The Fraud of Feminism 11

The Fraud of Feminism 11

The terrorist anarchist, foolish and indefensible though his tactics

may be, believes honestly enough that he is paving the way for the

abolition of poverty, misery and social injustice, a far more vital

thing than the franchise! The Irish Fenians and dynamiters pursued a

similar policy and there is no reason to doubt their honest belief that

it would further the cause of the freedom and national independence

of Ireland. Yet were these “political” offenders dealt with otherwise

than as ordinary criminals when convicted of acts qualified by the law

as felonies? And their acts, moreover, whatever we may think of them

otherwise, were, in most cases at least, politically logical from their

own point of view, and not senseless injuries to unoffending persons,

as those of the present-day female seekers after the suffrage.

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER V

 

THE “CHIVALRY” FAKE

 

 

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.” It behoves us, therefore,

to devote some consideration to the meaning and implication of this

notion. Now this word chivalry is the _dernier ressort_ of those at

a loss for a justification of the modern privileging of women. But

those who use it seldom give themselves the trouble to analyse the

connotation of this term. Brought to book as to its meaning, most

persons would probably define it as deference to, or consideration for,

weakness, especially bodily weakness. Used in this sense, however,

the term covers a very much wider ground than the “kow-towing” to the

female section of the human race, usually associated with it. Boys,

men whose muscular strength is below the average, domestic animals,

etc., might all claim this special protection as a plea of chivalry,

in their favour. And yet we do not find different criminal laws, or

different rules of prison treatment, say, for men whose stamina is

below the average. Neither do we find such men or boys exempted by law

from corporal punishment in consequence of their weakness, unless as an

exception in individual cases when the weakness amounts to dangerous

physical disability. Neither, again, in the general affairs of life

are we accustomed to see any such deference to men of weaker muscular

or constitutional development as custom exacts in the case of women.

Once more, looking at the question from the other side, do we find the

claim of chivalry dropped in the case of the powerful virago or the

muscularly developed female athlete, the sportswoman who rides, hunts,

plays cricket, football, golf and other masculine games, and who may

even fence or box? Not one whit!

 

It would seem then that the definition of the term under consideration,

based on the notion of deference to mere weakness as such, will hardly

hold water, since in its application the question of sex always takes

precedence of that of weakness. Let us try again! Abandoning for the

moment the definition of chivalry as a consideration for weakness,

considered _absolutely_, as we may term it, let us see whether the

definition of consideration for _relative_ defencelessness—_i.e._

defencelessness in a given situation—will coincide with the current

usage of the word. But here again we are met with the fact that the

man in the hands of the law—to wit, in the grip of the forces of the

State, ay, even the strongest man, were he a very Hercules, is in as

precisely as defenceless and helpless a position relative to those in

whose power he finds himself, as the weakest woman would be in the like

case, neither more nor less! And yet an enlightened and chivalrous

public opinion tolerates the most fiendish barbarities and excogitated

cruelties being perpetrated upon male convicts in our gaols, while it

shudders with horror at the notion of female convicts being accorded

any severity of punishment at all even for the same, or, for that

matter, more heinous offences. A particularly crass and crucial

illustration is that infamous piece of one-sided sex legislation

which has already occupied our attention in the course of the present

volume—to wit, the so-called “White Slave Traffic Act” 1912.

 

It is plain then that chivalry as understood in the present day

really spells sex privilege and sex favouritism pure and simple, and

that any attempts to define the term on a larger basis, or to give

it a colourable rationality founded on fact, are simply subterfuges,

conscious or unconscious, on the part of those who put them forward.

The etymology of the word chivalry is well known and obvious enough.

The term meant originally the virtues associated with knighthood

considered as a whole, bravery even to the extent of reckless daring,

loyalty to the chief or feudal superior, generosity to a fallen foe,

general open-handedness, and open-heartedness, including, of course,

the succour of the weak and the oppressed generally, _inter alia_, the

female sex when in difficulties. It would be idle, of course, to insist

upon the historical definition of the term. Language develops and words

in course of time depart widely from their original connotation, so

that etymology alone is seldom of much value in practically determining

the definition of words in their application at the present day. But

the fact is none the less worthy of note that only a fragment of the

original connotation of the word chivalry is covered by the term as

used in our time, and that even that fragment is torn from its original

connection and is made to serve as a scarecrow in the field of public

opinion to intimidate all who refuse to act upon, or who protest

against, the privileges and immunities of the female sex.[101:1]

 

[101:1] One among many apposite cases, which has occurred

recently, was protested against in a letter to _The Daily

Telegraph_, 21st March 1913, in which it was pointed out that

while a suffragette got a few months’ imprisonment in the

second division for wilfully setting fire to the pavilion in

Kew Gardens, a few days previously, at the Lewes Assizes, a man

had been sentenced to five years’ penal servitude for burning a

rick!!

 

I have said that even that subsidiary element in the old original

notion of chivalry which is now well-nigh the only surviving remnant

of its original connotation is torn from its connection and hence

has necessarily become radically changed in its meaning. From being

part of a general code of manners enjoined upon a particular guild or

profession it has been degraded to mean the exclusive right in one

sex guaranteed by law and custom to certain advantages and exemptions

without any corresponding responsibility. Let us make no mistake about

this. When the limelight of a little plain but critical common-sense is

turned upon this notion of chivalry hitherto regarded as so sacrosanct,

it is seen to be but a poor thing after all; and when men have acquired

the habit of habitually turning the light of such criticism upon it,

the accusation, so terrible in the present state of public opinion, of

being “unchivalrous” will lose its terrors for them. In the so-called

ages of chivalry themselves it never meant, as it does to-day, the

woman right or wrong. It never meant as it does to-day the general

legal and social privilege of sex. It never meant a social defence or

a legal exoneration for the bad and even the criminal woman, simply

because she is a woman. It meant none of these things. All it meant was

a voluntary or gratuitous personal service to the forlorn women which

the members of the Knights’ guild among other such services, many of

them taking precedence of this one, were supposed to perform.

 

So far as courage is concerned, which was perhaps the first of the

chivalric virtues in the old days, it certainly requires more courage

in our days to deal severely with a woman when she deserves it (as a

man would be dealt with in like circumstances) than it does to back up

a woman against her wicked male opponent.

 

It is a cheap thing, for example, in the case of a man and woman

quarrelling in the street, to play out the stage rôle of the bold and

gallant Englishman “who won’t see a woman maltreated and put upon,

not he!” and this, of course, without any inquiry into the merits of

the quarrel. To swim with the stream, to make a pretence of boldness

and bravery, when all the time you know you have the backing of

conventional public opinion and mob-force behind you, is the cheapest

of mock heroics.

 

Chivalry to-day means the woman, right or wrong, just as patriotism

to-day means “my country right or wrong.” In other words, chivalry

to-day is only another name for Sentimental Feminism. Every outrageous

pretension of Sentimental Feminism can be justified by the appeal

to chivalry, which amounts (to use the German __EXPRESSION__) to an

“appeal from Pontius to Pilate.” 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.” The plucky Welshmen at Llandystwmdwy in their

dealings with the suffragette rowdies on a memorable occasion showed

themselves capable of doing this. In fact one good effect generally

of militant suffragetteism seems to be the weakening of the notion of

chivalry—_i.e._ in its modern sense of Sentimental Feminism—amongst

the populace of this country.

 

The combination of Sentimental Feminism with its invocation of the

old-world sentiment of chivalry which was based essentially on the

assumption of the mental, moral and physical inferiority of woman to

man, for its justification, with the pretensions of modern Political

Feminism, is simply grotesque in its inconsistent absurdity. In

this way Modern Feminism would fain achieve the feat of eating its

cake and having it too. When political and economic rights are in

question, _bien entendu_, such as involve gain and social standing,

the assumption of inferiority magically disappears before the strident

assertion of the dogma of the equality of woman with man—her mental

and moral equality certainly! When, however, the question is of a

different character—for example, for the relieving of some vile female

criminal of the penalty of her misdeeds—then Sentimental Feminism

comes into play, then the whole _plaidoyer_ is based on the chivalric

sentiment of deference and consideration for poor, weak woman. I may