The Fraud of Feminism 8

The Fraud of Feminism 8

Experts allege that traces of psycho-sexual aberration are latent

in many persons where it would be least expected, and it is, _prima

facie_, likely enough that these latent tendencies in both men and

women should become active under the cover of an agitation in favour

of purity and anti-sexuality, to the point of gratifying itself with

the thought of torture inflicted upon men. A psycho-sexual element

of another kind doubtless also plays a not unimportant rôle in the

agitation of “ladies” in favour of that abomination, “social purity,”

which, being interpreted, generally means lubricity turned upside

down. The fiery zeal manifested by many of those ladies for the

suppression of the male sex is assuredly not without its pathological

significance.

 

The monstrosity of the recent _White Slave Traffic_ enactment and

its savage anti-male vindictiveness is shown not merely, as already

observed, in the agitation which preceded it, with its exaggerated

vilification of the male offenders in the matter of procuration and its

passing over with comparative slight censure the more numerous female

offenders, or in the general spirit animating the Act itself, but it

is noticeable in the very preposterous exaggeration of its provisions.

For example, in the section dealing with the _souteneur_, the framers

of this Act, and the previous Criminal Law Amendment Acts to which this

latest one is merely supplementary, are not satisfied with penalising

the man who has no other means of subsistence beyond what he derives

from the wages of some female friend’s prostitution, but they strike

with impartial rigour the man who knowingly lives _wholly or in part_

from such a source. If, therefore, the clause were taken in its strict

sense, any poor out-at-elbow man who accepted the hospitality of a

woman of doubtful virtue in the matter of a drink, or a dinner, would

put himself within the pale of this clause in the Act, and might

be duly flayed by the “cat” in consequence. The most flagrant case

occurred in a London police court in March 1913, in which a youth of

eighteen years, against whose general character nothing was alleged

and who was known to be in employment as a carman, was sentenced to a

month’s hard labour under the following circumstances:—It was reported

that he had been living with a woman apparently considerably older than

himself, whom admittedly he had supported by his own exertions and,

when this was insufficient, even by the pawning of his clothes, and

whom as soon as he discovered she was earning money by prostitution he

had left. Would it be believed that a prosecution was instituted by the

police against this young man under the iniquitous White Slave Traffic

Act? But what seems still more incredible is that the magistrate,

presumably a sane gentleman, after admitting that the poor fellow was

“more sinned against than sinning,” did not hesitate to pass on him a

sentence of one month’s hard labour!!! Of course the woman, who was

the head and front of the offending, if offending there was, remained

untouched. The above is a mild specimen of “justice” as meted out in

our police courts, “for men only”! Quite recently there was a case in

the north of England of a carter, who admittedly worked at his calling

but who, it was alleged, was assisted by women with whom he had lived.

Now this unfortunate man was sentenced to a long term of imprisonment

plus flogging. For the judges, of course, any extension of their power

over the prisoner in the dock is a godsend. It is quite evident that

they are revelling in their new privilege to inflict torture. One of

them had the shamelessness recently to boast of the satisfaction it

gave him and to sneer at those of his colleagues who did not make full

use of their judicial powers in this direction.

 

The bogus nature of the reasons urged in favour of the most atrocious

clauses of this abominable Act came out clearly enough in the speeches

of the official spokesmen of the Government in its favour. For example,

Lord Haldane in the House of Lords besought the assembled peers to

bethink themselves of the unhappy victim of the _souteneur_. He drew

a picture of how a heartless bully might beat, starve and otherwise

ill treat his victim, besides taking away her earnings. He omitted to

explain how the heartless bully in a free country could coerce his

“victim” to remain with him against her will. He ignored the existence

of the police, or of a whole army of social purity busybodies, and

vigilance societies for whom her case would be a tasty morsel only

too eagerly snapped at. If the “victim” does not avail herself of any

of those means of escape, so ready to her hand, the presumption is

that she prefers the company of her alleged brutal tyrant to that of

the chaste Puritan ladies of the vigilance societies. To those who

follow the present state of artificially fomented public opinion in

the matter, Lord Haldane’s suggestion that there was any danger of the

precious “victim” not being sufficiently slobbered over, will seem to

be not without a touch of humour. Furthermore, as illustrating the

utter illogicality of the line taken by the promoters of the Act, for

whom Lord Haldane acted as the mouthpiece, we have only to note the

fact that the measure does not limit the penalties awarded to cases

accompanied by circumstances of aggravation such as Lord Haldane

pictures, which it might easily have done, but extends it impartially

to all cases whether accompanied by cruelty or not. We can hardly

imagine that a man of Lord Haldane’s intellectual power and general

humanity should not have been aware of the hollowness of the case

he had to put as an official advocate, and of the rottenness of the

conventional arguments he had to state in its support. When confronted

with the unquestionably true contention that corporal punishments,

especially such as are of a savage and vindictive kind, are degrading

alike to the inflicters of them and to those who are their victims,

he replied that criminals in the cases in question were already so

degraded that they could not be degraded further. One would imagine

he could hardly have failed to know that he was talking pernicious

twaddle. It is obvious that this argument, in addition to its being

untrue, in fact opens the floodgates to brutal penal legislation all

round, so far at least as the more serious offences are concerned.

One could equally well assert of murder, burglary, even _abus de

confidence_ in some cases, and other offences, that the perpetrators

of them must be so degraded that no amount of brutal punishment could

degrade them further. Everybody can regard the crime to which he has

a pet aversion more than other crimes as indicating the perpetrator

thereof to be outside the pale of humanity.

 

But as regards the particular case in point, let us for a moment clear

our minds of cant upon the subject. Procuration and also living on

the proceeds of prostitution may be morally abominable methods of

securing a livelihood, though even here, as in most other offences,

there may be circumstances of palliation in individual cases. But after

all is said and done, it is doubtful whether, apart from any fraud

or misrepresentation, which, of course, places it altogether in a

different category, these ought to be regarded as _criminal_ offences.

To offer facilities or to act as an agent for women who are anxious to

lead a “gay life,” or even to suggest such a course to women, _so long

as prostitution itself is not recognised by the law as crime_, however

reprehensible morally, would scarcely seem to transcend the limits of

legitimate individual liberty. In any case, the constituting of such

an action a crime must surely open out an altogether new principle in

jurisprudence, and one of far-reaching consequences. The same remarks

apply even more forcibly to the question of sharing the earnings of a

prostitute. Prostitution _per se_ is not in the eyes of the law a crime

or even a misdemeanour. The woman who makes her living as a prostitute

is under the protection of the law, and the money she receives from

her customer is recognised as her property. If she, however, in the

exercise of her right of free disposition of that property, gives

some of it to a male friend, that friend, by the mere acceptance of

a free gift, becomes a criminal in the eyes of the law. Anything

more preposterous, judging by all hitherto recognised principles of

jurisprudence, can scarcely be imagined. Even from the moral point of

view of the class of cases coming under the purview of the Act, of men

who in part share in the proceeds of their female friends’ traffic,

must involve many instances in which no sane person—_i.e._ one who is

not bitten by the rabid man-hatred of the Feminist and social purity

monger—must regard the moral obliquity involved as not very serious.

Take, for instance, the case of a man who is out of work, who is

perhaps starving, and receives temporary assistance of this kind. Would

any reasonable person allege that such a man was in the lowest depths

of moral degradation, still less that he merited for this breach, at

most, of fine delicacy of feeling, the flaying alive prescribed by

the Act under consideration. Besides all this, it is well known that

some women, shop assistants and others, gain part of their living by

their reputable avocation and part in another way. Now presumably the

handing over of a portion of her regular salary to her lover would not

constitute the latter a flayable criminal, but the endowment of him

with a portion of any of the “presents” obtained by her pursuit of her

other calling would do so. The process of earmarking the permissible

and the impermissible gift strikes one as very difficult even if

possible.

 

The point last referred to leads us on to another reflection. If the

man who “in whole or in part” lives on the proceeds of a woman’s

prostitution is of necessity a degraded wretch outside the pale of all

humanity, as he is represented to be by the flogging fraternity, how

about the employer or employeress of female labour who bases his or

her scale of wages on the assumption that the girls and women he or

she employs, supplement these wages by presents received after working

hours, for their sexual favours—in other words, by prostitution?

Many of these employers of labour are doubtless to be found among the

noble band of advocates of White Slave Traffic Bills, flogging and

social purity. The above persons, of course, are respectable members of

society, while a _souteneur_ is an outcast.

 

In addition to the motives before alluded to as actuating the promoters

of the factitious and bogus so-called “White Slave” agitation, there

is one very powerful political and economic motive which must not be

left out of sight. In view of the existing “labour unrest,” it is

highly desirable from the point of view of our possessing and governing

classes that popular attention should be drawn off labour wrongs and

labour grievances on to something less harassing to the capitalist and

official mind. Now the Anti-man agitation forms a capital red herring

for drawing the popular scent off class opposition by substituting sex

antagonism in its place.

 

If you can set public opinion off on the question of wicked Man and

down-trodden Woman, you have done a good deal to help capitalistic

enterprise to tide over the present crisis. The insistence of public

opinion on better conditions for the labourer will thus be weakened by

being diverted into urging forward vindictive laws against men, and for

placing as far as may be the whole power of the State at the disposal