Is a book by E Belfort Bax written in 1913 against the feminist cause.
In it he argues that the claims of feminism are unfounded and are buttressed by fallacy upon fallacy. He argues women are physically, intellectually and morally inferior to men. I am going ahead of myself.
Bax says feminism consists of the assertion of equality in intellectual capacity, in spite of appearances to the contrary, of women with men. In his view, because of the inequalities, women shouldn’t have been allowed to vote. He was assuredly against the suffragettes. To the question of why men of decidedly inferior mental capacities could vote when women couldn’t, he deferred to an argument for averages. He says in all these matters we have to deal with averages.
Bax tells us and he would gratify those who see women only as sexual objects
[…] the truth in question consists in the fact, while man has a sex, women is a sex.
Quoting Otto’s book Sex and Character, he writes
Woman is only sexual, man is also sexual. In woman, sexuality is diffused over the whole body, every contact on whatever part excites her sexually.
But he doesn’t stop here, he goes on to write
……woman has continued to find her chief function in the direct procreation of the race.
We are told specialists are all agreed that at all ages, the size of a woman’s brain is smaller than that of a man. And this difference also differs with civilization.
He says hysteria is an affliction that affects women only and has its origins in the uterus.
A strand of argument that still seem to have currency in our day is the argument that feminism is an anti-men crusade. I should mention here, that in this treatise, Bax is mainly responding to male feminists. He says the female feminist is too biased for her opinion to be considered. In support of this thesis, he writes
we see the legislature, judges, juries, parsons all vie with one another in denouncing the villainy and baseness of the male person and ever devising ways and means to make life hard for him.
Examples he give include (remember this is 1900s England)
- the marriage laws in England are a monument to feminist sex partiality- if you promise to marry a damsel and go back on your word, jail or fine for you
- the right of maintenance accrues solely to the woman
- the law affords the woman to commit torts against third parties, the husband alone being responsible
- the wife can obtain, if not a divorce, a legal separation by going whining to the nearest police court[?], for a few shillings, which the husband has to pay!
He said the law made it a crime to receive succor from a woman who plied the sex trade (refer to White Slave Trade Act).
He argues, the feminists present the woman always as the “injured innocent“. In his view, where crimes are involved, the feminists ditch the argument for equality with men and pursue a line of innocence for the women. To them, he says divine woman is always the injured innocent not only in the graver crimes of murder but also in minor offences. He gives a number of cases where the punishment meted out to women and men for the same crimes differed with the women getting a fairer and shorter punishment.
He argues chivalry has been turned on its head.
Women, he argues, are not the weaker sex. He says women can endure more pain, live longer than the men folk, that child mortality is higher in males than females.
He goes on and on and I am tired of going on.
I have read this book, so you don’t have to read it.
And today we end in a song.
The hypocrisy of third wave feminists. Bax seems to still have supporters though not all through
What was the purpose of this blog? to insult women? If the writer lived for 100 years he might changed his mind.
LikeLike
Who have I insulted? I have written blogs based on books written more than 100 years not to insult anyone but to show how people thought in those days.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Even today there are some feminist and some anti feminist. You could have rejected his views in that blog, If you permit I can do that in my blog.
LikeLike
I could do that but I felt no need for it because there is evidence enough to show he was wrong.
You are free to refute his views, i can’t stop anyone from doing that, you see.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Thanks. My intention was not to hurt you in any ways.
LikeLike
You insinuated I wanted to insult women. Is that not an insult or just close to it? It is to cast aspersions on my motives, is it not? And it is unfounded.
If on the other hand you agree there are still anti-feminists today, it is possible Bax may still hold onto his ideas, no? Just like there are people who still think blacks are not any good- we generally call them racists.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I apologize,
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well thanks, Mak, for doing all that heavy reading. The recent revelations in august British institutions of gross disparity in pay between men and women doing equivalent high-profile jobs, just go to show that residue of Bax is still well ingrained in our culture – at least in England. I understood precisely why you had posted this review.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Oh yes, Bax still has descendants among us
LikeLiked by 2 people
The author of your source book is indeed very fortunate. He’s lucky that he lived in the repressive age that he did. Imagine his shock and total confusion had he been born 100 years later! Are we more enlightened now? In a few instances yes but in many more cases, we ‘re still struggling. Nice work!
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think there are places he would fit in quite well. There are places where time stood still. You should read some blogs by some religionists
LikeLiked by 4 people
I’m sure! Bigotry always manages to withstand the tests of time! 😉
LikeLike
Long after the foundations have been removed, few bigots still find a way to build their houses in clouds
LikeLiked by 1 person
Very celestial of them! 🙂
LikeLike
all silliness based on religious ignorance. there is a play “In the Next Room”, which goes into some detail about the inventions of vibrators for “hysteria”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Next_Room_(or_The_Vibrator_Play)
LikeLiked by 2 people
For “chuckles”, I recommend http://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/
The blog author focuses on the strange species found in the Women Hating Men’s Clubs online. “Incels” “Pickup Artists” and the like. Sad, sad websites where the little boys get together and bemoan their victimization by teh wommenz.
LikeLike
The authors say it is not a safe space. I should have such a warning for my blog 🙂
LikeLike
Good Gravy Mak, by that guys reasoning I think I am a woman. 😆😃😄😉 Good post to show us how times change. Hugs
LikeLike
Have times really changed?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think so. As others here mentioned there are knuckle draggers in our time as well. I can not understand it myself. Had a great neighbor, heck of a good guy in most respects, but he was simply convinced that no woman was as good as a man. He liked women but felt that the were simply less strong and smart than men. Felt woman should not be in the military, felt they should have jobs of leadership. Felt they needed to be directed and taken care of. Smart man, really in all the other areas of life, he just never could get around the not equal thing. Sad as he had daughters. Hugs
LikeLike
And I am certain there are many like him
LikeLiked by 1 person
I didn’t realize there were MRA’s around in those days. .. 😦
LikeLiked by 2 people
Here we call them Men Against Women empowerment
LikeLike
Obviously, Bax’s Neanderthal-like thinking has long since been discredited. Furthermore, his proposed voting requirement based on intelligence is not only undemocratic, it is also conceptually flawed. An intelligence threshold for voting would be an inherently arbitrary decision, and would be continually raised over time by the persistent impulse to disenfranchise undesirables. Eventually, the number of eligible voters would be reduced into some form of aristocracy.
Having actively supported the Women’s Rights movement and the ERA amendment of the 1960s-70s, I would like to caution the current #MeToo movement on its goals and rhetoric. Countering misogyny with misandry will destroy your cause. Equal justice is the answer, not gender retribution. You cannot win this fight on your own. You will need male allies. Please don’t alienate them for everyone’s sake.
LikeLiked by 1 person
On voting, I think to Bax, men had an inalienable right to vote no matter how unintelligent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I see. So, his intelligence requirement was just a ruse intended to keep women from voting.
LikeLike
Yep, this guy was an intellectual giant. Too bad there are still many like him out there even today.
LikeLiked by 2 people
He deserved a Nobel or something. There are many like him around
LikeLike
[…] https://maasaiboys.wordpress.com/2018/04/10/the-fraud-of-feminism/ […]
LikeLike