Wednesday, July 29, 2015

There is No Sexual Double-Standard




From the SpearheadFiles

September 2, 2010

A female reader was apparently looking through the Spearhead archives, and came across my book review for The Garbage Generation. She e-mailed me the following: "I have read part of the book and a lot of the book I agreed with. I just want this question answered by another man. Why is there a double standard? No matter what it takes two to tango."

If you agreed with a lot of the book, you really shouldn’t be even asking this question, because one of the basic premises of Dr. Amneus’ seminal work, is based on defining what comprised the original marriage contract between men and women. What men bring to the table and what women bring to the table in what we now refer to as the institution of Marriage 1.0, were two different assets to be exchanged for the mutual benefit of the children created by their union.

Men’s primary marital asset was their resources and ability to labor to acquire more resources, to support the family. Men with lesser means or abilities to provide were (and usually still are) viewed as less desirable marriage material, regardless of his sexual history.

Women’s primary martial asset was their guarantee to their husbands that children born of their union where his. Women with an openly promiscuous past are viewed as less desirable marriage material because of the greater chances of cuckoldry and infidelity, regardless of her ability to be a provider.

It’s not that there is a double standard, it’s just that there is two different standards: one for men, one for women – and the standards for each are simply based on what they each brought to the table by virtue of the formerly accepted and widely understood division of labor, which was based on gender sex. This was the essential paradigm of the institution we now refer to as marriage 1.0.

There cannot be this so-called sexual double-standard, because a man’s contribution to the nuclear family unit was his capacity to be a provider, not his sexual purity. A woman could find a willing virgin who has no provider capacity to marry her…but her own hypergamous instincts would cause her to view him as less than adequate in terms of marriage material, his sexual purity notwithstanding.

Women complaining about this mythical double-standard, would be the equivalent to men complaining that more marriages should have the women be the providers while the men stay home, keep house and raise the kids.

Granted, such arrangements do occur nowadays…but for the most part, men & women both tend to look down on the men as somewhat less than masculine for doing so — hence the phrase “kitchen bitches” — just as women nowadays are free to be as promiscuous as the alpha males they wish to emulate…it’s just that most people will still regard them as sluts, no matter how bitterly they complain about this so-called “double-standard.” This “double-standard” really only exists in the brainwashed minds of feminists and manginas alike.

Women who are caught up in obsessing over this so-called sexual “double-standard” are simply falling for the lies and propaganda promoted by the feminist kultural kommisars of our Brave New World Order, and reinforcing the memes that have contributed to the travesty we now know of as marriage 2.0.

No, the real double-standard that actually exists today, is the entire family court/divorce industry that enforces a system for which women have the right to withdraw their reproductive capacity and their nurturing and care giving – but men are not allowed to withdraw their provider role. In fact, they are explicitly prevented from doing that by the power of the Government and threatened with fines, imprisonment, loss of passports, professional practice and driving licenses, a permanent criminal record, and other sanctions our feminist-run Government has put into place to legalize this very real double-standard.

In other words, the only real double-standard that is in effect today in our declining civilization, is the one in which Women have no obligation or social pressure to live up to their marital vows, while men are forced to, even when the marriage is over.

My inquiring e-mailer thought she was making some kind of irrefutable point with her quip, “No matter what, it takes two to tango.” She misses the real double-standard here: it takes two to get married, but only one — which is usually instigated by the woman – to get divorced.


http://www.blogblog.com/scribe/divider.gif

Notable Commentary from the Original Post

gwallan September 2, 2010 at 03:18

"A woman could find a willing virgin who has no provider capacity to marry herbut her own hypergamous instincts would cause her to view him as less than adequate in terms of marriage material, his sexual purity notwithstanding."
Interestingly virginity or “can’t get laid” are almost always among womens’ opening ad hominem salvos against any man they disagree with.


Travis September 2, 2010 at 03:49

Besides, my view on the so called “sexual double standard” is that it’s largely of women’s making. They’re the one’s who line up to sleep with the male versions of “sluts and whores”. They’re the one’s who have made those guys the envy of other men. All they would have to do to eliminate the “double standard” is to start rejecting those guys. To start looking at men the same way that men look at women. By seeing the most desireable mate as the one who is most likely to remain faithful. But that’s not in their nature. They want and desire the Alpha Male. And as long as they do, men are going to desire to BE the Alpha Male. So instead, they want us to change OUR nature, and start celebrating female promiscuity. To view women who have screwed half the guys in town as the most desireable mates. It’s just another female play to eschew any and all responsibility and moral behavior. And to try and get men to revere them for it….


Reality 2010 September 2, 2010 at 03:52

Well there’s also the ten thousand pound gorilla in the room.. that it takes tremendous effort and or a tremendous talent or a god-given gift to be a ‘stud’ while it takes absolutely zero effort to be a slut. All it takes for a woman to be a slut is to just lie on her back. Wow. What an achievement.

Tell her that it may take two to tango, but it only takes one to say ‘yes.’

Unless the female is a repellent beast chances are (sadly) that virtually any guy is going to want to have sex with virtually any female.

There’s also the fact that a woman’s vagina/body is her one and only asset – (as if you would actually want a woman based on her petty, lazy, confrontational and flaky personality or parasitical worthlessness in the workplace) so to mindlessly give away the one and only thing you have of any value has a much broader pathetic implication than that of gender & sex regardless of whatever it is.

Women themselves admire and are attracted to the man who is able to attract thousands of women who are willing to sleep with him- that is at the very core of female sexuality. Tell her if she wants an answer to also look in the mirror.


Ubermind September 2, 2010 at 04:26

The greatest double standard in human perception that started it all is the notion that women do not want sex all that much, but man want alot and have to work and pay for it.

True is women want sex just as much as men if not more. With a desirable partner of course. Desirable partner is the key here.

Also in marriage 1.0 both worked. Man’s duty was to work outside of home, but woman’s duty was to work inside home. Do not forget that!

Women were chosen not only by their beuty, but also by their “diligence to work” (your feminzied american language does not even have a clear opposite word for lazy, that says something)

Women pedastializaton started when rich man started to choose wifes solely for their beuty, because servants (now automation) did all the job.

If a women works she does not view sex as a manipulation tool, she views it as a reward for good work just like most men do.

Understanding that both parties need to work for mutual pleasure each in their own ways should eliminate all double standarts.

Elusive Wapiti September 2, 2010 at 05:02

Leveraging the Book of Zed here, there’s a reason why the so-called slut-stud double standard exists–it is easy for a woman, more or less, to become sexually experienced. She needs only to lay back and spread her legs and she will invariably find some would-be lothario willing to fill the void in her loins. The reverse is much harder, and the self-control necessary to produce a 26-yo virgin speaks to her value, her loyalty as a potential mate.

The calculus for men is different, or at least used to be. A man is valued for what he does, his skill, the energy he uses to produce. Thus a 26 yo virginal man, according to the conventional slut-stud calculus, has less value because it takes very little effort and skill to sit back and do nothing than one with experience with women. He is seen in conventional circles as a better potential partner because he has overcome obstacles, and knows what he is doing to lead her.

I suspect the benefit from being a stud has dwindled of late, because there are more sluts around, desperate to trade access to their holiest of holies for attention and validation. It’s not as hard to ‘score’, therefore being a ‘stud’ isn’t what it once was.

The value, however, from self-control in a woman has shot up in the last decades like a rocket.

Additional commentary after the jump 


Wednesday, July 22, 2015

The Coordinated Narrative


Click to Enlarge

"There is a deeper level to this. As you know the Mainstream Media (MSM) is primarily composed of six mega corporations. As the leaders of these organizations all belong to the same interconnected groups, they all take their marching orders from the same people if you go high enough.

The reason that an issue like the Confederate flag (actually, the flag of the Northern Virginia army) is suddenly everywhere is because it IS centrally coordinated. If things weren't centrally coordinated such things couldn't happen. Period. For all intents and purposes, MSM is one gigantic mega corporation. It only APPEARS to be different companies."

The preceding quote is a topic that is common knowledge amongst those of us who favor aluminum foil head gear as our fashion accessory of choice. Most normalized folks are dimly aware of this fact, but blithely carry on with nary a thought while they continuously consume the Big Six's infotainment aka YOUR  REGULARLY SCHEDULED PROGRAMMING.

Most folks simply cannot imagine living a life bereft of consuming the mass media's "infotainment." Watching the tell-a-vision, going to the movies, downloading the latest netflix release or renting a DVD are all staples of our Brave New World Order's zeitgeist of what we call "recreation."

These six Cosmodemonic Transnational Megacorporations are really nothing more than the Multimedia Arts and Entertainment aisle in the company store. It's really rather brilliant when you consider that while most of us have the majority of our waking lives devoted to working as human resources for the corporate borg, when we do get a little time off on the weekend, "fun" and "rest and relaxation"  is subconsciously defined by most as being idle consumers, paying for the privilege of sitting for hours in front of a screen, being brainwashed by digitized propaganda to socially engineer our attitudes and beliefs to conform with our increasingly blatant, controlled culture.

Isn't it patently obvious that these BigSix are certainly unified and coordinated in producing our regularly scheduled programming themes? As the Natural News commenter I quoted notes, "...an issue like the Confederate flag (actually, the flag of the Northern Virginia army) is suddenly everywhere is because it IS centrally coordinated"

As the Corporate-Media-Government complex so aptly demonstrated, in a matter of hours the flag of the Northern Virginia Army became difficult to procure in our "free markets" and denounced as emblematic of all that is wrong with we the sheeple.

On the flip side, we were quickly offered the path to social justice salvation with the option of embracing the vibrant diversity flag to celebrate the Supreme Courts fiat legislation of homogamy as the law of the land.

The coordination in today's mass media and social media networks is nearly instantaneous, and any idea, meme or shibboleth that the social engineers in charge of the BigSix want to promote, they can now influence the public's consciousness in a matter of minutes via mass multimedia saturation.


While so-cons and trad-cons have always bewailed the cultural and moral decline of civilization due to the slippery slope agenda of the liberal progressive social justice Borg, the slide down that slope has certainly escalated exponentially in the past couple of years, now that mass media control has been vertically integrated into its current leviathan state.



THEY literally show us the truth the late night talk shows with a laughing studio audience, and most sheeple laugh along, then give the topic no further thought.

But those of us who proudly peacock our aluminum head gear know otherwise.
 http://www.blogblog.com/scribe/divider.gif

Most of my fellow conspirtards are familiar with the following:

One night, probably in 1880, John Swinton, then the preeminent New York journalist, was the guest of honour at a banquet given him by the leaders of his craft. Someone who knew neither the press nor Swinton offered a toast to the independent press. Swinton outraged his colleagues by replying:

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty_four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." 

 - John Swinton (1829-1901) | managing editor, New York Times | 1880
 Source: Labor's Untold Story, by Richard O. Boyer and Herbert M. Morais, published by United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America, NY, 1955/1979


That was then, this is now.

There IS such a thing, at this date of the world's history, as an independent press. Thanks to teh distributed network capabilities of teh Interwebz, the truth can actually be found...but it is almost more difficult now to find it than when we only had a few channels of media to consume. Now we have more channels than can be possibly counted, so that the truth can be plainly stated and most will never believe it, as we are bewildered and numbed to the overwhelming overload if mis- and dis- information of our BigSix controlled mass media.

You know it and I know it.

There are a few of you who dare to write your honest opinions without the cloak of anonymity on blogs, forums and social media accounts, but most people devoted to exposing the truth under the real world identities are either doxxed, censored, threatened, stripped of their livelihoods, or ridiculed into obscurity.

You have been warned, but most people ignore it.

The business of most journalists, mainstream bloggers, mass media whores, pundits, talking heads and other notable glitterati on teh Tell-A-Vision, on teh Interwebz and in print publications, is to shill the approved corporate party line, and to try and influence consumers anywhere unapproved thoughts are expressed, so as to engage in active measures to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell out their countries to the emerging globalist overlords. It's just good business!

You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press, a free country, democracy, equality and fraternity? We are the expendable human resources and mindless consumers of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks; they pull the string and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of the managers of our sheeple farm who use the BigSix multi-media organs to tell us all what and how to think.

But just 'cause they're saying it, doesn't mean we have to listen.


UPDATE: Thanks to Anonymous for making me fact checking the source of the Quote attributed to John Swinton. It has been now been correctly attributed (I hope!).

Monday, July 20, 2015

It’s Time to Acknowledge Notable Women in American History



From the SpearheadFiles
Originally Published on May 25, 2011


I think it’s high time that we the sheeple that populate these fringes of teh Interwebz, offer a conciliatory gesture of peace towards the female gender. There’s been too much anger towards the fairer sex ’round these parts as of late, and it’s time we MAN UP and give some props to notable females in US History, many of whom deserve recognition for their lifetime achievements. For this article, I wish to focus on those women who were successful entrepreneurs, property owners and businesswomen in the 19th century.

One such noteworthy lady is the woman pictured at the top of this piece, Madam CJ Walker.

Like most Americans, Sarah suffered from scalp diseases and hair loses. She resolutely wanted to find a cure and started experimenting with home remedies. She found that that application of sulfur can heal most of the hair problems cure which led her to produce her own shampoo and hair ointments which soon after she began selling. She traveled to various states demonstrated he products and even attempted door to door sales. As her popularity grew she established her factory at Indianapolis in 1910 and also started Lelia College to train beauty therapists. She was loved and respected because of her philanthropic contributions for education, childcare, rehabilitation programs and her unflinching efforts to improve living conditions of black women. She gave speeches on political and economic problems at major occasions and she was widely appreciated for her opinions and stands.She breathed her last on May 25th 1919 due to complications from hypertension at an age of 52. Her daughter Lelia stepped into the shoes of her mother and became the proprietor of an million dollar empire that she had left behind. Madam CJ Walker Biography till date provides inspiration to millions of impoverished women striving to curve a respectable life for themselves.

A million dollar empire in 1919 was approximately $13 million in today’s Fiat Federal Reserve Notes. And not only was she a member of the oppressed womynz gender, but she was also an African-American to boot! According to oft repeated memes by today’s feminists, that’s impossible!

Or what about Margaret Borland?






Margaret married at age 19 and gave birth to a daughter a year later. Soon afterwards her husband died in a gun battle in the streets of Victoria. Margaret’s second husband succumbed to cholera in 1852, leaving her with two more young daughters to support. Within four years Margaret married the richest rancher in the county. She bore four more children and partnered in running the ranch until 1867, when a yellow fever epidemic spread along the Texas coast. Margaret ministered to her ailing family as best she could, but death relentlessly claimed her husband, four-year-old son, 15-year-old daughter, two daughters who had married the previous year, and an infant grandson.
Now sole owner of the ranch, Margaret capably managed operations and enlarged its holdings. In 1873 she drove her own herd up the Chisholm Trail, accompanied by several ranch hands, her three surviving children, and her six-year-old granddaughter. The group succeeded in reaching the booming cowtown of Wichita, Kansas, but Margaret fell ill with “trail fever” and died in a local boardinghouse before she could sell her cattle.
Margaret Borland’s life parallels the momentous social, political, and economic changes of 19th century Texas. She was earnest and resourceful until the end.


Now how did she get away with being the “…sole owner of the ranch,” and “capably managed operations and enlarged its holdings.” in the time before the suffrage movement and Patriarchal oppression?

What about Mary Ann Hall? (No picture available)

In 1840, a stagnant canal drained through the center of Washington, dividing the area where the Smithsonian Castle stands from the rest of the city. The area was called “The Island.” A few blocks to the east is where Mary Ann Hall settled, started a business, saved her money, and where she eventually built a large, three-story brick home. Mary Ann was just in her early twenties, and the neighborhood was–rough. Nearby neighborhoods were nicknamed “Louse Alley,” and even “Murderer’s Row.” While the census records show that most single women here listed their occupation as seamstress or laundress, Mary Ann’s occupation isn’t recorded anywhere. But all the physical evidence indicates she was an extremely successful businesswoman.

-----
District of Columbia court records show that at the time of her death, Mary Ann Hall was worth a grand total of $87,000, with no debts–that’s well over $2,000,000 in today’s dollars. The records also show a list of her belongings, which included Belgian carpets, oil paintings, an ice box, numerous pieces of red plush furniture, as well as an inordinate number of sheets, mattresses, blankets, feather pillows and comforters.

Hmmmm….so not only could own property, they could actually do so back in 1840 without ever being married, but simply through their own entrepreneurial efforts? You don’t say?

Here’s another notable woman from America’s oppressive Patriarchal past, Lydia Pinkham





Some would call her the Ann Landers or Dr. Ruth of the 1800s. In 1875, Lydia Estes Pinkham of Lynn, Massachusetts, converted her herbal home remedies into a big business by skillfully marketing her products toward women and educating them about health issues. Pinkham’s Vegetable Compound became one of the best-known patent medicines of the 19th century. Pinkham was deemed a crusader for women’s health in an age when women’s needs weren’t being met by the medical community. Cooper Laboratories bought the company in 1968, though pills and a liquid stamped with Pinkham’s name are still available at some drugstores.


How about another “impossible” woman from US history? Note Elizabeth Arden





She brought makeup from the stage to everyday life and slowly developed a global empire. Elizabeth Arden, born Florence Nightingale Graham in Woodbridge, Ontario, moved to New York at the age of 30 to pursue her dream of building a cosmetics corporation. There she began working with a chemist to create a beauty cream, something new for the cosmetics industry at that time. After traveling to Paris in 1912, Arden became the first person to introduce the concept of eye makeup to American women and offered the first makeovers in her 5th Avenue salon. Arden died in 1966, but her brand became as well-known across the U.S. as Singer sewing machines and Coca-Cola. At the end of its fiscal year in June 2007, the company reported $1.1 billion in net sales, up more than 18 percent from $955 million in 2006.


Now here we have five examples of notable women from the pages of American history, deserving of genuine acknowledgment for their achievements as business owners, property owners and entrepreneurs. Somehow, this actual history of such women is often ignored or glossed over when your average 21st century indoctrinated feminist-sheeple casually repeats the meme: “Women couldn’t own property!”


For example:

The History Behind the Equal Rights Amendment
The new Constitution’s promised rights were fully enjoyed only by certain white males. Women were treated according to social tradition and English common law and were denied most legal rights. In general they could not vote, own property, keep their own wages, or even have custody of their children.
Or here: “Years ago women couldn’t vote or own property.”

Or here. “For years, the social scene at Harvard mimicked the gender norms of an era where women couldn’t own property.”

Or here: “In 1848, women obeyed men everywhere, even in their own homes. Women couldn’t own property either.”

Or here: “In the past, American women did not have the same rights as men. They couldn’t own property. They couldn’t attend the same colleges. And they couldn’t vote.”

Or here: “I mean, sure, women couldn’t own property or vote or practice law or anything, but I bet they’d trade that for having doors held open for them regularly anytime!”

Or here: “For a long time, women couldn’t own property, have jobs, or participate in politics.”

Or here: “This week I am co-chairing an event for the American Civil Liberties Union in my hometown. It’s going to be a wondrous evening full of amazing art and talented people. The ACLU will always need funding to continue their work protecting all of our civil liberties. I don’t work in those trenches every day, but I am thankful for those that do. Every issue women face – every obstacle they overcome – was and is a civil liberties issue. It wasn’t very long ago that women couldn’t vote, that women couldn’t own property and that women had very little control over their bodies and its intended freedoms.”

Or here: “When women couldn’t own property, vote, or be in most professions, someone could have (and many did) made the case that simply allowing divorce for women in abusive marriages wouldn’t automatically make things all rosy for them.”

Or here: “until the 1920′s, women couldn’t VOTE, in most US states women couldn’t OWN PROPERTY, and often wasn’t even the one paid for her labor – no, her husband, father, brother, son, or other male was paid because women WERE NOT CONSIDERED PEOPLE.”

Or here: “Oh, and the older I get, the more I remind myself and respect how much old-school feminists have accomplished. To see young women utterly unable to understand that women couldn’t own property or vote or get credit cards or bank accounts in their own names is a beautiful thing.”

Or how about this Barne’s & Noble book review regarding Abigail Adams?: “In a time when women couldn’t own property or manage their own money, Abigail was accruing enormous wealth through speculation on government bonds.”

Or this statement: “Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop said: ‘Without the suffragists and suffragettes, we would still be stuck in an age when women couldn’t own property, they couldn’t hold public positions and they couldn’t vote.’”

Or here’s another example of the casual way the meme is regularly regurgitated: “Consider the country’s state at the Founding — only landowners could vote. Women couldn’t own property.

Or how about while presenting a list of the top 10 richest Women in America in 2011: “There was a time in American history, that seems not that long ago, where women couldn’t own property or even vote. However, times have changed. Women have been elevated to a status where their names can make this list as well as the ten richest people in America.”

All the preceding quotations where taken from a quick google search of the phrase “Women couldn’t own property.” They represent statements from articles, blog posts, book reviews and anonymous commentary.

{At the time this piece was written for The Spearhead, all of the preceding links worked. Most still do, but several of them can't be found on the original site or at archive.org.}  

Funny isn’t it, how the meme that “woman couldn’t own property” has become a widely accepted truth by most denizens of our Brave New World Order, and is expressed as a universally accepted statement of fact over teh interwebz?

I guess the Womynz Studies and liberal/progressive Professors in Universities across the land forgot to indoctrinate educate their students about all the wonderful success stories of notable women in American history who owned property, ran businesses and amassed personal wealth through their own ingenuity and hard work. I guess their stories contradict the feminist’s revision of history, so I'm sad to note that these ladies will never get there just due in today’s brainwashing facilities institutions of higher learning.

How ironic is it that it takes a hateful, bitter misogynist here at this infamous outpost of womyn hatred, to correct this gross injustice, and white knight for these courageous and brave ladies of the past who’ve been ignored and marginalized by the feminist zeitgeist for too long?

It’s time to put them back up on their pedestals where they belong!


http://www.blogblog.com/scribe/divider.gif


Notable Commentary from the Original Post

 Anonymous Reader May 25, 2011 at 07:46

   This approach to political operations is certainly not new. For example, consider this noted liar:

All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true within itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.  —Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X



Opus
May 25, 2011 at 07:58

I am not a legal Historian but perhaps as an Appendix to the above, it might be of interest to compare the position in England and Wales. In 1882 an Act of Parliament – The Married Women’s Property Act was passed allowing married women to own property including land. Previously a woman ceased to have a separate legal identity on marriage at which point all her goods became her husbands. This was not however a one-sided deal, as (most women marry having little by way of property anyway) she was now to be protected by her husband for the rest of her life, indeed as most women marry up it was a very good arrangement for her. Better still her husband became responsible for her debts. In pratice even to this day a married couple in practice treat their possessions as joint possessions and for that matter tend to vote for the same candidate in elections.

The position for single women and widows was quite different in that they – being femme sole – could own property including land in their own right. As I was indicating yesterday in the post concerned with Michael Faraday, voting rights depended as much on land as sex so that many, indeed most men had no right to vote in parliamentary elections.

By an act of 1919 women were allowed to qualify as Solicitors of the Supreme Court (Attorney) and after much aggitation a few having sat the examinations did so, but then for the next fifty years or so the women seemed little interested in becoming Solicitors. I do not know what the position was for women who aspired to the dizzy heights of being a member of The Bar (Barristers). (England and Wales have a split legal profession).

In spite of all this I cannot immediately think of any famous Victorian Women apart from Ms Nightingale – so I suppose they were all being oppressed by ‘The Patriarchy’.




demirogue May 25, 2011 at 08:43

Shhh! How dare ye stir up controversy by telling the truth. Femitwats don’t care for it. As a matter of fact women in general don’t believe in it either. The enormous sales and use of cosmetics alone is proof of that.



Keyster
May 25, 2011 at 08:48

Academic feminists are not only careful to avoid pointing out successful women of the “pre-feminist era”, most of these women were very much opposed to women’s suffrage, and feminism is general. They simply didn’t see the need for it.

Yes, even if you’re dead and gone, but didn’t tow the feminist party line in your writings…they’ll dismiss you as if you never existed at all.

Annie Oakely, who was basically an entertainer as a freakish woman who was good with guns, was very outspoken about what a bad idea women’s rights would be, for all the same reasons we now know to be true.

Read more commentary after the jump...