Feminist doctrine clashes with history

2018 09 28, to make addendum and to add links to related articles
2019 05 08, to add links to related articles.

Feminist doctrine clashes with history.  For instance, it ignores Belfort Bax.

Feminist doctrine insists that, before the rise of second-wave feminism in the 1960s, women were victims of oppression by the mythical ‘Patriarchy’.  Belfort Bax (already in 1908 and 1913) showed example after example that prove that assertion to be mockery and a hoax of gigantic proportions.

In case you never read anything about or by Belfort Bax, this presents important links of interest to anyone who wishes to know more about feminism.

The social revolution that began in the 1960s and with the credit for which second-wave-feminism adorns itself is nothing new.  It is the final stage of a social evolution.  That is a continuation of a trend made possible through the chivalry by “men” of the Victorian age.  Politicians, judges, lawyers, writers and journalists 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 (Belfort Bax, 1913) had been at work already for hundreds of years  to bring about The Legal Subjection of Men (Belfort Bax, 1908). (From: Feminist family politics and their roots in communist ideology)

A few quotes from The Fraud of Feminism:




THE position of women in social life was for a long time a matter of course.  It did not arise as a question, because it was taken for granted.  The dominance of men seemed to derive so obviously from natural causes, from the possession of faculties physical, moral and  intellectual,  in men, which were wanting in women, that no one thought of questioning the situation.  At the same time, the inferiority of woman was never conceived as so great as to diminish seriously, much less to eliminate altogether, her responsibility for crimes she might commit.  There were cases, of course, such as that of offences committed by women under coverture [legal “covering” by the husband], in which a diminution of responsibility was recognised and was given effect to in condonation of the offence and in mitigation of the punishment.  But there was no sentiment in general in favour of a female more than of a male criminal.  It entered into the head of no one to weep tears of pity over the murderess of a lover or husband rather than over the murderer of a sweetheart or wife.  Simi-                                           11

larly, minor offenders, a female blackmailer, a female thief, a female perpetrator of an assault, was not deemed less guilty or worthy of more lenient treatment than a male offender in like cases.  The law, it was assumed, and the assumption was acted upon, was the same for both sexes.  The sexes were equal before the law….

…Modern Feminism rose slowly above the horizon.  Modern Feminism has two distinct sides to it:  (1) an articulate political and economic side embracing demands for so-called rights; and (2) a sentimental side which insists  in  an accentuation of the privileges and immunities which have grown up, not articulately or as the result of definite demands, but as the consequence of sentimental pleading in particular                                            12

cases.  In this way, however, a public opinion became established, finding expression in a sex favouritism in the law and even still more in its administration, in favour of women as against men.
These two sides of Modern Feminism are not necessarily combined in the same person.  One may, for example, find opponents of female suffrage who are strong advocates of sentimental favouritism towards women in matters of law and its administration.  On the other hand you may find, though this is more rare, strong advocates of political and other rights for the female sex, who sincerely deprecate the present inequality of the law in favour of women.  As a rule, however, the two sides go together, the vast bulk of the advocates of  “Women’s Rights” being equally keen on the retention and extension of women’s privileges. Indeed, it would seem as though the main object of the bulk of the advocates of the “Woman’s Movement” was to convert the female sex into the position of a dominant sexe noblesse [sex nobility]. The two sides of Feminism have advanced hand in hand for the last two generations, though it was the purely sentimental side that first appeared as a factor in public opinion…. More at the source

Here are a few quotes from The Legal Subjection of Men:


    JOHN STUART MILL is dead! but his eloquent wail of the subjection of women is never let die–it rings in our ears every day.  It is solemn, it is pathetic; it overflows with the chivalric sentiment which Mill professes to repudiate as out of date, like the clanship and hospitality of the wandering Arab, but which nevertheless, is so strongly developed in the average male.  It has become the gospel of women’s pretended wrongs, and has caused the ingenuous youth of Oxford and Cambridge to blush for their fellow males.  The only objection that the lawyers of the present year of grace can raise to it is that it is really the reverse of legal truth….

….The facts show not that neither sex is oppressed as such, but, on the contrary, they disclose a legalised oppression of men by women.


We will in the first place give a short statement of the law of husband and wife, with view to discovering on which side of the equation does the weight of privilege lie,  regarding the marriage contract as it at present exists in this country.
Let us clearly understand what are the exact limitations, and what the extraordinary extent of these sex privileges conferred by law.  Rich men are, on account of their wealth, in a more enviable position towards any litigant in the Law Courts than are poor men. The privilege here is of wealth.  But rich women are enormously better off in the matter of legal privilege than are rich men, and poor women are similarly privileged by law as against men of their own class…. Much more at the source

Feminist doctrine insists that, before the rise of feminism in the 1960s, women were victims of oppression by the mythical ‘Patriarchy’.  Belfort Bax (already in 1908 and 1913) showed example after example that prove that assertion to be mockery and a hoax of gigantic proportions.

The Fraud of Feminism and The Legal Subjection of Men are archived web pages and can be somewhat slow to load, but both are worth the wait if waiting should be necessary.

#BelfortBax #TheFraudOfFeminism #TheLegalSubjectionOfMen

See also:

(Visited 32 times, 1 visit(s) today)
This entry was posted in Civil Rights, Divorce, Feminism, Feminist Jurisprudence, Maternal Rights, Men's Issues, Paternal Rights, The New World Order, Violence by Proxy, Women's Violence. Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Feminist doctrine clashes with history

  1. The two essays by Belfort Bax are also accessible at the following links:

    (somewhat differently formatted)


    However, the last of those links provides only access to the index page of The Fraud of Feminism.

Comments are closed.