Feminism Is Why We Are So Delicate Pursuing the "Warm War"
In a Wall Street Journal editorial “White Guilt and the Western Past — Why is America so delicate with the enemy?, Shelby Steele suggests that America’s inability to fight war effectively was caused by “the world-wide collapse of white supremacy as a source of moral authority, political legitimacy and even sovereigntyâ€.
Shelby’s theory is wrong.  The collapse of white moral authority is not the problem. The replacement of male authority with feminism is. To Steele’s credit — he was gazing in the general right direction – but missed the real target. In America, there is one place where white supremacy and radical feminism existed: The Ku Klux Klan.
The crucial relationship Shelby missed is this: post-modern feminism (which has clearly admitted to being a supremacist movement) is the living granddaughter of the Women’s Ku Klux Klan (WKKK), where second-wave  feminism (as we know it today) was gestated and borne. Â
It is important to recognize that the WKKK was not in the mainstream of the suffragette movement, but did strongly support it. Legitimate mainstream suffragettes, including Elizabeth Cady Stanton, my grandmother Florence Richardson Usher, and great grandmother Florence Wyman Richardson (photo), did not participate in the smaller WKKK movement or its post-Klan feminist activities. The suffragettes put up with WKKK feminists because of one common goal: passage of the 19th Amendment.
This distinction is important because post-WKKK feminists who today demand VAWA, abortion, “divorce for the hell of itâ€, free health care, and endless welfare pretend to be the heirs of the suffragette movement when in fact they were not legitimate members.
Contemporary feminism is still bifurcated, but the divisions are now more deeply pronounced. Feminism is a paradox comprised of two wildly disparate camps, the conservative (post-suffragette equalitarianist) and liberal (post WKKK supremacist) wings. They both operate under the same name – “feminismâ€. This is quite confusing to the public and politicians.Â
Unfortunately, it often inures to the benefit of radical feminists who carefully twist their words just enough to assume an appearance of equalitarianism in the political arena.
The comparatively small, un-entitled cohort of equalitarian feminists, such as Phyllis Schlafly, Christina Hoff Sommers, Wendy McElroy, Kathleen Parker, Kate O’Bierne, and Erin Pizzey are the legitimate followers of suffragettes. They still seek reasonable social equality between the sexes and strongly oppose the egregious destruction of marriage and men’s social rights caused by second-wave feminists.Â
The prevailing second-wave feminist movement, steered by the National Organization for Women, predominantly applies ideological and statistical machinations to achieve women’s supremacy targets. It sees equalitarianists as “anti-feminist†enemies and is constantly at battle with them for control at the helm of feminism. Â
The transformation of WKKK paradigms into today’s dictatorial form of feminism is an astonishing political feat requiring much more study and analysis than is contained in existing scholarly research. A brief inspection of the history of this “dark†wing of feminism demonstrates it lineage over time.
For example, many popular second-wave feminist slogans originated in the WKKK. The screed “the hand that rocks the cradle has the power to rule the world†was first published in a WKKK broadside in Evansville, Indiana in the 1880’s. The idea that housework is drudgery below women was also invented in the WKKK.
The KKK and WKKK expounded horrid sexual imagery about black men to stir up both violent and less-visible forms of racial discrimination. Whites rose up instinctively in the name of “protecting the purity of white womanhood†from miscegenation.Â
Over time, WKKK members learned how to manipulate society from this powerful pedestal of unassailable purity. For example, the movie “Rosewood†is a loose documentary about how a town in Florida was burned to the ground by a woman who falsely claimed a black man raped her.Â
After the 19th amendment was passed, WKKK feminists no longer needed the Klan for political power, and turned their sights towards the use of sexual imagery to control white men too. In the 1920’s a congressional investigation found that a woman by the name of Elizabeth Tyler was running the KKK. She assumed control by making allegations of sexual improprieties against the Grand Dragon.Â
Much historical detail behind the WKKK through 1935 is contained in the book “Women of the Klanâ€, by Kathleen L. Blee. Notably, this book is required reading in campus women’s studies programs. I encourage everyone to study this book very carefully to fully understand the dymanic between the KKK, the WKKK and its impact on modern feminism.
In the early 1930’s, feminists left the Klan to pursue Marxist thinking, which arrived with thousands of unwanted European scholars who immigrated to the United States after WWI Feminists studied Freud intensely, adopting everything Freud with one major modification: “penis envy†was left behind, but not forgotten, eventually transmogrified to become a “vagina envy†movement witnessed by the “Vagina Monologues†and the “V-day†celebration.  The study of Kinsey in the 1950’s led feminists to women’s sexual liberation, and the idea that women could freely use sex to get what they want from men, completely absent marriage.Â
By the early 1960’s, second-wave feminism was now ready to emerge. The movement now had sophisticated weapons consisting of sexual imagery, victimology, a fascist ability to shift word values at-will, a readiness to use physical sex to get men to do whatever they want (and to blackmail them with as well), and degreed individuals in creative fields of false science to legitimize their political agenda.Â
While WKKK feminists accomplished their goals by targeting black men with sexual imagery, second-wave feminists simply re-pointed their arsenal at all men when they attacked marriage on American soil in the early 1960’s.
Betty Friedan told contented wives that marriage was a trap. They should throw off their apron strings, become sexually liberated, get rid of that awful husband, and make something of themselves. This first wave of the feminist separatist movement brought on an immediate explosion of divorce and illegitimacy rates. She urged “free agent†status for mothers, who having chattel control of family, began pursuing serial polyandry with reckless abandon.
Young men of all political parties who were operating on raging hormones became instant feminist converts upon seeing cities full of easy women never before imaginable.  Many men, foolishly thinking below the belt, legitimized the feminist movement by mouthing “equal rights for women†slogans, and bowing before the pedestal of feminism, to get the sex they wanted from feminist women.
An orgy of self-gratification and mass liberated sex ensued, spurred by the false security that the new birth control “pill†was actually being used.  It wasn’t, particularly in the lower classes. The resulting illegitimacy boom caused mass poverty.Â
Feminists immediately repackaged the problem to expand Johnson’s so-called “War on Povertyâ€, which provided billions to fund the feminist “War on Marriage†that today has left half of America’s children fatherless.
Shelby properly points out that a sea-change occurred during the Vietnam era. We must look closely at this confused time to understand what really took place.  The collapse of white supremacy and race is of little consequence. The collapse of marriage, and particularly sex discrimination as exemplified by institutionalized disestablishment of men’s participation in marriage, is of paramount influence.
Vietnam coincided with the rise of the hippie generation. The core ideologies of the “do what you like†generation were substantively driven by early 1960’s second-wave feminism, and had become the rage on all college campuses by 1968.  In 1968, welfare had become very expensive. Changes were made changing welfare from a tithe, to a program entitling single motherhood at the expense of marriage.
By the time of the Vietnam era, liberated teens soaked in mind-expanding psychedelic drugs religiously believed in everything from feminism to transcendental meditation, “Revolution for the Hell of Itâ€, love-ins, Saul Alinsky, Pete Seeger, and Jim Morrison.Â
Most conservatives (even ones who did not “inhale†or go to Woodstock) still religiously believe in chauvinist aspects of second-wave feminism despite all facts proving that it is the most devastating social movement in the history of America. This is the breakpoint where present-day conservatives and liberals diverge.
Liberal feminists believe that all violence is bad (unless it happens to be committed by a woman). Tralfamadore is a pain-free, hypersexual village of serial polyandry, where somebody else raises your children, sustenance and protection comes from government, and men get charged for it all even if they are not the father.
A United Nations taken over by feminists in the early 1990’s now does nothing but monitor genocide. Lawyers and ambassadors trade letters while countries murdering their own run U.N. committees, on the idea that collaborative talking and giving murderers a seat at the table can save the world.Â
Feminists of the 1960’s and 1970’s generations (liberal and conservative alike) are now in the cockpit of American politics. They make a living building big government by destroying marriage, religion, and moral culture. Federal programs now entitle everything except marriage, at the direct expense of marriage. Both political parties are equally responsible for it.
Boys who grow up without a father, seeing no possibility of ever having a legitimate place in society, settle for imaginary manhood by engaging the enemy in online war games. Men who do go in the military find themselves served with divorce papers, or default paternity judgments, or tremendously behind on child support orders that do not change even when a man serves his country.
On college campuses, any student who dares to hold a male or moral perspective is a candidate for derision and discrimination, or a false rape charge.
The crucial war shaping the future of America occurs silently in Washington D.C. Feminists are deeply aware that war spending translates into spending cuts financing the feminist war on marriage.  This is why Jane Fonda, Barbara Streisand, and all known feminists staunchly oppose the war at all costs. Â
This week President Bush declared that the War on Terror is, in fact, World War III. He is basically correct. The war on terror is not a cold war. It is a “warm war†against a widely distributed, well-funded, technologically-adept enemy. Cold war strategies have been turned against us: terrorists are now trying to make us spend ourselves into oblivion by forcing us to spend billions securing every square inch of America like it was Fort Knox. This is definitely driving a lot of political problems in Washington.Â
So is our own internal “warm war”, successfully waged by feminists against marriage for the past forty years. Like the war on terror, the blood and wreckage of our internal war is not evident in any one place, but manifestly obvious every time we pick up a newspaper to see the latest murdered wives, husbands, and abused children, six-year-old children committing sexual crimes, mass poverty in urban cores, moral breakdown never imaginable in 1965, tacitly fanned an effete political aristocracy unwilling to take up a long-overdue war against feminism.
This political impasse will eventually explode. Many of the major federal problems that Congress has repeatedly taken up and put aside, such as health care and Medicaid, would abate substantially if Congress walked away from feminism and enacted simple, inexpensive, marriage-positive policies.
Charles Murray recently proposed a racy idea in his article “A Plan to Replace the Welfare State: give $10,000 per year to every American adult, to preclude the prediction made by former OMB Director Joshua Bolton that social entitlement spending will grow from 9% to 28% of GDP by 2050. This is the wrong answer and unsound economic policy.Â
Follow the money: entitling a problem is not the way to reform it. Much of our social security problems stem from divorce and illegitimacy. Married families have more money to save, and share expenses in retirement. Direct cash entitlements will discourage marriage and spur elective divorce. This, in turn, will reduce saving. Murray and Bolton are correct about one thing. As Bolton puts it; “No plausible amount of tax increases could possibly close the gap that will be created by the unsustainable growth in entitlement programsâ€.
Congress and President Bush have never had the courage to disentitle feminism.  Instead, they just raised the federal debt ceiling to nine trillion dollars so we can just barely support a lackluster “warm warâ€, with only minor cuts in social entitlement spending.Â
If we want a strong America, we have no choice but to restore a free marriage market. Heterosexual marriage is the only institution that naturally erases all physical, social, economic, and culturally-imposed differences that exist between the sexes. Marriage assures a robust economy, with many men ready to vigorously defend their homes and families, women willing to live on less to ensure the survival of a free democracy, where deficit spending is probably not necessary.Â
When America is sick and tired of feminism, it will demand in Washington D.C. I predict this will not take place until the U.S. Supreme Court has overruled Roe v. Wade, and the lively pro-life community finally takes the marriage issue up for lack of anything else to do.
_________________________
| More from David R. Usher
Stumble It!
May 8th, 2006 at 7:15 am
[...] Feminism Is Why We Are So Delicate Pursuing the “Warm War” [...]
May 8th, 2006 at 9:52 am
You may be on to something. Israel, where men are mensch, had to tutor you in torture. There, they shoot cameramen and children without apology.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:24 am
David,
reminds me of my November 19, 2005 post on The Daily Cause:
Margaret Sanger: More Feminist Hate
November 19, 2005
by Denis
Margaret Sanger (1883-1966) is the Founder of Planned Parenthood. An interesting overview of this gems political idealogy can be found here
Margaret on infants:
“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.†Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)
Evil. Pure evil.
Margaret on immigrants, blacks, and the poor:
“immigrants and indigents:â€â€¦human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ’spawning… human beings who never should have been born.†Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization.
Spoken like a true elitist.
Margaret on the extermination of blacks:
“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population,†she said, “if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.†Woman’s Body, Woman’s Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America, by Linda Gordon.
I knew feminists hated Blacks but I didn’t know anyone of them actually made a public statement.
Margaret on sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,†couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.
Spoken like a true Feminazi.
Margaret on the right of married couples to bear children:
“Couples should be required to submit applications to have a child, she wrote in her “Plan for Peace.†Birth Control Review, April 1932
Spoken like a true Marxist.
Margaret on the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,†she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)
Spoken like a true Feminazi.
The book “Women of the Klan – Racism and Gender in the 1920’sâ€
by Kathleen M. Blee (University of California Press, 1992ISBN 0-520-07876-4 (ppb.)) documents extensively the direct lineage between Modern Feminism and the Women’s Ku Klux Klan (WKKK).
It is frequently stated, and therefore commonly believed, that Elizabeth Cady Stanton and the Suffragettes were the source of the women’s rights movement. “Women of the Klan†proves this to be untrue. Many of the Suffragettes, were also deeply involved in the WKKK until well after passage of the 19th amendment.
The WKKK became a very powerful controlling force both in the KKK as well as society itself. Women used various “informal networks†through churches, schools, neighborhoods, and various social groups. They formed “poison squadsâ€, which were used to spread rumors, create sexual fears about black men, initiate “selective shopping†boycotts, and pass political information around.
Lynchings of Black men were common in the Old South. Most of these were instigated in defense of “white womanhoodâ€. The author writes that the WKKK “dissolved a myriad of social, economic, and racial issues into powerful symbols of womanhood and sexual virtueâ€. Lulu Markwell, a President of the WKKK wrote, “It is the duty of the American mother to stamp out vice and immorality.†This overblown sexual imagery galvanized millions of American men to rise to the mindless protection of the purity of Protestant white woman. A Black man simply needed to be accused of rape, or of somehow spoiling white womanhoods sexual virtue and he would be hung. White men commited acts of evil in the name of evil White women.
The KKK came to believe that womanhood represented “all that is best, and noblest, and highest in lifeâ€, wherein “No race, or society, or country can rise higher than its womanhoodâ€. Sounds alot like today’s (and yesterday’s) feminists.
The famous 1960’s feminist mantra, “No will man say that in the hand of woman rests the necessity of rocking a cradle only. She has within her hand the power to rule the worldâ€, was actually published by the WKKK in Evansville, Indiana in the late 1880’s.
America is living in a sickening point in history. America is suffocating in sexist policies which openly and unconstitutionally discriminate against a father’s fundamental right to be in the family, to be a property owner, and to raise his children. For all men and for all fathers (White & Black) these are dark days reminiscent of Jim Crow.
It is time for Black men and Black women, and White men (and good White women) to make peace with each other. Much evil was commited by White men to Blacks in those days. This evil was done in the name of evil White women. Al Sharpton & Jesse Jackson need to hear from us that the true battle to be waged is not between us, but rather by all of us against our common enemy:
The Feminists.
Posted in The Daily Cause at 3:05 am by Denis | Permalink | · Edit
3 Comments »
Gus said,
Dear Denis,
Wow! You really knocked it right out of the park with that post. The more that comes to light about women in the Womenâ€s movement whether it be “Red Betty†Frieden, Gloria Steinem, Margaret sanger and their conections with Communism and Racism will surface one day where even the New York Times and the alphabet new system will have to face it.
Larry Elder who is black wrote a great column on Thursday, i think, at Townhall.com about what isgoing to the Democdrats when the blacks find out about the connection between racism and the Democratic Party.
“The wheels of God’s justic grind slowly but exceedingly fine.â€
And so it shall be.
Cheers, mate, and thanks a million for that post.
November 19, 2005 at 4:47 pm · Edit
Gus said,
And, you’re right, I am not a very good typist.
November 19, 2005 at 4:51 pm · Edit
Denis said,
Gus,
As I read more about the WKKK, the more connections I see it has with modern feminism. The trumpeting of the innate superiority of women over men is one and the very developed methodologies they both employ to create mass hysteria concerning the protection of women (actually intended for political advantage)is another. These same tactics were used to push through and renew the VAWA. The PBS propaganda program ‘Breaking the Silence’ also uses these tactics. For both the WKKK and the feminists, it was the already privileged elitist women who started it all, and they used the poorer and less educated to do much of their dirty work. The lie for both groups also is that they claimed to being what they did for higher purposes when they really did what they did for their own interests. Look at N.O.W.. Everytime they speak it’s as if the sky is falling for women, and their membership follows them blindly.
November 20, 2005 at 7:45 pm · Edit
May 8th, 2006 at 10:37 am
“Margaret Sanger (1883-1966) is the Founder of Planned Parenthood. An interesting overview of this gems political idealogy can be found here ”
The following link from the original post in The Daily Cause did not show up in the above sentence in my paste here.
http://dianedew.com/sanger.htm
May 8th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Excellent points, David Usher.
Your points about the origins of and evolution of feminism are as insightful as they are unfortunately unknown to a considerable portion of America’s population.
Those men and women interested in combatting the foul efforts of gender-feminists, or supremicist feminists would do well to spread this information as widely as possible, particularly in those parts of society succeptible to gender-feminism.
Your analysis helps to answer some long-simmering questions about apparently conflicting motiviations and endeavors of “feminism”, thanks to your description of the conservative (post-suffragette equalitarianist) and liberal (post WKKK supremacist) wings together with their conflicting objectives regarding the health, well-being, and social status of men, women, and the family in this nation.
I truly believe that America’s gender-warfare would be most efficiently addressed through making your words as widely available as possible, not only to those men’s rights advocates who frequent MND, but especially to this nation’s universities, judiciaries, legislators, teachers, and media.
I realize of course that many of the supremacist feminists in those aspects of American society have zero interest in losing their abilities to masquerade as equalitiarian feminists.
I found one of your sentences particularly insightful in terms of understanding the political tactics of supremacist feminists”
“By the early 1960’s, second-wave feminism was now ready to emerge. The movement now had sophisticated weapons consisting of sexual imagery, victimology, a fascist ability to shift word values at-will, a readiness to use physical sex to get men to do whatever they want (and to blackmail them with as well), and degreed individuals in creative fields of false science to legitimize their political agenda.”
May 8th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
There may be another potential source of backlash against the radical gender-feminists taking shape in the debate over “raunch culture” and its proposition that acting like a porn star or a pop music diva ho’ is somehow expressing womens’ “liberation.”
This movement’s spokesmodel of the moment is Ariel Levy, author of “Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture,” a book in which she argues that when the pro-sexual liberation, pro-porn, pro-lesbian (WKKK?) faction of the feminist movement won out against the (prudish and repressed?) traditional heterosexual fems, the results were far from liberating for women or men.
Levy is a feminist who rejects the co-optation and constriction of human sexuality by the increasingly pornified major mass media –
“Instead of advancing the causes of the women’s liberation movement or the sexual revolution, the obdurate prevalence of raunch in the mainstream has diluted the effect of both sex radicals and feminists, who’ve seen their movement’s images popularized while their ideals are forgotten. As Candida Royalle said, ‘We’ve become a heavily sexualized culture, but it’s consumerism and sex rolled into one…’
“Women’s liberation and empowerment are terms feminists started using to talk about casting off the limitations imposed upon women and demanding equality. We have perverted these words. The freedom to be sexually provocative or promiscuous is not enough freedom: it is not the only ‘women’s issue’ worth paying attention to. And we are not even free in the sexual arena. We have simply adopted a new norm, a new role to play: lusty, busty exhibitionist. There are other choices…” (A.L.)
When I read David R. Usher’s excellent analysis arguing for a pro-marriage movement, I wonder what room in that tent there might be for young women like Ariel Levy, who would likely reject both the “stripper-on-the-pole” as well as the “wife-in-the-kitchen” as viable role models for truly liberated women?
Perhaps tellingly, the term “marriage” appears nowhere in her book’s Index.
May 8th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
I do not make a distinction between feminists. They are all degrees of supporting a hateful idealogy. I know some see some measure of support from feminists such as Wendy McElroy, Kate O’Beirne, Ariel Levy and others. Having the input of these different types of feminists whether gender feminists, independent feminists, equalitarian feminists, …whatever… ultimately results in the women taking the oxygen out of the discussion. The message by MRAs gets lost. The chatter of these women drowns out the issues for men because women are too busy advancing their issues (while some of their issues may appear pro-male).
They ALL support a hateful idealogy. At least some part of it that is important to them. A part where they want advantage for women at the expense of rights for men.
Say for example you were a German in Germany in the 1930s and 1940s and say you were a Nazi. Let’s say you joined out of idealism for a new Germany having been inspired by the writings and speeches of leaders in the Nazi Party. Let’s say also you were told about the mass deportations, the mass exterminations, etc.. When asked why you were a Nazi you answer: “Well, I’m not THAT kind of Nazi.” Maybe you call yourself an Independent Nazi, or an Equalitarian Nazi.
Would it matter? Are you not giving some measure of credibility to the actions of Nazi’s (including the attrocities) and to the movement called Nazism simply by being a relatively innocent person who calls themself a Nazi?
Until we make the word “feminism” as dirty as nazism and fascism our message will not get out fully. At times the message will go out from us, re-defined, into the media through a feminist lense.
At times we will get drawn into the chatter with the various factions of feminism always ending up as a discussion about women and their issues. e.g., the marriage strike will not be about injustice for men but rather about the loneliness of women, females pedophiles need to be understood (you know their bi-polar condition) while men simply accused of rape get also raped by the justice system and the media, where war is about the casualties of women and not the dead and wounded soldiers..
May 8th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
Men are going to have to be educated. Informative websites like this should increase their fan-base/outreach. Advertise on GlennSacks.com. He has been succesful in getting legislation done for men, and is a good resource for men wanting to get more involved. This site could be another site. We have to get organized and get involved.
May 8th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Denis correctly observed –
“I do not make a distinction between feminists. They are all degrees of supporting a hateful idealogy.”
Thanks you. Yes sir … I forgot that for a moment or two.
I was seduced by the eloquence of an intellectual feminist who writes very well.
I forgot that she would have me executed in a heartbeat if her vision of EKWALITY
Every “i-feminist, egalitarian-feminist, anti-raunch-feminist, pro-dads-feminist, give-men-a-break-feminist, i-luv-my-son feminist, let’s-have-a-kinder-and-gentler-feminism-feminist” —-
They are all TROJAN HORSES!
Every… signle … one.
May 8th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Deleted due to inappropriate language. I do not allow expletives.
May 8th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
Disaffected, WHOSE eloquence are you talking about?
David Usher is indeed extraordinarily eloquent individual, as intellectual as anyone posting on this board, certainly more so than most others and his writing is second to none in terms of the quality of the .
To call him a “feminist” though is so far off the mark that either you are joking, or you have experienced a lapse of judgement upon reading his name.
And I wouldn’t worry about him having you executed for simply wanting equality if I were you.
Or perhaps you are not referring to the author of this blog, Mr. David Usher?
START TALKING OR THE CAPS LOCK KEY GETS IT!…..;-)
May 8th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Sorry, I seem to have ended a sentence badly. It should read:
“David Usher is indeed extraordinarily eloquent individual, as intellectual as anyone posting on this board, certainly more so than most others and his writing is second to none in terms of the quality of the content, not to mention the analytical skills behind that content.
May 8th, 2006 at 8:50 pm
All,
There are a good number of “recovering feminists”. Some are still on the wrong side of the fence on matters of import. Others don’t like what feminism became any more than we do. It is vaslty important that men’s activists not hate the other sex like radical feminist do. A lot of men helped women get the 19th amendment, and a lot more helped feminists kick them out of the family. Many women see the damage done to humanity by feminism, and are quite willing to work hard for equality right along side us. If you find yourself unable to work with good women willing to restore equality, you are only shooting yourself in the foot.
Note: Suffragettes did not see themselves as feminists, or even use that word. They were “suffragettes”. Feminism is a word invented in the late 1800’s, which referred to feminine traits, not a political movement. The first use of the word “feminism” to connote a political movement took place in France in the early 1900’s. But we didn’t see it come into play actively in the U.S. until sometime in the 1950’s.
Therefore: we can say decisively that feminism never had anything to do with the 19th amendment, or the “legitimate” women’s equal-rights movement. Feminism began as a biased movement, and still is.
I have suggested to recovering feminists that they should consider leaving the feminist movement and become part of the legitimate marriage movement. In my analysis, it makes no sense to fight over a word that, by definition, indicates a biased perspective. It takes time for minds to change. I believe this will come to pass all in good time.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:15 pm
I appreciate your sober approach Dave but I want to kick the livin crap out of the (deleted). Especially those super aggressive, recklessly negligent slobs that couldn’t care less about the state of the family but only about whether or not women maintain the upper hand. Fathers have been crawling along for 30 years while lawmakers, cops, lawyers, the judiciary, etc. have raped and pilaged the family and Fathers. Truth is, we the oppressed have not been aggressive enough. The British Fathers groups got it right. Let’s drag this fight out into the streets. We need to make it much more painful on the anti family crowd if things are gonna change.
May 8th, 2006 at 10:58 pm
Both – “the world-wide collapse of white supremacy” and “The replacement of male authority with feminism” – are irrelevant to “America’s inability to fight war”. Americans simply don’t observe the these days common sense French maxim “à la guerre comme à la guerre!” (”On war as on war”). On the one hand they get involved in wars – on the other one they try to depict themselves as liberators, humane, gentlemen, fairplayers, etc., etc. The results is that instead using the entire available weaponry and power, they limit themselves to what politicians believe is right, while the enemy has no hesitations to use whatever weapons and methods are available. The truth is that any war is barbaric, and therefore the only good war strategy is to finish it as soon as possible.
Alex M.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:53 am
David Usher is “right on” in pointing out the disparity between equalitarian feminists and the sordid gender feminist who do so much to destroy men and marriage. The fact that some here disparage Mr. Usher and equalitarian feminism is more an indication of their misogynistic ignorance, than the truth about equalitarian feminist politics (that treats men fairly), or Mr. Usher.
Yes, that’s exactly right, and you won’t find a stronger opponent to gender feminism than yours truly. Wendy, Christinna, Independent Women’s Forum, etc. are not this man’s enemy, or Mr. Ushers, according to what he’s written in this article.
On the other hand, gender feminism, with over 700 women’s studies programs on college campuses and over 270 women’s commissions advocating gender feminist, misandrist policies and laws, is a plague on our nation and a cancer to our society.
May 9th, 2006 at 7:36 am
fourthwire-
I believe disaffected was thinking of the eloquence of feminists like Levy. I do not think he was referring to David Usher. Correct me if I am wrong disaffected.
David Usher-you indeed are a brilliant writer and thinker for the mens movement. I am not advocating that men become hateful of women when I say there is no ultimate distinction between feminists. Like the “good Nazi” metaphor that I illustrated above, these women give credibility to the hateful idealogy of feminism by using that as a hyphenated title. I notice few people today willing to use a hyphenated title that includes the word Nazi. These women would be wiser to call themselves “Members of the Human Race”. This need to be part of the feminist circle is weird after 40 years. Men do not wish to debate with women the merits of any form of feminism. This time around the issues for men are about men. And one way to put a dagger in women’s need to control the debate is by making it politically incorrect for them to use “feminist” to describe themselves.
As you know words matter.
May 9th, 2006 at 8:20 am
deepblue says:
“The fact that some here disparage Mr. Usher and equalitarian feminism is more an indication of their misogynistic ignorance, than the truth about equalitarian feminist politics (that treats men fairly), or Mr. Usher.”
Like the so-called Duke rape victim,women throw out accusations and name-calling like a weapon. The thing is, men can debate each other, even heatedly, and remain friends. Here deepblue brings nothing. She does however take up some of the oxygen here. I refuse to get into a pissing contest with you deepblue because that will only degrade the debate. There is nothing mysogynistic here.You obviously to not see the subtleties in my message here. But I won’t let your post go unanswered this one time. You won’t define me. You won’t define my credibility for me. Wendy, Christinna, Independent Women’s Forum, these women are to a greater degree more male-friendly than Abzug, Steinem, Margaret Sanger, Dworkin, Mariyln French, Robin Morgan, Solanas, (all-go to:http://mensnewsdaily.com/category/bullseye/the-daily-cause/ for some real Feminist Hate), but with all of them there are men who disagree with some of their viewpoints. Some viewpoints are anti-men’s rights. There have been posts on MND is response to some of the writings of these women at this site that show this.
This issue IS NOT the merits of this form of feminism or that form of feminism. It is NOT what you consider “ignorance” of MRAs. It is not what you believe is mysogynistic. It is not about you defining me or anyone else.
It remains as always about rights for all men.
So get in the back seat and shut up.
May 9th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Dear David Usher,
I don’t think it’s hateful to be honest about women’s shortcomings. It just appears hateful because bashing men has become so commonplace and accepted that many of the ideals of feminism have become second nature such as the emphasis on women being denied the vote or equal workplace opportunities as if women had no other source or protection or support. This is why many upper class women in universities laughably compare themselves to oppressed african slaves. I’ve heard it! It’s hilarious.
The cultural hostility displayed towards men is not due only to hateful “extremist” feminists but also the natural dissatisfaction women have for men who are unable to compete with them and live up to traditional breadwinner roles. This has created woman who regard men with suspician, often justified, without any encouragement or pushing from radical feminists.
Many men’s rights activists have bought into the feminist ideal, hook, line, and sinker, of an “egalitarian” society of women being able to “have it all”. When pressed for details, the women respond that they should have the “choice” to marry a househusband if they like but they’ll all date rich doctors, thank you very much. This results in them either becoming embittered with men when all such men turn out to be “jerks” or marxists who want a nanny state to tax men so that they can become housewives of the state.
That’s just the way it is. Some things will never change. That’s just the way it is…
The “nice” feminists are usually feminist apologists who clearly disagree with the notion of men being thrown into jail on false allegations as Cathy Young wrote, but saw the silver lining of strippers’ allegatinos being taken more seriously. Well, it’s nice to know how dear to her heart a stripper’s rights are. In other words, they talk about men’s rights but their loyalties lie with other women even if connected loosely by class interests. They would rather consider saving some strange woman’s life around the world they know nothing about rather than help their own father, brother, or son.
So yes, they’re useful but they also know that their days of unlimited victim entitlements are coming to an end and worry, rightly so, that men who ultimately allow through chivalry women to get away with all of this might just scratch the whole “egalitarian” thing. And they’re right. So they hope to apologize now and get the “clock” set with maximal women’s goodies.
When you have them on the run, you can bargain quite effectively but who wants to?
May 9th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
Denis (thanks man!) wrote –
“fourthwire-
I believe disaffected was thinking of the eloquence of feminists like Levy. I do not think he was referring to David Usher. Correct me if I am wrong disaffected.”
My text (Dis) as posted read –
“I was seduced by the eloquence of an intellectual feminist who writes very well.
I forgot that SHE (caps mine for clarity v. 2.0) would have me executed in a heartbeat if her vision of EKWALITY…”
So of course I was referring to Levy. Though I’ve also been occasionally seduced by McElroy, O’Bierne, and especially that vixen Paglia.
More on topic. I was intrigued by David R. Usher’s perspective that it is strategically logical to accept the “other-then-rad-feminists” into the MRA tent.
Wouldn’t that suggest that each of these “Xtra-special-feminists”
should have to precisely describe how their version of FEMINISM differs from the N.O.W. crowd’s ideology? And how their version of FEMINISM would respect masculinity, men’s rights, and family/pro-marriage reforms?
In other words, before you let the trojan horses into your house, you might want to look into their mouths, and other orifices as appropriate. (My dad’s a veterinarian … I’ve looked into the “horse’s mouth” as well as the other ends and it’s amazing what you can see!)
I was earlier trying to agree with Denis, and apparently was poorly eloquent in my attempt.
My basic point would be that MRA’s should be very cautious about admitting feminists into their infant movement because feminists of all striped are very clever at “silencing” opposing voices simply by describing the terms of acceptable discourse. (Woemnz’ “moral superiority” has been largely accepted in our culture…)
McElroy is especially sophisticated in this regard.
So, I guess one version of my concerns might be to ask how many females you want to see on TV and in Congressional hearings as “official representatives” of men’s rights?
Would Prezodent Kim Gandy at N.O.W. endorse a man as N.O.W.’s Vice Prez? (I don’t think Kim even would permit that kind of power-sharing, because N.O.W. currently seems to be merely a federally-funded Vanity Press for Kimmy-Girl.)
Feminists of all stripes have a forty-year advantage over men in the political organizing arena.
I believe infant MRA’s need to cut their own teeth before accepting how many X-fems they want to endorse.
Unlike Kim Gandy, I am known to have posted — “I could be wrong.”
May 9th, 2006 at 3:33 pm
Message from the moderator:
This posting deleted due to expletive content.
If you insist on writing using offensive language, you will be banned. We are here to discuss issues intellegently and above-the-belt. This is your last warning.
I would point out that female family court judges are often better than male judges. All female judges know the feminine wiles, hereas male judges tend to fall for them (this is how men are wired). Forthright female judges are much more likely to sniff out the con artistes and lower the boom on them. You cannot judge people by their sex or what comes out of their mouths. You have to watch their feet.
May 9th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Would it be impolite to inquire what precisely you define as –
“offensive” language?
I hestitate to ask for more, perhaps relating to ideology, politics, or simple ettiquette.
Just trying to “conform…”
May 9th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Please note that the Moderator can post as a poster… because I DID NOT POST THIS —-
“Disaffected said,
Message from the moderator:
This posting deleted due to expletive content.
If you insist on writing using offensive language, you will be banned. We are here to discuss issues intellegently and above-the-belt. This is your last warning.
I would point out that female family court judges are often better than male judges. All female judges know the feminine wiles, hereas male judges tend to fall for them (this is how men are wired). Forthright female judges are much more likely to sniff out the con artistes and lower the boom on them. You cannot judge people by their sex or what comes out of their mouths. You have to watch their feet. “
May 9th, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Is David R. Usher’s thread being hijacked by a faux-moderator?
I don’t believe I’ve ever seen such a blatant attempt to subvert a thread on a genuine board like MND.
Is this just the usual testosterone circus or is there a new element?
Paranoia is a logical response to dementia in one’s adversaries.
May 9th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
Not only is the act of censoring open dialoge wrong but so is moderators post that somehow women judges have some incite that males don’t further that their gender bias’ don’t overrule those incites.
May 9th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
I appreciate your sober approach Dave but I’d prefer to kick the livin crap out of the extortionists. Especially those super aggressive, recklessly negligent pigs that couldn’t care less about the state of the family but only about whether or not women maintain the upper hand. Fathers have been crawling along for 30 years while lawmakers, cops, lawyers, the judiciary, etc. have raped and pilaged the family and Fathers. Truth is, we the oppressed have not been aggressive enough. The British Fathers groups got it right. Let’s drag this fight out into the streets. We need to make it much more painful on the anti family crowd if things are gonna change.
May 10th, 2006 at 12:29 am
Dear fj1200,
There is plenty of room for protest in America (not enough has been done). I say this having organized the three largest protests in the history of the men’s movement, including the first large one held in November, 1996. The first one was the “First Wives Club” protests, held in 25 cities around America, set up in just 10 days, against the recommendation of most of the leaders of the movement. We were encouraging everyone to go see the movie “First Wives Club” — not as a comedy, but as the greatest documentary ever filmed about sexism in America. We sure got our point across — the sequel, already in progress, was cancelled. I was subsequently interviewed for Time Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/international/1996/961007/cover.html). The largest was the Bridges for Children protest, held in more than 225 cities around the world in 2001. We took over bridges on busy highways during rush hour. It was a great success, everyone got a lot of local publicity, but the national media didn’t take an interest (not enough advance publicity).
F4J has done a great job, but the men’s groups in Britain, like here, aren’t going to see substantive changes until they make their case to the entire population. Divorce and illegitimacy is costing Britain a small fortune in lost productivity, GNP, and high taxes. We won WWII, but Karl Marx was exported to other countries via feminism, which was also a socialist export. It sure does seem odd that both countries would fight to the death to stop Hitler, but not lift a finger against social thinking driving him.
At the moment, F4J is the only organization dedicated to protest. My only suggestion to them: don’t do things that look like terrorism — such as throwing flour at Tony Blair. That is definitely a bad idea.
May 10th, 2006 at 12:52 am
All,
I am turning off comments on this article, because of a couple of individuals who insist on using profanity. I do require basic standards of decency to be met. That is perfectly reasonable.
You can thank “disaffected” for this. I cannot allow profanity, and, I do not have time to edit those who have no ability to parent themselves.
May 14th, 2006 at 1:16 am
All,
Comments have been restored. “Disaffected” has been banned by MND for repetitive use of profanity, and because this individual was apparently a feminist operative attempting to disrupt educated discussion of men’s issues and advancement of equality.  This is not unusual in the men’s movement. I have seen it many times in this movement over the past 19 years.
Readers should note one truth about feminists, which can be easily seen in the comments on this piece. This ground-breaking article reveals the hateful truth about the origins of second-wave feminism and traces its ugly evolution.  The direct connection between the WKKK and second-wave feminism is the very last thing feminists want to become common knowledge. This is precisely why “Disaffected” frantically made so many irrational, oppositional, and vulgar postings, so as to confuse serious readers or to scare them away.
Moral: the closer we get to the truth, the crazier feminists get trying to bury it alive.
May 20th, 2006 at 8:05 am
Interesting article. I don’t know if I would conclude the WKKK spawned a separate competing branch of feminism to the suffragette movement based on just their association, though. It seems to me the story is more muddled than that. After all, the suffragettes didn’t stop ticking with the passage of the 19th amendment and held a wide variety of views on “feminist” issues among them. Some advocated free love all the way at the turn of the century, as well as choices for women ranging from whether they could wear pants in public to the freedom to regulate their family size. Without going into too much detail (because it’s beside the point), Margaret Sanger’s complete writings are available online and many of those quotes are taken grossly out of context. She’s no saint, but she’s not quite the lunatic she’s made out to be either. Ditto for Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan, both advocated choice in whether a woman stayed at home or worked outside, they didn’t mandate you leave the house. Unlike some of the “conservative feminists” you cited who state women should definitely go home, leaving no room for a choice. Nonetheless, it looks like I’ll be doing more reading thanks to this article!
As for myself, I’m very definitely a feminist in that I believe in the equality of men and women. I can assure you all that, for better or for worse, there is no single monolithic ideology among feminists. We’re as prone to debating among ourselves as the next group of people over matters such as whether pornography can be anything but exploitation, should prostitution be penalized, decriminalized, or legalized, and so forth. Then there are sympathetic movements such as women’s spirituality which has a great deal of crossover, but by no means guaruntees as nature worshipper will be feminist or vice versa.
But I’m not blind, I can see that single-sided pursuit of more options for women has left men behind to disastrous consequences. While I don’t understand the male side of things anywhere near as well as I understand the female, it doesn’t seem like you’ve had much help with opening up societal norms of manhood for greater freedom of expression. Furthermore, one-sided pursuit of the needs of women have unbalanced the situation. Naturally medical research into matters of women’s health is a good thing, but money for men’s health research has fallen behind. Pursuit of protections and freedoms for people who do not want to marry, or for women within marriage, without balancing protections and freedoms for men in either case have created a hellish divorce situation. This despite the fact that most people, regardless their political alignment, want a healthy, stable marriage. There are few shelters for men, the laws regarding assault on men are insulting compared to the laws regarding “assault” on women, the custody situation is appalling, men have no choice about parenthood, well-intentioned laws to protect women from stalkers have resulted in rights being stripped from men… These are problems. How do I help?
June 5th, 2006 at 9:53 am
Mr Usher takes a few facts and spins them into a grand misinterpretation of the history of the feminist movement. Few of the second wave feminists read the writings or were very influenced by the WKKK. Ideas like Eugenics and the superiority of the white race were very common, and all kinds of reform movements from the late 19th and early 20th centuries incorporated them to some degree. For instance, the progressive movement took all kinds of forms–including promoting Jim Crow laws in the south. If you look hard enough, you can find racist beliefs in almost every reform movement in the US–look at the labor movement for instance.
Usher is so eager to denounce second-wave feminism that he has lost perspective. The WKKK was only a tiny subsection of feminism in the 1920 and it did not have that much influence on 1960s feminism. A few minor linkages has been blown out of proportion. Almost all of the 60s Feminists were committed anti-racists (although black feminists have pointed out that many feminists organizations have a class and racial bias in their agendas and operation.)
Usher’s statement that the members of the WKKK turned to Marxism in the 1930s is another distortion. Maybe Usher found a few minor examples of this–you would have to search long and hard to find many–but Marx considered racism a means of the upper classes to divide and control the lower classes. Marx denounced racism and told the lower classes that they were all equal regardless of race.
Not all socialists and communists have been anti-racists. Stalin for instance believed that the nation was predicated upon racial unity. He practiced a lot of hidden racism in his creation of a Russian nation. Nonetheless, Communism and Socialism have generally been overtly anti-racist. The Communists in South Africa were stout allies of the ANC. Castro strongly opposed racism in Cuba. Tito suppressed racist divisions. In the American South, socialists tried to get black and white sharecroppers and lower-class workers to form political alliances. Many of the socialist union organizers in the 1930s tried to form anti-racist unions in the north (but they were often unsuccessful). US Communists generally were anti-racist in the 1930s, so it seems a far stretch that members of the WKKK would have embraced communism with much enthusiasm.
Finally Usher misrepresents 2nd Wave feminism: “The movement now had sophisticated weapons consisting of sexual imagery, victimology, a fascist ability to shift word values at-will, a readiness to use physical sex to get men to do whatever they want (and to blackmail them with as well), and degreed individuals in creative fields of false science to legitimize their political agenda.”
This whole statement shows that Usher hasn’t read many feminist writers, who constantly denounce the uses of sexual imagery or using sex as a means of coercion. I don’t know any feminist who would advocate those things. Second-wave feminism is not about *controlling* the other sex. I have some serious problems with “gender feminism”, but don’t misreprsent it.
October 23rd, 2006 at 8:14 pm
Dear Amosbatto:
One cannot wash away the fact that modern feminism uses the same brute political tactics, obuscations of truth, the bipolar stance on motherhood as heroic slave drudgery, and even the exact words published by the WKKK. This is not merely magical happenstance.
Nor can one forget that while modern feminists pretend to be anti-racist, they are quick to blame black men for all the problems of the black community. As I prove in the article, when feminists migrated out of the KKK, they simply traded racism for modern sexism during the 1935 – 1960 “quiet period”. During this time, they added Kinsey’s narcissistic approach to sex as a form of free-will self-gratification (which made instant feminists out of most men), and combined it with self-serving Freudian psychology. All this emerged in the 1960’s as the free-love-feminist-do-what-you-like-while-blaming-somebody-else generation. It has been destroying our social fabric ever since.
Do not lecture us about racism and the suffrage movement. My grandmother, Florence Wyman Richardson founded the Equal Suffrage Association in St. Louis and was its first president. She resigned it in 1912 because the rest of the board adamantly refused to allow black women into the organization.
She was quoted in a newpaper article saying that women’s violence against men could be ended when women got the vote (because women can lower the boom on other women, while Victorian gentlemen could not). This is significant for three reasons:
1. Female-on-male DV was a serious problem in those days
2. You won’t find feminists (WKKK or modern) making public issue about women’s violence against men.
3. She strongly advocated women’s responsibility, not women’s irresponsibility (as feminists do).
I have her entire collection of clippings, speeches, letters, and musings to draw my conclusions from. I would point out that the real thing is much more reliable than revisions of history feminists have inflicted on our entire body of thought (which you are still apparently quite attached to).
Modern feminists pretend they invented the suffrage movement. Al Gore invented the internet, too. Suffragettes did not permit their agenda to be mixed with anti-racist or feminist agenda for precisely the same reasons that today’s advocacy groups stick to the core issue they want. Of course, some suffragettes were racist (as my grandmother discovered), but passive racism (which was perhaps the norm in those days) is substantially different than joining the WKKK.
I see little evidence of a notable intersection between the suffragette and WKKK-feminist movements at the organizational level. Certainly there was some commingling of membership. But by and large, the goals of feminism (driven by irresponsible and narcissistic desires) and suffragettes (wanting the vote and the responsibility that goes with it) diverged substantially. It is my reasoned conclusion that these highly-incompatible motivators made these movements substantially incongruous at the time.