WE have already spoken of two strains in Modern
Feminism which, although commonly found to-
gether, are nevertheless intrinsically distinguishable.
The first I have termed Sentimental Feminism and
the second Political Feminism.  Sentimental Feminism
is in the main an extension and emotional elabora-
tion of the old notion of chivalry, a notion which
in the period when it was supposed to have been
at its zenith, certainly played a very much smaller
part in human affairs than it does in its extended
and metamorphosed form in the present day.  We
have already analysed in a former chapter the
notion of chivalry.  Taken in its most general and
barest form it represents the consideration for
weakness which is very apt to degenerate into a
worship of mere weakness.  La faiblesse prime le
droit[The weakness precedes the right] is not nec-
essarily nearer justice than la force prime le droit [the
force precedes the right]; although to hear much of
the talk in the present day one would imagine that the
inherent right of the weak to oppress the strong
were a first principle of eternal rectitude.  But the             

theory of chivalry is scarcely invoked in the
present day save in the interests of one particular
form of weakness--viz. the woman as the
muscularly weaker sex, and here it has acquired
an utterly different character. l
Chivalry, as understood by Modern Sentimental
Feminism, means unlimited licence for women in
their relations with men, and unlimited coercion
for men in their relations with women.  To men
all duties and no rights, to women all rights and
no duties, is the basic principle underlying Modern
Feminism, Suffragism, and the bastard chivalry
it is so fond of invoking.  The most insistent
female shrieker for equality between the sexes
among Political Feminists, it is interesting to ob-
serve, will, in most cases, on occasion be found
an equally insistent advocate of the claims of
Sentimental Feminism, based on modern meta-
morphosed notions of chivalry.  It never seems to
strike anyone that the muscular weakness of
woman has been forged by Modern Feminists into

1 As regards this point it should be remarked that
chivalry tolerated (as Wharton expressed it in his
of Poetry ") "the grossest indecencies and obscenities
the sexes," such things as modern puritanism would
with such words as "unchivalrous," "unmanly" and the
The resemblance between the modern worship of
women and the
relations of the mediæval knight to the female sex is
thin indeed.  Modern claims to immunity for women
from the
criminal law and mediæval chivalry are quite different
things.                                   141                       

an abominable weapon of tyranny.  Under cover
of the notion of chivalry, as understood by Modern
Feminism, Political and Sentimental Feminists alike
would deprive men of the most elementary rights
of self-defence against women and would exonerate
the latter practically from all punishment for the
most dastardly crimes against men.  They know
they can rely upon the support of the sentimental
section of public opinion with some such parrot
cry of' "What!  Hit a woman!"
Why not, if she molests you?
"Treat a woman in this way!"  "Shame!"
responds automatically the crowd of Sentimental
Feminist idiots, oblivious of the fact that the real
shame lies in their endorsement of an iniquitous
sex privilege.  If the same crowd were prepared to
condemn any special form of punishment or mode
of treatment as inhumane for both sexes alike, there
would, of course, be nothing to be said.  But it is
not so.  The most savage cruelty and vindictive
animosity towards men leaves them comparatively
cold, at most evoking a mild remonstrance as against
the inflated manifestation of sentimental horror and
frothy indignation produced by any slight hardship
inflicted by way of punishment (let us say) on a
female offender.
The psychology of Sentimental Feminism gener-
ally is intimately bound up with the curious
phenomenon of the hatred of men by their own                 

sex as such.  With women, in spite of what is
sometimes alleged, one does not find this pheno-
menon of anti-sex.  On the contrary, nowadays we
are in presence of a powerful female sex-solidarity
indicating the beginnings of a strong sex-league
of women against men.  But with men, as already
said, in all cases of conflict between the sexes, we
are met with a callous indifference, alternating with
positive hostility towards their fellow-men, which
seems at times to kill in them all sense of justice.
This is complemented on the other side by an
imbecile softness towards the female sex in general
which reminds one of nothing so much as of the
maudlin bonhomie [good-naturedness] of the                   
amiable drunkard.  This besotted indulgence, as
before noted, is proof even against the outraged
sense of injury to property.
As we all know, offences against property, as
a rule, are those the average bourgeois is least
inclined to condone, yet we have recently seen
a campaign of deliberate wanton destruction by
arson and other means, directed expressly against
private property, which nevertheless the respect-
able propertied bourgeois, the man of law and
order, has taken pretty much "lying down."  Let
us suppose another case.  Let us imagine an
anarchist agitation, with a known centre and
known leaders, a centre from which daily outrages
were deliberately planned by these leaders and               

carried out by their emissaries, all, bien entendu,
of the male persuasion.
Now what attitude does the reader suppose
"public opinion" of the propertied classes would
adopt towards the miscreants who were responsible
for these acts?  Can he not picture to himself the
furious indignation, the rabid diatribes, the ad-
vocacy of hanging, flogging, penal servitude for
life, as the minimum punishment, followed  by
panic legislation on these lines, which would ensue
as a consequence.  Yet of such threatenings and
slaughter, where suffragettes who imitate the
policy of the Terrorist Anarchist are concerned,
we hear not a sound.  The respectable propertied
bourgeois, the man of law and order, will, it is
true, probably condemn these outrages in an
academic way, but there is an undernote of
hesitancy which damps down the fire of his
indignation.  There is no vindictiveness, no note
of atrocity in his expostulations; nay, he is even
prepared, on occasion, to argue the question, while
maintaining the impropriety, the foolishness, the
"unwomanliness" of setting fire to empty houses,
cutting up golf links, destroying correspondence,
smashing windows and the like.  But of fiery in-
dignation, of lurid advocacy of barbaric punish-
ments, or of ferocity in general, we have not a
trace.  On the contrary, a certain willingness to
admit and even to emphasise the disinterestedness       

of these female criminals is observable.  As regards
this last point, we must again insist on what was
pointed out on a previous page, that the disinter-
estedness and unselfishness of many a male bomb-
throwing anarchist who has come in for the
righteous bourgeois' sternest indignation, are, at
least, as unquestionable as those of the female
house-burners and window-smashers.  Moreover
the anarchist, however wrong-headed he may have
been in his action, as once before remarked, it must
not be forgotten, had at least for the goal of his
endeavours, not merely the acquirement of a vote,
but the revolution which he conceived would abolish
human misery and raise humanity to a higher level.
In this strange phenomenon, therefore, in which
the indignation of the bourgeois at the wanton
and wilful violation of the sacredness of his idol,
is reduced to mild remonstrance and its punitive
action to a playful pretence, we have a crucial
instance of the extraordinary influence of Feminism
over the modern mind.  That the propertied classes
should take arson and wilful destruction of property
in general, with such comparative equanimity be-
cause the culprits are women, acting in the assumed
interest of a cause  that aims at increasing the
influence of women in the State, is the most
striking illustration we can have of the power of
Feminism.  We have here a double phenomenon,
the unreasoning hatred of man as a sex, by men,             
feminist's quotes
The Psychology of Thought
Control, Menticide, and
Joost A. M. Meerloo, M.D
Social Control:

( Originally Published
1915 )
Men's panel,
will help you to
what you are
looking for.
Men's Panel
New Men
what does it mean?
What are the root
for it?.
New generations of
How new man is
creating the new
New men, genius
Walter Russell's
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 10
The Psychology of Thought
Control, Menticide, and
Joost A. M. Meerloo, M.D