| FRAUD OF FEMINISM. |
|
|
| THE FRAUD OF FEMINISM BY E. BELFORT BAX ---------------------------------------------------------------- |
CHAPTER III
THE ANTI-MAN CRUSADE
WE have already pointed out that Modern
Feminism has two sides or aspects. The first
formulates definite political, juridical and economic
demands on the grounds of justice, equity, equality
and so forth, as general principles; the second does
not formulate in so many words definite demands
as general principles, but seems to exploit the
traditional notions of chivalry based on male sex
sentiment, in favour of according women special
privileges on the ground of their sex, in the
law, and still more in the administration of the
law. For the sake of brevity we call the first
Political Feminism, for, although its demands are
not confined to the political sphere, it is first
and foremost a political movement, and its typical
claim at the present time, the Franchise, is a
purely political one; and the second Sentimental
Feminism, inasmuch as it commonly does not profess
to be based on any general principle whatever,
whether of equity or otherwise, but relies ex-
clusively on the traditional and conventional
51
sex sentiment of Man towards Woman. It may
be here premised that most Political Feminists,
however much they may refuse to admit it, are
at heart also Sentimental Feminists. Sentimental
Feminists, on the other hand, are not invariably
Political Feminists, although the majority of them
undoubtedly are so to a greater or lesser extent.
Logically, as we shall have occasion to insist upon
later on, the principles professedly at the root of
Political Feminism are in flagrant contradiction
with any that can justify Sentimental Feminism.
Now both the orders of Feminism referred to
have been active for more than a generation past
in fomenting a crusade against the male sex--an
Anti-Man Crusade. Their efforts have been largely
successful owing to a fact to which attention has,
perhaps, not enough been called. In the case of
other classes, or bodies of persons, having com-
munity of interests this common interest invariably
interprets itself in a sense of class, caste, or race
solidarity. The class or caste has a certain esprit de
corps in its own interest. The whole of history
largely turns on the conflict of economic classes
based on a common feeling obtaining between
members of the respective classes; on a small
scale, we see the same thing in the solidarity of a
particular trade or profession. But it is unnecessary
to do more than call attention here to this funda-
mental sociological law upon which alike the class
52
struggles of history, and of modern times, the
patriotism of states from the city-state of the
ancient world to the national state of the modern
world, is based. Now note the peculiar manner
in which this law manifests itself in the sex question
of the present day. While Modern Feminism has
succeeded in establishing a powerful sex-solidarity
amongst a large section of women as against
men, there is not only no sex-solidarity of men as
against women, but, on the contrary, the prevalence
of an altogether opposed sentiment. Men hate their
brother-men in their capacity of male persons. In any
conflict of interests between a man and a woman,
male public opinion, often in defiance of the most
obvious considerations of equity, sides with the
woman, and glories in doing so. Here we seem to
have a very flagrant contradiction with, as has
already been said, one of the most fundamental
sociological laws. The explanations of the pheno-
mena in question are, of course, ready to hand:--
Tradition of chivalry, feelings, perhaps inherited,
dating possibly back to the prehuman stage of
man's evolution, derived from the competition of
the male with his fellow-male for the possession
of the coveted female, etc.
These explanations may have a measure of
validity, but I must confess they are to me scarcely
adequate to account for the intense hatred which
the large section of men seem to entertain towards
53
their fellow-males in the world of to-day, and
their eagerness to champion the female in the
sex war which the Woman's "sex union," as it
has been termed, has declared of recent years.
Whatever may be the explanation, and I confess
I cannot find one completely satisfactory, the fact
remains. A Woman's Movement unassisted by
man, still more if opposed energetically by the
public opinion of a solid phalanx of the man-
hood of any country, could not possibly make
any headway. As it is, we see the legislature,
judges, juries, parsons, specially those of the non-
conformist persuasion, all vie with one another in
denouncing the villainy and baseness of the male
person, and ever devising ways and means to make
his life hard for him. To these are joined a host of
literary men and journalists of varying degrees of
reputation who contribute their quota to the stream
of anti-manism in the shape of novels, storiettes,
essays, and articles, the design of which is to paint
man as a base, contemptible creature, as at once
a knave and an imbecile, a bird of prey and a
sheep in wolfs clothing, and all as a foil to the
glorious majesty of Womanhood. There are not
wanting artists who are pressed into this service.
The picture of the Thames Embankment at
night, of the drowned unfortunate with the
angel's face, the lady and gentleman in evening
dress who have just got out of their cab--the lady
54
with uplifted hands bending over the dripping
form, and the callous and brutal gentleman turning
aside to light a cigarette--this is a typical
specimen of Feminist didactic art. By these means,
which have been carried on with increasing ardour
for a couple of generations past, what we may term
the anti-man cultus has been made to flourish and
to bear fruit till we find nowadays all recent legis-
lation affecting the relations between the sexes
carrying its impress, and the whole of the judiciary
and magistracy acting as its priests and ministrants.
On the subject of Anti-man legislation, I have
already written at length elsewhere,l but for the
sake of completeness I state the case briefly
here. (1) The marriage laws of England to-day
are a monument of Feminist sex partiality.
If I may be excused the paradox, the parti-
ality of the marriage laws begins with the
law relating to breach of promise, which, as is
well known, enables a woman to punish a man
vindictively for refusing to marry her after having
once engaged himself to her. I ought to add, and
this, oftentimes, however good his grounds may be
for doing so. Should the woman commit perjury,
in these cases, she is never prosecuted for the
1 Cf. Fortnightly Review , November 1911, "A Creature
of
Privilege," also a pamphlet (collaboration) entitled "The
Legal Subjection of Men." Twentieth Century Press,
reprinted
by New Age Press, 1908.
55
THE ANTI-MAN CRUSADE
WE have already pointed out that Modern
Feminism has two sides or aspects. The first
formulates definite political, juridical and economic
demands on the grounds of justice, equity, equality
and so forth, as general principles; the second does
not formulate in so many words definite demands
as general principles, but seems to exploit the
traditional notions of chivalry based on male sex
sentiment, in favour of according women special
privileges on the ground of their sex, in the
law, and still more in the administration of the
law. For the sake of brevity we call the first
Political Feminism, for, although its demands are
not confined to the political sphere, it is first
and foremost a political movement, and its typical
claim at the present time, the Franchise, is a
purely political one; and the second Sentimental
Feminism, inasmuch as it commonly does not profess
to be based on any general principle whatever,
whether of equity or otherwise, but relies ex-
clusively on the traditional and conventional
51
sex sentiment of Man towards Woman. It may
be here premised that most Political Feminists,
however much they may refuse to admit it, are
at heart also Sentimental Feminists. Sentimental
Feminists, on the other hand, are not invariably
Political Feminists, although the majority of them
undoubtedly are so to a greater or lesser extent.
Logically, as we shall have occasion to insist upon
later on, the principles professedly at the root of
Political Feminism are in flagrant contradiction
with any that can justify Sentimental Feminism.
Now both the orders of Feminism referred to
have been active for more than a generation past
in fomenting a crusade against the male sex--an
Anti-Man Crusade. Their efforts have been largely
successful owing to a fact to which attention has,
perhaps, not enough been called. In the case of
other classes, or bodies of persons, having com-
munity of interests this common interest invariably
interprets itself in a sense of class, caste, or race
solidarity. The class or caste has a certain esprit de
corps in its own interest. The whole of history
largely turns on the conflict of economic classes
based on a common feeling obtaining between
members of the respective classes; on a small
scale, we see the same thing in the solidarity of a
particular trade or profession. But it is unnecessary
to do more than call attention here to this funda-
mental sociological law upon which alike the class
52
struggles of history, and of modern times, the
patriotism of states from the city-state of the
ancient world to the national state of the modern
world, is based. Now note the peculiar manner
in which this law manifests itself in the sex question
of the present day. While Modern Feminism has
succeeded in establishing a powerful sex-solidarity
amongst a large section of women as against
men, there is not only no sex-solidarity of men as
against women, but, on the contrary, the prevalence
of an altogether opposed sentiment. Men hate their
brother-men in their capacity of male persons. In any
conflict of interests between a man and a woman,
male public opinion, often in defiance of the most
obvious considerations of equity, sides with the
woman, and glories in doing so. Here we seem to
have a very flagrant contradiction with, as has
already been said, one of the most fundamental
sociological laws. The explanations of the pheno-
mena in question are, of course, ready to hand:--
Tradition of chivalry, feelings, perhaps inherited,
dating possibly back to the prehuman stage of
man's evolution, derived from the competition of
the male with his fellow-male for the possession
of the coveted female, etc.
These explanations may have a measure of
validity, but I must confess they are to me scarcely
adequate to account for the intense hatred which
the large section of men seem to entertain towards
53
their fellow-males in the world of to-day, and
their eagerness to champion the female in the
sex war which the Woman's "sex union," as it
has been termed, has declared of recent years.
Whatever may be the explanation, and I confess
I cannot find one completely satisfactory, the fact
remains. A Woman's Movement unassisted by
man, still more if opposed energetically by the
public opinion of a solid phalanx of the man-
hood of any country, could not possibly make
any headway. As it is, we see the legislature,
judges, juries, parsons, specially those of the non-
conformist persuasion, all vie with one another in
denouncing the villainy and baseness of the male
person, and ever devising ways and means to make
his life hard for him. To these are joined a host of
literary men and journalists of varying degrees of
reputation who contribute their quota to the stream
of anti-manism in the shape of novels, storiettes,
essays, and articles, the design of which is to paint
man as a base, contemptible creature, as at once
a knave and an imbecile, a bird of prey and a
sheep in wolfs clothing, and all as a foil to the
glorious majesty of Womanhood. There are not
wanting artists who are pressed into this service.
The picture of the Thames Embankment at
night, of the drowned unfortunate with the
angel's face, the lady and gentleman in evening
dress who have just got out of their cab--the lady
54
with uplifted hands bending over the dripping
form, and the callous and brutal gentleman turning
aside to light a cigarette--this is a typical
specimen of Feminist didactic art. By these means,
which have been carried on with increasing ardour
for a couple of generations past, what we may term
the anti-man cultus has been made to flourish and
to bear fruit till we find nowadays all recent legis-
lation affecting the relations between the sexes
carrying its impress, and the whole of the judiciary
and magistracy acting as its priests and ministrants.
On the subject of Anti-man legislation, I have
already written at length elsewhere,l but for the
sake of completeness I state the case briefly
here. (1) The marriage laws of England to-day
are a monument of Feminist sex partiality.
If I may be excused the paradox, the parti-
ality of the marriage laws begins with the
law relating to breach of promise, which, as is
well known, enables a woman to punish a man
vindictively for refusing to marry her after having
once engaged himself to her. I ought to add, and
this, oftentimes, however good his grounds may be
for doing so. Should the woman commit perjury,
in these cases, she is never prosecuted for the
1 Cf. Fortnightly Review , November 1911, "A Creature
of
Privilege," also a pamphlet (collaboration) entitled "The
Legal Subjection of Men." Twentieth Century Press,
reprinted
by New Age Press, 1908.
55
 |  |  |
|
|
|
