Going to The Chapel of Looooooooove…….

 

One of the favourite myths of feminism is that ALL women were oppressed everywhere by ALL men – and that the mechanism by which men oppressed women was marriage.

Ah yes, in secret patriarchy meetings all over the known world scheming men got together to lay their nefarious plans to trap and enslave these innocent and delicate flowers of womanhood into the bonds, the cruel and tortuous chains of matrimony.

But, of course a few brave souls resisted, they struggled against this demonic plot to entrap and enslave them, then of course they wrote books about their “struggle”

According to received “wisdom” and in the context of anything that emanates from the mouths or pens of feminists one does use the word wisdom with a large dose of irony, this nefarious plot has been going on for centuries, nay millennium.

For the purposes of this essay we shall confine ourselves to a quick but focused examination of some specific periods, because after all, if feminists are correct, then like blindly putting a pin in a map with your eyes closed, wherever we landed in the timeline of human history we would reveal examples of this ongoing and nefarious patriarchal plot to enslave poor helpless damsels in the chains of matrimony. Makes sense, doesn’t it?

Let us begin with a gem of historical research that can be found at Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins, and a campaign to impose a Bachelor Tax on those patriarchal sods who…….well were refusing to do their patriarchal duty and enslave some poor maiden into the chains of matrimony.

One Mrs Charlotte Smith in 1896, was so riled up and so aghast at the numbers of men who were refusing to get married that she started a campaign to force men to marry, and called upon public servants and officials to “do something” about this calumny against women.

“Mr’s Smith’s malignment of bachelors began with attacks on public servants and officials, saying that bachelors have always been failures, and that bachelor politicians, especially, were “narrow minded, selfish, egotistical, and cowardly.” She further claimed that, “It’s about time to organize antibachelor clubs in this state. It should be the purpose of every young woman to look up the record of each and every man who is looking for votes and, should his moral character be such would make him unfit for office, then his shortcoming should be the point of attack by the antibachelor women of Massachusetts.

There are 47,000 girls between the ages of 20 and 29 years in this state who cannot find husbands… [and] the bachelor politicians, they do not dare discuss the social evil question.”3 She states:

“No man can be a good, honorable and upright citizen who has not entered into the holy bonds of wedlock” [Charlotte Smith]4”

Now wait just a minute – that can’t be right – men are roaming the land in hordes, gathering together in secret patriarchy meetings, laying plans on how best to trap and enslave these fair maidens into marriage! Feminists have said so.

In her paper entitled, Sisterhood and Slavery: Transatlantic Antislavery and Women’s Rights, Karen Offen, Institute for Research on Women & Gender, Stanford University, takes a jaunt through history to justify the use of the word or analogy “slavery” as comparable to the status of women, especially married women from circa the 1650’s to 1848:

“In this paper, I extend the timeframe back some two hundred years from 1848 to the 1650s, providing evidence of the slavery-marriage analogy in published literary and political works by women and men (who deploy it in support of what can only be termed, retrospectively, a feminist politics). I will raise questions about exactly how we might interpret the feminist use of the slavery analogy as well as about how scholars and theorists have heretofore approached the separate subjects of women’s rights and slavery. “

Which is indeed what she does, now it must be said that Ms. Offen’s grasp of “history” is somewhat shaky, and she does take the long way around, via of course the usual suspects of “revisionist” and selective feminist history. Olympe De Gouges, John Stuart Mills, Elizabeth Cady Stanton – etc – with some rather unusual choices – Napoleon and Jean Jacques Rousseau, thrown in at odd moments. But, basically what this paper seeks to do, is what all feminists seek to do, is correlate the status of women historically with the status of slaves – black slaves – ergo she concludes with:

“The power of the slavery analogy, for feminists, was its insistence that women, and particularly women who married, were individuals in their own right, that they possessed “human rights” and free will and could not be legally disposed of like chattel or forced, even for family reasons, to do things against their will. The slavery analogy applied to marriage struck at the heart of institutionalized male domination in the family, and it continued to haunt the Western consciousness and to inspire subsequent generations of feminist action, both by women and by men well into the twentieth century, when in most countries the legal institution of marriage was totally (however reluctantly) restructured. It continues to characterize campaigns against sexual slavery into the twenty-first century.”

This is very odd, because you see men were presumably having secret patriarchy meetings, but not about what feminists seem to believe, and have hoodwinked millions of “womens studies” graduates about – nope, men were having meetings about fighting for the right NOT to be coerced into marriage by harridans like Charlotte Smith demanding that unmarried men be punished for NOT getting married.

In case you haven’t noticed, Ms. Offen’s paper covers the period from the 1650’s to 1848, and yet less than 50 years later Mrs Charlotte Smith is getting her corsets in a kerfuffle over men NOT marrying, and how there are “47,000 girls between the ages of 20 and 29 years in this state who cannot find husbands” the state she is referring to is Massachusetts. But, I believe I may be correct if I assert that Mrs Smith was probably not the only busybody, in the only state in 1896 America squawking about all those lonely and bereft “ladies” pining away for……………slavery – emmmmm – marriage.

Lets fast forward a bit in history and the period just after the first World War – the Great War it is called – though how one can call a war that claimed the lives of an estimated 10 million men great?

What was one of the major issues that exercised the minds of the public after this “War to end all wars”?

“Condemned to be virgins: The two million women robbed by the war:

 They dreamt of love, marriage and children. But, as a new book reveals, the Great War robbed two million women of the men they would have married, leading many into relationships which could only be whispered about…”

The book referred to here is Singled Out: How Two Million Women Survived Without Men After The First World War by Virginia Nicholson (Viking, £20).

You will note of course that the emphasis is on the struggle of women to survive without men after the war, rather on the estimated 10 million MEN who didn’t actually SURVIVE the war.

“World War I was an extremely bloody war that engulfed Europe from 1914 to 1919, with huge losses of life and little ground lost or won. Fought mostly by soldiers in trenches, World War I saw an estimated 10 million military deaths and another 20 million wounded. While many hoped that World War I would be “the war to end all wars,” in actuality, the concluding peace treaty set the stage for World War II”

In fact the article cites some piteous and heartbreaking examples of the ”struggles” of these sad and lonely maidens and what they are prepared to do in order to enslave themselves:

“Many placed advertisements in the Press in their hope of finding any man – like the following heartfelt plea published during the war: “Lady, fiancè killed, will gladly marry officer totally blinded or otherwise incapacitated by the War.”

 By 1921 publications like the Matrimonial Times were carrying columns of advertisements placed by spinsters and widows.

They included:

MATRIMONY – Spinster, 38, loving disposition, fond of children, entertaining and country life, is anxious to correspond with a wounded officer of cultured tastes, with view to a matrimonial alliance; one with some means.

LADY, aged 49, spinster, cultured, bright temperament, small capital… would like to meet officer or civilian age 45-60… could be very happy with disabled officer needing a cheerful companion and pal.”

Couple of things to note here, while there were an estimated 10 million men killed in WWI, there were a further 20 million men injured, need I say that those 20 million injured men did not have the benefit of the kinds of medical technological marvels available to us today? So, being “injured” carried an extra dimension of horror and anguish for these men.

Now take a closer look at the extracts from the letters cited in the article, “…will gladly marry officer totally blinded or otherwise incapacitated by the War” – “….anxious to correspond with a wounded officer of cultured tastes, with view to a matrimonial alliance; one with some means” –  “…..could be very happy with disabled officer needing a cheerful companion and pal”

Even when women were prepared to “settle” in a desperate attempt to “get married” there were conditions – the ladies preferred their men –injured or not, disabled or not, to be of a certain status, to be the “right class” to be “Officers” – Hypergamy anyone? Gynocentrism?

This was such a burning issue that the government stepped in, to ease and attempt to resolve the plight of these “surplus women

“In 1919, the Society for the Oversea Settlement of British Women was established and was provided with an annual grant. The Society’s panels included ones for areas – Africa, Canada, Australia and New Zealand – and for work – for nursing, for training and for agriculture. All of this effort was in spite of the evidence collected by the Dominions Royal Commission of 1912-1917 which found that the casualties of men from the dominions during the war meant that marriage prospects in the Empire had also declined. Additionally, men were emigrating as well as women, perpetuating the imbalance in Britain. So in 1920, 125,000 women emigrated but 115,000 men also did. Between 1923 and 1927, fewer women than men emigrated as a result of the Empire Settlement Act (1922), through which the government provided financial assistance to emigrants.”

As you can see, it kind of backfired – but – hurrah for the attempt, to provide a means to give women what they wanted – enslavement in marriage.

So, here we are in the 21st century and has anything changed?

Well yes, and no – according to feminists men are still patriarchal bastards roaming the land trying to trap innocent virgins into the chains of matrimony – except:

“Among pre-adults, women are the first sex. They graduate from college in greater numbers (among Americans ages 25 to 34, 34% of women now have a bachelor’s degree but just 27% of men), and they have higher GPAs. As most professors tell it, they also have more confidence and drive. These strengths carry women through their 20s, when they are more likely than men to be in grad school and making strides in the workplace. In a number of cities, they are even out-earning their brothers and boyfriends.

Still, for these women, one key question won’t go away: Where have the good men gone?”

Perhaps this attitude to men might give all those lonely and pining away fair maidens, yearning to get shackled up an insight as to where all the good men have scarpered to?

“Single men have never been civilization’s most responsible actors; they continue to be more troubled and less successful than men who deliberately choose to become husbands and fathers. So we can be disgusted if some of them continue to live in rooms decorated with “Star Wars” posters and crushed beer cans and to treat women like disposable estrogen toys, but we shouldn’t be surprised.”

Because after all, as the redoubtable Mrs Charlotte Smith also claimed so vehemently all those years ago:

“No man can be a good, honorable and upright citizen who has not entered into the holy bonds of wedlock”

Like Ludwig Von Beethoven, Henry David Thoreau, Isaac Newton?  Those kinds of dishonorable and presumably irresponsible men who wasted their lives away without the civilising influence of women!

Advertisements

13 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. wtfwtf13
    Jan 02, 2014 @ 21:27:56

    tá tú uamhnach
    buíochas a ghabháil leat go mór
    Is do fear céile fear an-ádh, mé éad air !
    leithscéal liom, má cheapann tú go bhfuil mé ag a bheith cheeky!

    LMFAO! Hope Google has not butchered the translation! You have hit the ball out of the park once again !

    Reply

  2. Anja Eriud
    Jan 02, 2014 @ 21:49:34

    Go raibh míle maith agat go mór – agus gan aon, ní mór dúinn na hÉireann cosúil ár rascals 🙂

    It has always amused me that feminists are as equally obsessed with “marriage” as even the most cursory research will show the vast majority of women are.

    Yet, ironically, again as history shows, feminism continues to bitch and moan about the one thing that women want most of all. Either feminists are NOT actually women, or they are so unrepresentative of women that they should start calling themselves weonlyspeakforthetiniestnumberofwomenimaginable – ists. 🙂

    Reply

  3. gynocentrism
    Jan 03, 2014 @ 01:47:01

    Great article, Anja!

    But perhaps you’ve accidently chanced upon the only period in history when bachelors were intimidated into finding wives?

    So we need also to check Karen Offen’s claim that marriage for women was forced “slavery” in the period of 1650 to 1848. Fortunately we have a woman’s voice on the subject from precisely this period (c1707) who provides the following proposals for bachelors:

    http://gynocentrism.com/2013/11/07/penalties-for-bachelors-and-the-danger-of-celibacy-1707/

    Mariana: That an alms house shall be built and endow’d for… bachelors as shall, by reason of their low stature, crookedness, weakness, or any other infirmities whatsoever, be judg’d unfit for His Majesty’s Service; and that every such widower or bachelor shall be allowed one warm frize gown every year with a yellow badge upon the right arm, upon which shall be stamped an Ape in a string, and under shall be engraven this motto:
    Who dies an old maid
    leads apes when she’s dead;
    But he that hates wiving
    shall lead ’em whilst living.

     
    That every single member shall have a convenient apartment to himself, with a bed, two pair of coarse sheets, one leathern chair, one earthen candlestick, a green chamber-pot, and a little grate, and every ten of them shall have an old woman to wait upon ’em, and to hand ’em their water-gruel, barley-broth, turnips, carrots and potatoes; for that they shall not be allow’d any other food than soop, herbs and roots, because they have forfeited the Liberty of an Englishman, by not loving the flesh in a righteous way, therefore they ought not to indulge their vicious appetites.

    whoever refuses out of obstinacy to comply with the Term has resolved himself into a state of insufficiency, choosing rather to suffer than to marry; therefore we ought to consider them as much superanuated as to our sex, as if he were fourscore, but no infirmity ought to be allowed a good reason against a man’s marrying; for tho’ he is unable to get children, he is nevertheless able to father ‘em; therefore, I think, all those that stand out in contempt of wedlock, cannot be dealt with too severely.

    “… it would be a means of ruining all families, dispeopleing the Kingdom to nothing, and leaving our posterity unable to defend themselves against the insults and invasions of their foreign enemies; for no copulation must bring the Kingdom to nothing; and universal liberty would beget distempers instead of children, and force the nation to turn their colleges and alms-houses into sick-hospitals… [It] would be a means of introducing a beastly use of sodomy, making every timorous leacher turn a R—–y for fear of contracting that filthy distemper in a minute that may’nt be claw’d off in a twelve-month.”

    My goodness, again it appears that women were forcing men into marriage during the supposed period of “female marriage slavery” nominated by Karen Offen.

    It appears Karen has been apick’n cherries to support her female-as-victim fantasy.

    The history on this subject shows that penalties against bachelors are recorded as far back as classical Roman times and it is always women are the most passionate advocates of bachelor punishments.

    Reply

    • Anja Eriud
      Jan 03, 2014 @ 16:13:45

      “……choosing rather to suffer than to marry; therefore we ought to consider them as much superanuated as to our sex, as if he were fourscore, but no infirmity ought to be allowed a good reason against a man’s marrying; for tho’ he is unable to get children, he is nevertheless able to father ‘em; therefore, I think, all those that stand out in contempt of wedlock, cannot be dealt with too severely….”

      There it is, in all its unvarnished glory – the true and naked contempt that women have always not just had for men, but have used to eulogise, manufacture and perpetuate the twisted myth of womanhood – that states – ALL women are a prize – ALL women are endowed with superior and divine qualities that no mere man could ever hope to achieve – the language changed over the centuries – the cultural framework expanded and shifted, but always in service to that core message, that core belief.

      Men who do not choose to serve women are to be either be forced to, through social approbation and/or ostracism or will be discarded.

      Reply

  4. gynocentrism
    Jan 03, 2014 @ 01:53:01

    Meant to put this [Bachelorhood] at the beginning of this to make it clear:

    “… [Bachelorhood] would be a means of ruining all families, dispeopleing the Kingdom to nothing, and leaving our posterity unable to defend themselves against the insults and invasions of their foreign enemies; for no copulation must bring the Kingdom to nothing; and universal liberty would beget distempers instead of children, and force the nation to turn their colleges and alms-houses into sick-hospitals… [It] would be a means of introducing a beastly use of sodomy, making every timorous leacher turn a R—–y for fear of contracting that filthy distemper in a minute that may’nt be claw’d off in a twelve-month.”

    NBfixed the wee typo for you – just to note it is not my intention to EVER edit anothers person’s comments – they stand or fall on their merits – but the typo was….emmmmmm…..jumping out and poking me in the eye 🙂 Anja

    Reply

  5. Brian Boru
    Jan 03, 2014 @ 13:14:41

    It’s interesting to note that in a completely unrelated culture, the Incas, young men of the lower classes were not permitted to remain single. If a man wasn’t married by the age of 20, a wife would be chosen for him by the village elder, and he would have no option but to marry her (a good reason to have made his own choice first!). Also of interest is the tradition that the prospective groom “knelt down before the bride and put a shoe on her right foot. This act would make everybody understand that the young man was ready to serve the lady for the rest of his life.” (http://www.machupicchu-inca.com/inca-marriage.html – my emphasis)

    So who exactly is the slave here?

    The true fact of the matter is that marriage in almost every traditional society served a) to ensure the survival of the society, and b) in more developed societies, to serve the upper classes, who often lived by different rules. To the extent that it existed as a form of enslavement in the first place, it was shared by both sexes, to varying degrees according to individual, cultural and economic circumstances. Representing it as an instrument that uniquely oppressed women is nothing more or less than ideological propaganda designed to cultivate the hatred of men. And in that it has pretty well succeeded – I would like to add, to the eternal shame of the perpetrators of said propaganda, if only they were capable of any such shame. Unfortunately, sociopaths, by definition, never are.

    Reply

  6. Anja Eriud
    Jan 03, 2014 @ 15:09:59

    Hello and Welcome Brian.

    Thank you for your articulate and intelligent comment, in the broader context of challenging feminism and gynocentrism it is important I believe to also illuminate and shine a light on the inherent ethnocentrism that informs all feminist “thinking” and like the word wisdom, one uses the word “thinking” with regard to feminists very very carefully.

    Through the narrowest of cultural and historical lenses do feminists pen their execrable screeds.

    One of my favourite books, one of those that one goes back to, again and again is Niall Fergusons: Civilisation, The West and The Rest, published in 2011 by Penguin – his Bibliography points one to a treasure trove of knowledge.

    Another I would recommend, for those who are interested in European history is Norman Davies: Europe. A History, first published in 1996 by Pimlico.

    There are two words that are guaranteed to make me go Grrrrrr, “feminist history” Grrrrrrrr.

    Thank you and welcome again Brian. 🙂

    Reply

    • Brian Boru
      Jan 07, 2014 @ 11:32:52

      Thank you for your welcome Anja, and thank you for your blog. It’s good to see there are still a few sane people left in this blighted isle of ours.

      There are two words that are guaranteed to make me go Grrrrrr, “feminist history” Grrrrrrrr.

      I know what you mean. I could spend every waking minute of every day for the rest of my life countering feminist lies, distortions and malevolent fairytales and the task would never be done. They are not interested in anything remotely resembling an honest debate, and never have been. I learnt that lesson a long time ago. Feminism is not a coherent philosophy, it’s just another political religion replete with its own pantheon of angels (themselves), demons (men, naturally), hell (the so-called Patriarchy) and heaven (the coming feminist utopia). You might as well try and argue with an islamic fundamendalist for all the good it will do, they’re deaf to reasoned argument.

      Anyone who seriously thinks it’s about equality really needs to cop onto themselves.

      Reply

  7. gynocentrism
    Jan 04, 2014 @ 04:15:19

    Well hell, looky what I came across this morning, an old newspaper article (in The Leeds Times, 1846) reporting that all women at the time “had the legal liberty to choose for a husband any man on whom she set her fancy. If a man refused to marry her he was heavily fined according to the value of his possessions. The only ground of exemption was previous betrothal.”

    http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000336/18460718/027/0006

    Reply

  8. donzaloog
    Jan 04, 2014 @ 05:03:02

    Marriage has always been a broken system, it just didn’t become painfully obvious until the gender roles became blurred. Men used to carry all of he legal power in a marriage because they bore all the legal responsibility. Now the power is shifted firmly to the woman’s side.

    There was an agreement. The man does this and the woman does that. Now the woman thinks she can do everything on her own, is actively encouraged to get rid of the men in her life and the men have simply allowed it to happen.

    Men are starting to wake up to the shit deal they got, but we’ve already got two generations of kids who grew up with no father in the house or no positive male role models.

    Reply

  9. Trackback: Do men pressure women into marriage? | Gynocentrism and its cultural origins

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: