn the future that lies in wait for our children.

See also:

    • There is absolutely nothing new about the sort of recent development addressed in the 1966 Agenda of the National Organization of Women.  The trend is simply a continuation of the chivalry by “men” of the Victorian age (politicians, judges and lawyers) who did their best to give women — in the name of liberating them from male oppression — more and more privileges at the expense of common men.  In that fashion The Fraud of Feminism (1913, by Belfort Bax) has been at work already for hundreds of years  to bring about The Legal Subjection of Men (1908, by Belfort Bax).
      Note: The Internet Archive does not always produce results for those two preceding links. However, the two pieces by Belfort Bax can be found and accessed in other locations on the Net. You can use, for example, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism and http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men
    • Sex and Power in History, by Amaury de Riencourt, Review
    • There’s No Place Like Work : How Business, Government, and Our Obsession with Work Have Driven Parents From Home, by Brian C. Robertson. Review
    • Feminism For Male College Students — A Short Guide to the Truth, by Angry Harry (Off-Site)
    • In WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, Warren Farrell explains that men and women are equally powerless but that men and boys are being indoctrinated to admire women and to follow career paths that enable men to give women what women want.  For example:

      What Are Boys Good For?

      What does a teenage girl learn to give to a boy? Let’s look at a thirteen-page spread in Teen-the Christmas 1984 issue. Approx­imately seventy presents are mentioned, with an average price of about thirty dollars (over two thousand dollars’ [close to US$5,000 in 2007 dollars — F4L] worth of presents). Only one is for a male—pajamas for a baby boy. As with Ms., no presents for boyfriends.
          There are several teenage boys shown in the pictures. One admires a girl while she admires herself in the mirror; another is towing a girl’s brand-new car. The same use of men as in Self.
      Is the girl in the Teen spread helping the boy who has attached her car to a tow truck? No. She drapes herself over the tow truck. And how does she learn to handle a stressful situation? The caption explains: “If a stressful situation causes complexion concerns, keep skin under control with Noxzema Acne 12. And pass the time in an easy-to-wear wardrobe!”
          All twelve days of Christmas run the same pattern: “Keep tabs on your weight,” “File your nails … ,” “Massage your hands,” “Massage your feet,” “Turn heads in your direction by keeping lips lusciously lubricated …. ” What does he get? Nothing is mentioned but her beauty. What lessons does he learn? Admire and rescue. [Emphasis by F4L] In Teen. In Ms. In Self.
      Do teenage boys’ magazines show a girl towing his brand-new car, while he drapes himself over her tow truck and worries about his acne? Hardly.
          In men’s magazines there are only a few gifts for men to buy women. Remember the principle of the De Beers transfer. She chooses the diamond and chooses among the men her beauty power can attract to buy it. Which is why his ads are for how to become successful enough to buy whatever she chooses; hers are to become beautiful enough to be able to make the choice of both the gift and the man to buy the gift. Men’s magazines do not feature many gifts for women because men are expected to do the buying after consulting the women, not the magazine, and to concentrate their energies on making the money.

Once they become men (or perhaps even sooner), men (or boys) begin to catch on.  For example:

Why is changing a light bulb always a guy’s job? Because women have more important things to do – like making men feel useful and important by giving them things to do, like changing light bulbs.

How many divorced men does it take to change a light bulb? None. They never get the house anyway.

—Edmonton Journal,
2007 08 28, p. B2, Venting
(more at edmontonjournal.com Online Extras – Venting)

It will take quite some time yet, however, before a majority of society gets Warren Farrell’s message expressed in the following.

One of the fascinating parts about men is our tendency to subject ourselves to war, physical abuse, and psychological abuse and call it “power.” The ability to be totally out of control while continuing to view ourselves as the ones with the power can have certain advantages to a woman. As expressed in this poem:

He bought me drinks all evening
   in response to just a wink
Then accepted my invitation to
   repair my kitchen sink
Then I brought him into beddy-bye
   to get a little sex
Then couldn’t help but smile
   when he called it conquest!

WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, By Warren Farrell, p. 289

That story goes like this when it is translated into a joke that is far more ironic than it is funny (found at angryharry.com*):

An Irishman an Englishman and a Scotsman were sitting in a bar in Sydney. The view was fantastic, the beer excellent, and the food exceptional. “But” said the Scotsman, “I still prefer the pubs back home. Why, in Glasgow there’s a little bar called McTavish’s. Now the landlord there goes out of his way for the locals so much that when you buy 4 drinks he will buy the 5th drink for you.”

“Well,” said the Englishman “at my local, the Red Lion, the barman there will buy you your 3rd drink after you buy the first 2.”

“Ahhh that’s nothin’,” said the Irishman, “Back home in Dublin there’s Ryan’s Bar. Now the moment you set foot in the place they’ll buy you a drink, then another, all the drinks you like. Then when you’ve had enough drink they’ll take you upstairs and see that you get laid. All on the house.”

The Englishman and Scotsman immediately pour scorn on the Irishman’s claims. He swears every word is true.

“Well,” said the Englishman, “Did this actually happen to you?” 

“Not myself personally, no” said the Irishman, “but it did happen to my sister.”

found at angryharry.com

Men’s problem is that women’s “powerlessness” has been amply addressed throughout the history of evolution, intensively so since the advent of radical feminism [*], but that men’s powerlessness received little or no attention. Instead, men curry women’s favors by giving women gifts, even the gift of men’s lives.

While in the past men were enticed to live up to the social duties imposed upon them with promises that they would be paid back for that through society paying them appreciation, honour and respect, today — thanks to decades of feminist slandering of men, intended to “increase” the social value of women — men are being vilified for being men, and not much else matters.

* If the term “radical feminism” (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist-feminism) is somewhat new to you, you need to expand your knowledge.  After all, radical feminism, the currently controlling faction of feminism, governs just about everything that is happening in your life.  See, Carey Roberts column

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Carey Roberts’ best-known work, his exposé on Marxism and radical feminism, is not necessarily easy to find, but this link will help with that. (Some of the URLs for the article series appear to keep changing.  For that reason the identified link leads to an Internet search for the series.  The first or second link in the return list will most likely lead you to the series.)

Posted in Civil Rights, Feminism, History | Comments Off on The 1966 Agenda of the National Organization of Women (NOW)

76 years after the end of WWII – still no peace treaty with Germany?

76 years after the end of WWII there is still no peace treaty with Germany. Will there ever be one? Let’s wait and see.

“Following the German military leaders’ unconditional surrender in May 1945, the country lay prostrate. The German state had ceased to exist, and sovereign authority passed to the victorious Allied powers….

The Soviets unilaterally severed the German territories east of the Oder and Neisse rivers and placed these under the direct administrative authority of the Soviet Union and Poland, with the larger share going to the Poles as compensation for territory they lost to the Soviet Union. The former provinces of East Prussia, most of Pomerania, and Silesia were thus stripped from Germany. Since virtually the entire German population of some 9.5 million in these and adjacent regions was expelled westward, this amounted to a de facto annexation of one-fourth of Germany’s territory as of 1937, the year before the beginning of German expansion under Hitler. The Western Allies acquiesced in these actions by the Soviets, taking consolation in the expectation that these annexations were merely temporary expedients that the final peace terms would soon supersede.

As a result of irreconcilable differences among the Allied powers, however, no peace conference was ever held.” More at https://www.britannica.com/place/Germany/The-era-of-partition

Is that really true? Well, consider this opinion:

« *The case for “no real constitution”*

These arguments are historically grown. When West-Germany was founded, it did not have sovereignty and no “real” constitution. Both points resulting from allied control over the German lands and emerging states. The West-German state held the view that it was the only legitimate German state and successor to the German Reich, giving itself a preliminary constitution, called Grundgesetz (Basic Law), until all German lands are again unified, including the GDR and crucially, all other territories in the East, now in Poland and Russia, that were internationally accepted parts of the Reich before 1937. »
More at https://tinyurl.com/8tfy63zy

After the end of the second world war Germany became occupied by the military forces of not just four but five different countries. Canadian troops, too, occupied Germany, but Canada did not sign the 1990 2+4 treaty that was signed by the two Germanies, four of the five official occupational forces, and then again by the newly unified, abridged Germany, the treaty that – so some say – now serves in place of an official, legal peace treaty with Germany.

« In World War II the chief Allied powers were Great Britain, France (except during the German occupation, 1940–44), the Soviet Union (after its entry in June 1941), the United States (after its entry on December 8, 1941), and China. More generally, the Allies included all the wartime members of the United Nations, the signatories to the Declaration of the United Nations. The original signers of January 1, 1942, were Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Costa Rica, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, India, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Poland, South Africa, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Yugoslavia. Subsequent wartime signers were (in chronological order) Mexico, the Philippines, Ethiopia, Iraq, Brazil, Bolivia, Iran, Colombia, Liberia, France, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Paraguay, Venezuela, Uruguay, Turkey, Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon. »
More on that at https://www.britannica.com/topic/Allied-Powers-international-alliance#ref754272

It seems that there is a sufficiently large number of loose ends to permit even a junior lawyer to drive a wagon through, without getting tangled on any of, the arguments that an international peace treaty with Germany exists. At any rate, the signatures of vastly most of the Allied nations are missing from the 1990 2+4 treaty.

Posted in History | Comments Off on 76 years after the end of WWII – still no peace treaty with Germany?