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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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. “

“offensive” language?

I hestitate to ask for more, perhaps relating to ideology, politics, or simple ettiquette.

Just trying to “conform…”

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.

“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.”

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?

“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.

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.

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.

Alex M.

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.