| FRAUD OF FEMINISM. |
| THE FRAUD OF FEMINISM BY E. BELFORT BAX ---------------------------------------------------------------- |
strain, it may here be remarked in passing, is by
no means necessarily a characteristic of a specially
high stage of organic evolution. We find it in-
deed in many orders of invertebrate animals in
striking forms. Be this as it may, however, the
existence of this greater constitutional strength or
resistant power in the female than in the male
organic system--as crucially instanced by the
markedly greater death-rate of boys than of girls
in infancy and early childhood--should, in respect
of severity of punishment, prison treatment, etc.,
be a strong counter-argument against the plea
for leniency, or immunity in the case of female
criminals, made by the advocates of Sentimental
Feminism.
But these considerations afford only one more
illustration of the utter irrationality of the whole
movement of Sentimental Feminism identified with
the notion of "chivalry." For the rest, we may
find illustrations of this galore. A very flagrant
case is that infamous "rule of the sea" which
came so much into prominence at the time of the
Titanic disaster. Recording to this preposterous
"chivalric" Feminism, in the case of a ship
foundering, it is the unwritten law of the seas,
not that the passengers shall leave the ship and
be rescued in their order as they come, but that
the whole female portion shall have the right
of being rescued before any man is allowed to
106
leave the ship. Now this abominable piece of sex
favouritism, on the face of it, cries aloud in its
irrational injustice. Here is no question of bodily
strength or weakness, either muscular or constitu-
tional. In this respect, for the nonce, all are on a
level. But it is a case of life itself. A number of
poor wretches are doomed to a watery grave,
simply and solely because they have not had the
luck to be born of the privileged female sex.
Such is "chivalry" as understood to-day--the
deprivation, the robbery from men of the most
elementary personal rights in order to endow
women with privileges at the expense of men.
During the ages of chivalry and for long after it
was not so. Law and custom then was the same for
men as for women in its incidence. To quote the
familiar proverb in a slightly altered form, then--
"what was sauce for the gander was sauce for the
goose." Not until the nineteenth century did this
state of things change. Then for the first time the
law began to respect persons and to distinguish in
favour of sex.
Even taking the matter on the conventional
ground of weakness and granting, for the sake of
argument, the relative muscular weakness of the
female as ground for her being allowed the im-
munity claimed by Modern Feminists of the senti-
mental school, the distinction is altogether lost
sight of between weakness as such and aggressive
107
weakness. Now I submit there is a very con-
siderable difference between what is due to
weakness that is harmless and unprovocative, and
weakness that is aggressive , still more when this
aggressive weakness presumes on itself as weak-
ness, and on the consideration extended to it, in
order to become tyrannical and oppressive. Weak-
ness as such assuredly deserves all consideration,
but aggressive weakness deserves none save to
be crushed beneath the iron heel of strength.
Woman at the present day has been encouraged
by a Feminist public opinion to become meanly
aggressive under the protection of her weakness.
She has been encouraged to forge her gift of
weakness into a weapon of tyranny against man,
unwitting that in so doing she has deprived her
weakness of all just claim to consideration or even
to toleration.
108
CHAPTER VI
SOME FEMINIST LIES AND FALLACIES
BY Feminist lies I understand false statements put
forward by persons, many of whom should be
perfectly well aware that they are false, apparently
with the deliberate intention of misleading public
opinion as to the real position of woman before
the law. By fallacies I understand statements
doubtless dictated by Feminist prepossessions or
Feminist bias, but not necessarily suggesting con-
scious or deliberate mala fides [bad faith].
Of the first order, the statements are made
apparently with intentional dishonesty in so far
as many of the persons making them are concerned,
since we may reasonably suppose them to have
intelligence and knowledge enough to be aware
that they are contrary to fact. The talk about the
wife being a chattel, for example, is so palpably
absurd in the face of the existing law that it is
nowadays scarcely worth making (although we do
hear it occasionally even now). But it was not even
true under the old common law of England, which,
for certain disabilities on the one hand, conceded
109
to the wife certain corresponding privileges on the
other. The law of husband and wife, as modified
by statute in the course of the nineteenth century,
as I have often enough had occasion to point
out, is a monument of legalised tyranny over the
husband in the interests of the wife.
If in the face of the facts the word chattel, as
applied to the wife, has become a little too pre-
posterous even for Feminist controversial methods,
there is another falsehood scarcely less brazen that
we hear from Feminist fanatics every day. The
wife, we are told, is the only unpaid servant! A
more blatant lie could scarcely be imagined. As
every educated person possessing the slightest
acquaintance with the laws of England knows, the
law requires the husband to maintain his wife in a
manner according with his own social position;
has, in other words, to feed, clothe and afford
her all reasonable luxuries, which the law, with
a view to the economic standing of the husband,
regards as necessaries. This although the husband
has no claim on the wife's property or income,
however wealthy she may be. Furthermore, it
need scarcely be said, a servant who is inefficient,
lazy, or otherwise intolerable, can be dismissed or
her wage can be lowered. Not so that privileged
person, the legally wedded wife. It matters not
whether she perform her duties well, badly, in-
differently, or not at all, the husband's legal
110
no means necessarily a characteristic of a specially
high stage of organic evolution. We find it in-
deed in many orders of invertebrate animals in
striking forms. Be this as it may, however, the
existence of this greater constitutional strength or
resistant power in the female than in the male
organic system--as crucially instanced by the
markedly greater death-rate of boys than of girls
in infancy and early childhood--should, in respect
of severity of punishment, prison treatment, etc.,
be a strong counter-argument against the plea
for leniency, or immunity in the case of female
criminals, made by the advocates of Sentimental
Feminism.
But these considerations afford only one more
illustration of the utter irrationality of the whole
movement of Sentimental Feminism identified with
the notion of "chivalry." For the rest, we may
find illustrations of this galore. A very flagrant
case is that infamous "rule of the sea" which
came so much into prominence at the time of the
Titanic disaster. Recording to this preposterous
"chivalric" Feminism, in the case of a ship
foundering, it is the unwritten law of the seas,
not that the passengers shall leave the ship and
be rescued in their order as they come, but that
the whole female portion shall have the right
of being rescued before any man is allowed to
106
leave the ship. Now this abominable piece of sex
favouritism, on the face of it, cries aloud in its
irrational injustice. Here is no question of bodily
strength or weakness, either muscular or constitu-
tional. In this respect, for the nonce, all are on a
level. But it is a case of life itself. A number of
poor wretches are doomed to a watery grave,
simply and solely because they have not had the
luck to be born of the privileged female sex.
Such is "chivalry" as understood to-day--the
deprivation, the robbery from men of the most
elementary personal rights in order to endow
women with privileges at the expense of men.
During the ages of chivalry and for long after it
was not so. Law and custom then was the same for
men as for women in its incidence. To quote the
familiar proverb in a slightly altered form, then--
"what was sauce for the gander was sauce for the
goose." Not until the nineteenth century did this
state of things change. Then for the first time the
law began to respect persons and to distinguish in
favour of sex.
Even taking the matter on the conventional
ground of weakness and granting, for the sake of
argument, the relative muscular weakness of the
female as ground for her being allowed the im-
munity claimed by Modern Feminists of the senti-
mental school, the distinction is altogether lost
sight of between weakness as such and aggressive
107
weakness. Now I submit there is a very con-
siderable difference between what is due to
weakness that is harmless and unprovocative, and
weakness that is aggressive , still more when this
aggressive weakness presumes on itself as weak-
ness, and on the consideration extended to it, in
order to become tyrannical and oppressive. Weak-
ness as such assuredly deserves all consideration,
but aggressive weakness deserves none save to
be crushed beneath the iron heel of strength.
Woman at the present day has been encouraged
by a Feminist public opinion to become meanly
aggressive under the protection of her weakness.
She has been encouraged to forge her gift of
weakness into a weapon of tyranny against man,
unwitting that in so doing she has deprived her
weakness of all just claim to consideration or even
to toleration.
108
CHAPTER VI
SOME FEMINIST LIES AND FALLACIES
BY Feminist lies I understand false statements put
forward by persons, many of whom should be
perfectly well aware that they are false, apparently
with the deliberate intention of misleading public
opinion as to the real position of woman before
the law. By fallacies I understand statements
doubtless dictated by Feminist prepossessions or
Feminist bias, but not necessarily suggesting con-
scious or deliberate mala fides [bad faith].
Of the first order, the statements are made
apparently with intentional dishonesty in so far
as many of the persons making them are concerned,
since we may reasonably suppose them to have
intelligence and knowledge enough to be aware
that they are contrary to fact. The talk about the
wife being a chattel, for example, is so palpably
absurd in the face of the existing law that it is
nowadays scarcely worth making (although we do
hear it occasionally even now). But it was not even
true under the old common law of England, which,
for certain disabilities on the one hand, conceded
109
to the wife certain corresponding privileges on the
other. The law of husband and wife, as modified
by statute in the course of the nineteenth century,
as I have often enough had occasion to point
out, is a monument of legalised tyranny over the
husband in the interests of the wife.
If in the face of the facts the word chattel, as
applied to the wife, has become a little too pre-
posterous even for Feminist controversial methods,
there is another falsehood scarcely less brazen that
we hear from Feminist fanatics every day. The
wife, we are told, is the only unpaid servant! A
more blatant lie could scarcely be imagined. As
every educated person possessing the slightest
acquaintance with the laws of England knows, the
law requires the husband to maintain his wife in a
manner according with his own social position;
has, in other words, to feed, clothe and afford
her all reasonable luxuries, which the law, with
a view to the economic standing of the husband,
regards as necessaries. This although the husband
has no claim on the wife's property or income,
however wealthy she may be. Furthermore, it
need scarcely be said, a servant who is inefficient,
lazy, or otherwise intolerable, can be dismissed or
her wage can be lowered. Not so that privileged
person, the legally wedded wife. It matters not
whether she perform her duties well, badly, in-
differently, or not at all, the husband's legal
110
 |  |  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
