Best description of feminism I've ever seen. In a sane world this would be the dictionary definition of the word.
Full quote:
“Chivalry, as understood by Modern Sentimental Feminism, means unlimited licence for women in their relations with men, and unlimited coercion for men in their relations with women. To men all duties and no rights, to women all rights and no duties, is the basic principle underlying Modern Feminism, Suffragism, and the bastard chivalry it is so fond of invoking. The most insistent female shrieker for equality between the sexes among Political Feminists, it is interesting to observe, will, in most cases, on occasion be found an equally insistent advocate of the claims of Sentimental Feminism, based on modern metamorphosed notions of chivalry. It never seems to strike anyone that the muscular weakness of woman has been forged by Modern Feminists into an abominable weapon of tyranny."
Pretty remarkable (and disturbing) that Mr. Bax had feminism pegged over a hundred years ago. Since then things have gotten exponentially worse. Also interesting that Bax was a socialist. Find me a modern socialist of any note who will say a single ill word about feminism.*
Bax continues:
"THE justification for the whole movement of Modern Feminism in one of its main practical aspects – namely, the placing of the female sex in the position of privilege, advantage and immunity – is concentrated in the current conception of 'chivalry.'"
"In this great step toward real as opposed to sham equality between the sexes [we require] the repudiation by women themselves of the anachronistic notion of 'Chivalry,' as being due to them from men. If we are to have equality and fellowship, let it be equality and fellowship, and not a hollow fraud masquerading under the name."
More here
Bax even uses the terms "shrieking sisterhood" and "male-antipathy", revealing that first wave feminists were every bit the man-hating harpies as their modern incarnations.
*To be fair, a fair number of modern socialists have criticized identity politics, post-modernism and even "intersectionality"; and some socialists have criticized specific feminist trends like MeToo and campus Kangaroo Courts (World Socialist Website) and "carceral feminism" (Counterpunch); some specific socialists have supported MRA issues as well, like father's rights (eg George Galloway); but they largely spare core feminist ideology from criticism. This is partly due to what Bax describes as "male lackeys":
"This Sentimental Feminism commonly called chivalry is sometimes impudently dubbed by its votaries, 'manliness.' It will presumably continue in its practical effects until a sufficient minority of sensible men will have the moral courage to beard a Feminist public opinion and shed a little of this sort of “manliness.”
[–]mwobuddy 7 points8 points9 points (2 children) | Copy Link
[+]GrednP1 points [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link
Killer duo's:
Fred and Rosemary West
Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka
Plenty of others...
This is one case where feminists won't demand that "ladies come first" (You know that ever-growing acronym purporting to describe non-straight people? LGBTQ was once GLBTQ. For some reason the lesbians demanded they come first. Possibly due to "historical oppression." On the other hand, it might have been mere narcissism: many hardcore religious fundamentalist societies don't even take lesbianism seriously; gays are much, much, much more likely to be murdered due to their lesbians. There's that male privilege again). I'm wondering how long before the "Queers" get uppity and insist that they* should be first).
Fred West's name should come first even though Rosemary clearly wore the pants in that relationship, and was even more cruel than her husband.
Homolka's a little different, because Bernardo did indeed beat her to a pulp on one occasion. But that hardly justifies murdering your little sister and murdering several other girls while having fun doing so (Homolka is now living free, incidentally).
So in Karla's case at least the feminist argument would be that she was a "battered wife." There's only one problem: in today's society, she could have had Bernardo locked up at any given time. Maybe she was terrified of him, you say? (despite really enjoying raping those girls on camera). Well let's look at this from another angle: a short, not very muscular gay man living with his boyfriend suffers the same and does the same thing. Should he be given a slap on the wrist for such an atrocity?
More interesting are the lone female serial killers. There are much more of these she-devils than most people realize. David Fincher's television show "Mindhunter" isn't helping matters -- because the main character claims that it's almost always men who are serial killers (it's difficult to know whether Fincher is merely trying to be historically accurate or whether he's ignorant -- the FBI DID believe that in the 70's, and many continue to do so; but it is increasingly recognized that female serial killers are almost as common as their male counterparts. Remember that the term denotes an individual who kills multiple times in succession (with breaks inbetween), not just someone who carves someone up with knife.
Check out Unknown Misandry's female serial killer index. Just don't do it in the dark before bedtime.
[–]oursland 2 points3 points4 points (0 children) | Copy Link
[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points (0 children) | Copy Link