The Fraud of Feminism 6

The Fraud of Feminism 6

One of the points as regards the inferiority of women which Feminists

are willing and even eager to concede, and it is the only point of

which this can be said, is that of physical weakness. The reason why

they should be particularly anxious to emphasise this deficiency

in the sex is not difficult to discern. It is the only possible

semblance of an argument which can be plausibly brought forward to

justify female privileges in certain directions. It does not really

do so, but it is the sole pretext which they can adduce with any

show of reason at all. Now it may be observed (1) that the general

frailty of woman would militate _coetaris paribus_, against their own

dogma of the intellectual equality between the sexes; (2) that this

physical weakness is more particularly a muscular weakness, since

constitutionally the organism of the human female has enormous power

of resistance and resilience, in general, far greater than that of man

(see below, pp. 125-128). It is a matter of common observation that the

average woman can pass through strains and recover in a way few men

can do. But as we shall have occasion to revert to these two points at

greater length later on, we refrain from saying more here.

 

How then, after consideration, shall we judge of the Feminist

thesis, affirmed and reaffirmed, insisted upon by so many as an

incontrovertible axiom, that woman is the equal, intellectually

and morally, if not physically, of man? Surely that it has all the

characteristics of a true dogma. Its votaries might well say with

Tertullian, _credo quia absurdum_. It contradicts the whole experience

of mankind in the past. It is refuted by all impartial observation in

the present. The facts which undermine it are seriously denied by none

save those committed to the dogma in question. Like all dogmas, it is

supported by “bluff.” In this case the “bluff” is to the effect that

it is the “part, mark, business, lot” (as the Latin grammars of our

youth would have had it) of the “advanced” man who considers himself up

to date, and not “Early Victorian,” to regard it as unchallengeable.

Theological dogmas are backed up by the bluff of authority, either

of scriptures or of churches. This dogma of the Feminist cult is not

vouchsafed by the authority of a Communion of saints but by that of

the Communion of advanced persons up to date. Unfortunately dogma does

not sit so well upon the community of advanced persons up to date—who

otherwise profess to, and generally do, bring the tenets they hold

to the bar of reason and critical test—as it does on a church or

community of saints who suppose themselves to be individually or

collectively in communication with wisdom from on high. Be this as

it may, the “advanced man” who would claim to be “up to date” has to

swallow this dogma and digest it as best he can. He may secretly, it is

true, spew it out of his mouth, but in public, at least, he must make a

pretence of accepting it without flinching.

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER III

 

THE ANTI-MAN CRUSADE

 

 

We have already pointed out that Modern Feminism has two sides or

aspects. The first formulates definite political, juridical and

economic demands on the grounds of justice, equity, equality and so

forth, as general principles; the second does not formulate in so many

words definite demands as general principles, but seems to exploit

the traditional notions of chivalry based on male sex sentiment, in

favour of according women special privileges on the ground of their

sex, in the law, and still more in the administration of the law.

For the sake of brevity we call the first _Political Feminism_, for,

although its demands are not confined to the political sphere, it is

first and foremost a political movement, and its typical claim at

the present time, the Franchise, is a purely political one; and the

second _Sentimental Feminism_, inasmuch as it commonly does not profess

to be based on any general principle whatever, whether of equity or

otherwise, but relies exclusively on the traditional and conventional

sex sentiment of Man towards Woman. It may be here premised that most

Political Feminists, however much they may refuse to admit it, are at

heart also Sentimental Feminists. Sentimental Feminists, on the other

hand, are not invariably Political Feminists, although the majority of

them undoubtedly are so to a greater or lesser extent. Logically, as we

shall have occasion to insist upon later on, the principles professedly

at the root of Political Feminism are in flagrant contradiction with

any that can justify Sentimental Feminism.

 

Now both the orders of Feminism referred to have been active for more

than a generation past in fomenting a crusade against the male sex—an

Anti-Man Crusade. Their efforts have been largely successful owing

to a fact to which attention has, perhaps, not enough been called.

In the case of other classes, or bodies of persons, having community

of interests this common interest invariably interprets itself in a

sense of class, caste, or race solidarity. The class or caste has a

certain _esprit de corps_ in its own interest. The whole of history

largely turns on the conflict of economic classes based on a common

feeling obtaining between members of the respective classes; on a

small scale, we see the same thing in the solidarity of a particular

trade or profession. But it is unnecessary to do more than call

attention here to this fundamental sociological law upon which alike

the class struggles of history, and of modern times, the patriotism

of states from the city-state of the ancient world to the national

state of the modern world, is based. Now note the peculiar manner in

which this law manifests itself in the sex question of the present

day. While Modern Feminism has succeeded in establishing a powerful

sex-solidarity amongst a large section of women as against men, there

is not only no sex-solidarity of men as against women, but, on the

contrary, the prevalence of an altogether opposed sentiment. Men hate

their brother-men in their capacity of male persons. In any conflict

of interests between a man and a woman, male public opinion, often

in defiance of the most obvious considerations of equity, sides with

the woman, and glories in doing so. Here we seem to have a very

flagrant contradiction with, as has already been said, one of the

most fundamental sociological laws. The explanations of the phenomena

in question are, of course, ready to hand:—Tradition of chivalry,

feelings, perhaps inherited, dating possibly back to the prehuman stage

of man’s evolution, derived from the competition of the male with his

fellow-male for the possession of the coveted female, etc.

 

These explanations may have a measure of validity, but I must confess

they are to me scarcely adequate to account for the intense hatred

which the large section of men seem to entertain towards their

fellow-males in the world of to-day, and their eagerness to champion

the female in the sex war which the Woman’s “sex union,” as it has been

termed, has declared of recent years. Whatever may be the explanation,

and I confess I cannot find one completely satisfactory, the fact

remains. A Woman’s Movement unassisted by man, still more if opposed

energetically by the public opinion of a solid phalanx of the manhood

of any country, could not possibly make any headway. As it is, we

see the legislature, judges, juries, parsons, specially those of the

nonconformist persuasion, all vie with one another in denouncing the

villainy and baseness of the male person, and ever devising ways and

means to make his life hard for him. To these are joined a host of

literary men and journalists of varying degrees of reputation who

contribute their quota to the stream of anti-manism in the shape of

novels, storiettes, essays, and articles, the design of which is to

paint man as a base, contemptible creature, as at once a knave and an

imbecile, a bird of prey and a sheep in wolf’s clothing, and all as

a foil to the glorious majesty of Womanhood. There are not wanting

artists who are pressed into this service. The picture of the Thames

Embankment at night, of the drowned unfortunate with the angel’s

face, the lady and gentleman in evening dress who have just got out

of their cab—the lady with uplifted hands bending over the dripping

form, and the callous and brutal gentleman turning aside to light a

cigarette—this is a typical specimen of Feminist didactic art. By

these means, which have been carried on with increasing ardour for a

couple of generations past, what we may term the anti-man cultus has

been made to flourish and to bear fruit till we find nowadays all

recent legislation affecting the relations between the sexes carrying

its impress, and the whole of the judiciary and magistracy acting as

its priests and ministrants.

 

On the subject of Anti-man legislation, I have already written at

length elsewhere,[55:1] but for the sake of completeness I state the

case briefly here. (1) The marriage laws of England to-day are a

monument of Feminist sex partiality. If I may be excused the paradox,

the partiality of the marriage laws begins with the law relating to

breach of promise, which, as is well known, enables a woman to punish

a man vindictively for refusing to marry her after having once engaged

himself to her. I ought to add, and this, oftentimes, however good

his grounds may be for doing so. Should the woman commit perjury, in

these cases, she is never prosecuted for the offence. Although the

law of breach of promise exists also for the man, it is well known to

be totally ineffective and practically a dead letter. It should be

remarked that, however gross the misrepresentations or undue influences

on the part of the woman may have been to induce the man to marry

her, they do not cause her to lose her right to compensation. As, for

instance, where an experienced woman of the world of thirty or forty

entraps a boy scarcely out of his teens. (2) Again, according to the

law of England, the right to maintenance accrues solely to the woman.

Formerly this privilege was made dependent on her cohabitation with the

man and generally decent behaviour to him. Now even these limitations

cease to be operative, while the man is liable to imprisonment and

confiscation of any property he may have. A wife is now at full liberty

to leave her husband, while she retains her right to get her husband

sent to gaol if he refuses to maintain her—to put the matter shortly,

the law imposes upon the wife no legally enforceable duties whatever

_towards_ her husband. The one thing which it will enforce with iron

vigour is the wife’s right of maintenance _against_ her husband. In

the case of a man of the well-to-do classes, the man’s property is

confiscated by the law in favour of his wife. In the case of a working

man the law compels her husband to do _corvée_ for her, as the feudal

serf had to do for his lord. The wife, on the other hand, however

wealthy, is not compelled to give a farthing towards the support of her

husband, even though disabled by sickness or by accident; the single

exception in the latter case being should he become chargeable to

the parish, in which case the wife would have to pay the authorities