The Fraud of Feminism 9

The Fraud of Feminism 9

That such a suggestion should be so much as entertained by otherwise sane persons is indeed significant

of the degeneracy of mental and moral fibre induced by the Feminist

movement, for it may be taken as typical. It reminds me of a Feminist

friend of mine who, challenged by me, sought (for long in vain) to find

a case in the courts in which a man was unduly favoured at the expense

of a woman. At last he succeeded in lighting upon the following from

somewhere in Scotland: A man and woman who had been drinking went home

to bed, and the woman caused the death of her baby by “overlaying it.”

Both the man and the woman were brought before the court on the charge

of manslaughter, for causing the death, by culpable negligence, of the

infant. In accordance with the evidence, the woman who had overlaid

the baby was convicted and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, and

naturally the man, who had not done so, was released. Now, in the

judgment of my Feminist friend, in other matters sane enough, the fact

that the man who had not committed any offence was let off, while

his female companion, who had, was punished, showed the bias of the

court in favour of the man!! Surely this is a noteworthy illustration,

glaring as it is, of how all judgment is completely overbalanced

and destroyed in otherwise judicial minds—of how such minds are

completely hypnotised by the adoption of the Feminist dogma. As a

matter of fact, of course, the task my friend set himself to do was

hopeless. As against the cases, which daily occur all over the country,

of flagrant injustice to men and partiality to women on the part of

the courts, there is, I venture to assert, not to be found a single

case within the limits of the four seas of a judicial decision in the

contrary sense—_i.e._ of one favouring the man at the expense of the

woman.

 

This sex hatred, so often vindictive in its character, of men for men,

which has for its results that “man-made” laws invariably favour the

opposite sex, and that “man-administered justice” follows the same

course, is a psychological problem which is well worth the earnest

attention of students of sociology and thinkers generally.

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER IV

 

ALWAYS THE “INJURED INNOCENT”!

 

 

While what we have termed Political Feminism vehemently asserts

its favourite dogma, the intellectual and moral equality of the

sexes—that the woman is as good as the man if not better—Sentimental

Feminism as vehemently seeks to exonerate every female criminal, and

protests against any punishment being meted out to her approaching

in severity that which would be awarded a man in a similar case. It

does so on grounds which presuppose the old theory of the immeasurable

inferiority, mental and moral, of woman, which are so indignantly

spurned by every Political Feminist—_i.e._ in his or her capacity as

such. We might suppose, therefore, that Political Feminism, with its

theory of sex equality based on the assumption of equal sex capacity,

would be in strong opposition in this matter with Sentimental Feminism,

which seeks, as its name implies, to attenuate female responsibility on

grounds which are not distinguishable from the old-fashioned assumption

of inferiority. But does Political Feminism consistently adopt this

logical position? Not one whit. It is quite true that some Feminists,

when hard pressed, may grudgingly concede the untenability on rational

grounds of the Sentimental Feminists’ claims. But taken as a whole, and

in their practical dealings, the Political Feminists are in accord with

the Sentimental Feminists in claiming female immunity on the ground of

sex. This is shown in every case where a female criminal receives more

than a nominal sentence.

 

We have already given examples of the fact in question, and they could

be indefinitely extended. At the end of the year 1911, at Birmingham,

in the case of a woman convicted of the murder of her paramour by

deliberately pouring inflammable oil over him while he was asleep,

and then setting it afire, and afterwards not only exulting in the

action but saying she was ready to do it again, the jury brought in

recommendation to mercy with their verdict. And, needless to say, the

influence of Political and Sentimental Feminism was too strong to allow

the capital sentence to be carried out, even with such a fiendish

wretch as this. In the case of the Italian woman in Canada, Napolitano,

before mentioned, the female franchise societies issued a petition

to Mr Borden, the Premier of Canada, in favour of the commutation of

sentence. The usual course was adopted in this case, as in most others

in which a woman murders a man—to wit, the truly “chivalrous” one of

trying to blacken the character of the dead victim in defence of the

action of the murderess. In other cases, more especially, of course,

where the man is guilty of a crime against a woman, when mercy is

asked for the offender, we are pitifully adjured to “think of the poor

victim.” As we have seen, Lord Haldane trotted out this exhortation in

a case where it was absurdly inappropriate, since the much-commiserated

“victim” had only herself to thank for being a “victim,” and still more

for remaining a “victim.” We never hear this plea for the “victim”

urged where the “victim” happens to be a man and the offender a woman.

Compare this with the case of the boy of nineteen, Beal, whom Mr

M‘Kenna hanged for the murder of his sweetheart, and that in the teeth

of an explanation given in the defence which was at least possible,

if not probable, and which certainly, putting it at the very lowest,

introduced an element of doubt into the case. Fancy a girl of nineteen

being convicted, whatever the evidence, of having poisoned her paramour

or even if, _per impossibile_, she were convicted, fancy her being

given more than a short term of imprisonment! A man murdered by a woman

is always the horrid brute, while the woman murdered by the man is just

as surely the angelic victim. Anyone who reads reports of cases with an

unbiassed mind must admit the absolute accuracy of this statement.

 

Divine woman is always the “injured innocent,” not only in the graver

crimes, such as murder, but also in the minor offences coming under the

cognisance of the law. At the Ledbury Petty Sessions a woman in the

employment of a draper, who had purloined goods to the amount of £150,

was acquitted on the ground of “kleptomania,” and this notwithstanding

the fact that she had been in the employment of the prosecutor for over

five years, had never complained of illness and had never been absent

from business; also that her landlady gave evidence showing that she

was sound in mind and body. At the very same sessions two men were

sentenced respectively to eight and twelve months’ imprisonment for

stealing goods to the value of £5! (_John Bull_, 12th November 1910).

 

At this point I may be permitted to quote from the article formerly

alluded to (_Fortnightly Review_, November 1911, case taken from a

report in _The News of the World_ of 28th February 1909): “A young

woman shot at the local postman with a revolver; the bullet grazed his

face, she having fired point blank at his head. Jury returned a verdict

of not guilty, although the revolver was found on her when arrested,

and the facts were admitted and were as follows:—At noon she left her

house, crossing three fields to the house of the victim, who was at

home and alone; upon his appearing she fired point blank at his head;

he banged to the door, and thus turned off the bullet, which grazed

his face and ‘ploughed a furrow through his hair.’ She had by her when

arrested a revolver cocked and with four chambers undischarged.”

 

Let us now take the crime of violent assault with attempt to do bodily

injury. The following cases will serve as illustrative examples:—From

_The News of the World_, 9th May 1909: A nurse in Belfast sued her lost

swain for breach of promise. _She obtained £100 damages although it was

admitted by her counsel that she had thrown vitriol over the defendant,

thereby injuring him, and the defendant had not prosecuted her!_ Also

it was admitted that she had been “carrying on” with another man.

From _The Morning Leader_ of 8th July 1905 I have taken the following

extraordinary facts as to the varied punishment awarded in cases of

vitriol-throwing: That of a woman who threw vitriol over a sergeant at

Aldershot, and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment without hard

labour while a man who threw it over a woman at Portsmouth was tried

and convicted at the Hants Assizes, on 7th July 1905, and sentenced

by Mr Justice Bigham to twelve years’ penal servitude! As regards the

first case it will be observed that, (notwithstanding a crime, which in

the case of a man was described by the judge as “cowardly and vile”

and meriting twelve years’ penal servitude) the woman was rewarded by

damages for £100, to be obtained from the very victim whom she had done

her best to maim for life (besides being unfaithful to him) and who had

generously abstained from prosecuting.

 

But it is not merely in cases of murder, attempted murder or serious

assault that justice is mocked by the present state of our law and its

administration in the interests of the female sex. The same attitude is

observed, the same farcical sentences on women, whether the crime be

theft, fraud, common assault, criminal slander or other minor offences.

We have the same preposterous excuses admitted, the same preposterous

pleas allowed, and the same farcical sentences passed—if, indeed, any

sentence be passed at all. The following examples I have culled at

random:—From _John Bull_, 26th February 1910: At the London Sessions,

Mr Robert Wallace had to deal with the case of a well-dressed woman

living at Hampstead, who pleaded guilty to obtaining goods to the

amount of £50 by false pretences. In explanation of her crime it was

stated that she was under a mistaken impression that her engagement

would not lead to marriage, that she became depressed, and that she

“did not know what she said or did,” while in mitigation of punishment

it was urged that the money had been repaid, that her fiancé could

not marry her if she were sent to gaol, and that her life would be

irretrievably ruined, and she was discharged! From _The Birmingham

Post_, 4th February 1902: A female clerk (twenty-six) pleaded guilty to

embezzling £5, 1s. 9d. on 16th November, £2, 2s. 4d. on 21st December

and £5, 0s. 9d. on 23rd December last, the moneys of her employer.

Prosecuting counsel said prisoner entered prosecutor’s employ in

1900, and in June last her salary was raised to 27s. 6d. a week. The

defalcations, which began a month before the increase, amounted to

£134. She had falsified the books, and when suspicion fell upon her

destroyed two books, in order, as she thought, to prevent detection.

Her counsel pleaded for leniency on the ground of her previous good

character _and because she was engaged_! The recorder merely bound her

over, stating that her parents and young man were respectable, and so