Monday, July 20, 2015

It’s Time to Acknowledge Notable Women in American History



From the SpearheadFiles
Originally Published on May 25, 2011


I think it’s high time that we the sheeple that populate these fringes of teh Interwebz, offer a conciliatory gesture of peace towards the female gender. There’s been too much anger towards the fairer sex ’round these parts as of late, and it’s time we MAN UP and give some props to notable females in US History, many of whom deserve recognition for their lifetime achievements. For this article, I wish to focus on those women who were successful entrepreneurs, property owners and businesswomen in the 19th century.

One such noteworthy lady is the woman pictured at the top of this piece, Madam CJ Walker.

Like most Americans, Sarah suffered from scalp diseases and hair loses. She resolutely wanted to find a cure and started experimenting with home remedies. She found that that application of sulfur can heal most of the hair problems cure which led her to produce her own shampoo and hair ointments which soon after she began selling. She traveled to various states demonstrated he products and even attempted door to door sales. As her popularity grew she established her factory at Indianapolis in 1910 and also started Lelia College to train beauty therapists. She was loved and respected because of her philanthropic contributions for education, childcare, rehabilitation programs and her unflinching efforts to improve living conditions of black women. She gave speeches on political and economic problems at major occasions and she was widely appreciated for her opinions and stands.She breathed her last on May 25th 1919 due to complications from hypertension at an age of 52. Her daughter Lelia stepped into the shoes of her mother and became the proprietor of an million dollar empire that she had left behind. Madam CJ Walker Biography till date provides inspiration to millions of impoverished women striving to curve a respectable life for themselves.

A million dollar empire in 1919 was approximately $13 million in today’s Fiat Federal Reserve Notes. And not only was she a member of the oppressed womynz gender, but she was also an African-American to boot! According to oft repeated memes by today’s feminists, that’s impossible!

Or what about Margaret Borland?






Margaret married at age 19 and gave birth to a daughter a year later. Soon afterwards her husband died in a gun battle in the streets of Victoria. Margaret’s second husband succumbed to cholera in 1852, leaving her with two more young daughters to support. Within four years Margaret married the richest rancher in the county. She bore four more children and partnered in running the ranch until 1867, when a yellow fever epidemic spread along the Texas coast. Margaret ministered to her ailing family as best she could, but death relentlessly claimed her husband, four-year-old son, 15-year-old daughter, two daughters who had married the previous year, and an infant grandson.
Now sole owner of the ranch, Margaret capably managed operations and enlarged its holdings. In 1873 she drove her own herd up the Chisholm Trail, accompanied by several ranch hands, her three surviving children, and her six-year-old granddaughter. The group succeeded in reaching the booming cowtown of Wichita, Kansas, but Margaret fell ill with “trail fever” and died in a local boardinghouse before she could sell her cattle.
Margaret Borland’s life parallels the momentous social, political, and economic changes of 19th century Texas. She was earnest and resourceful until the end.


Now how did she get away with being the “…sole owner of the ranch,” and “capably managed operations and enlarged its holdings.” in the time before the suffrage movement and Patriarchal oppression?

What about Mary Ann Hall? (No picture available)

In 1840, a stagnant canal drained through the center of Washington, dividing the area where the Smithsonian Castle stands from the rest of the city. The area was called “The Island.” A few blocks to the east is where Mary Ann Hall settled, started a business, saved her money, and where she eventually built a large, three-story brick home. Mary Ann was just in her early twenties, and the neighborhood was–rough. Nearby neighborhoods were nicknamed “Louse Alley,” and even “Murderer’s Row.” While the census records show that most single women here listed their occupation as seamstress or laundress, Mary Ann’s occupation isn’t recorded anywhere. But all the physical evidence indicates she was an extremely successful businesswoman.

-----
District of Columbia court records show that at the time of her death, Mary Ann Hall was worth a grand total of $87,000, with no debts–that’s well over $2,000,000 in today’s dollars. The records also show a list of her belongings, which included Belgian carpets, oil paintings, an ice box, numerous pieces of red plush furniture, as well as an inordinate number of sheets, mattresses, blankets, feather pillows and comforters.

Hmmmm….so not only could own property, they could actually do so back in 1840 without ever being married, but simply through their own entrepreneurial efforts? You don’t say?

Here’s another notable woman from America’s oppressive Patriarchal past, Lydia Pinkham





Some would call her the Ann Landers or Dr. Ruth of the 1800s. In 1875, Lydia Estes Pinkham of Lynn, Massachusetts, converted her herbal home remedies into a big business by skillfully marketing her products toward women and educating them about health issues. Pinkham’s Vegetable Compound became one of the best-known patent medicines of the 19th century. Pinkham was deemed a crusader for women’s health in an age when women’s needs weren’t being met by the medical community. Cooper Laboratories bought the company in 1968, though pills and a liquid stamped with Pinkham’s name are still available at some drugstores.


How about another “impossible” woman from US history? Note Elizabeth Arden





She brought makeup from the stage to everyday life and slowly developed a global empire. Elizabeth Arden, born Florence Nightingale Graham in Woodbridge, Ontario, moved to New York at the age of 30 to pursue her dream of building a cosmetics corporation. There she began working with a chemist to create a beauty cream, something new for the cosmetics industry at that time. After traveling to Paris in 1912, Arden became the first person to introduce the concept of eye makeup to American women and offered the first makeovers in her 5th Avenue salon. Arden died in 1966, but her brand became as well-known across the U.S. as Singer sewing machines and Coca-Cola. At the end of its fiscal year in June 2007, the company reported $1.1 billion in net sales, up more than 18 percent from $955 million in 2006.


Now here we have five examples of notable women from the pages of American history, deserving of genuine acknowledgment for their achievements as business owners, property owners and entrepreneurs. Somehow, this actual history of such women is often ignored or glossed over when your average 21st century indoctrinated feminist-sheeple casually repeats the meme: “Women couldn’t own property!”


For example:

The History Behind the Equal Rights Amendment
The new Constitution’s promised rights were fully enjoyed only by certain white males. Women were treated according to social tradition and English common law and were denied most legal rights. In general they could not vote, own property, keep their own wages, or even have custody of their children.
Or here: “Years ago women couldn’t vote or own property.”

Or here. “For years, the social scene at Harvard mimicked the gender norms of an era where women couldn’t own property.”

Or here: “In 1848, women obeyed men everywhere, even in their own homes. Women couldn’t own property either.”

Or here: “In the past, American women did not have the same rights as men. They couldn’t own property. They couldn’t attend the same colleges. And they couldn’t vote.”

Or here: “I mean, sure, women couldn’t own property or vote or practice law or anything, but I bet they’d trade that for having doors held open for them regularly anytime!”

Or here: “For a long time, women couldn’t own property, have jobs, or participate in politics.”

Or here: “This week I am co-chairing an event for the American Civil Liberties Union in my hometown. It’s going to be a wondrous evening full of amazing art and talented people. The ACLU will always need funding to continue their work protecting all of our civil liberties. I don’t work in those trenches every day, but I am thankful for those that do. Every issue women face – every obstacle they overcome – was and is a civil liberties issue. It wasn’t very long ago that women couldn’t vote, that women couldn’t own property and that women had very little control over their bodies and its intended freedoms.”

Or here: “When women couldn’t own property, vote, or be in most professions, someone could have (and many did) made the case that simply allowing divorce for women in abusive marriages wouldn’t automatically make things all rosy for them.”

Or here: “until the 1920′s, women couldn’t VOTE, in most US states women couldn’t OWN PROPERTY, and often wasn’t even the one paid for her labor – no, her husband, father, brother, son, or other male was paid because women WERE NOT CONSIDERED PEOPLE.”

Or here: “Oh, and the older I get, the more I remind myself and respect how much old-school feminists have accomplished. To see young women utterly unable to understand that women couldn’t own property or vote or get credit cards or bank accounts in their own names is a beautiful thing.”

Or how about this Barne’s & Noble book review regarding Abigail Adams?: “In a time when women couldn’t own property or manage their own money, Abigail was accruing enormous wealth through speculation on government bonds.”

Or this statement: “Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop said: ‘Without the suffragists and suffragettes, we would still be stuck in an age when women couldn’t own property, they couldn’t hold public positions and they couldn’t vote.’”

Or here’s another example of the casual way the meme is regularly regurgitated: “Consider the country’s state at the Founding — only landowners could vote. Women couldn’t own property.

Or how about while presenting a list of the top 10 richest Women in America in 2011: “There was a time in American history, that seems not that long ago, where women couldn’t own property or even vote. However, times have changed. Women have been elevated to a status where their names can make this list as well as the ten richest people in America.”

All the preceding quotations where taken from a quick google search of the phrase “Women couldn’t own property.” They represent statements from articles, blog posts, book reviews and anonymous commentary.

{At the time this piece was written for The Spearhead, all of the preceding links worked. Most still do, but several of them can't be found on the original site or at archive.org.}  

Funny isn’t it, how the meme that “woman couldn’t own property” has become a widely accepted truth by most denizens of our Brave New World Order, and is expressed as a universally accepted statement of fact over teh interwebz?

I guess the Womynz Studies and liberal/progressive Professors in Universities across the land forgot to indoctrinate educate their students about all the wonderful success stories of notable women in American history who owned property, ran businesses and amassed personal wealth through their own ingenuity and hard work. I guess their stories contradict the feminist’s revision of history, so I'm sad to note that these ladies will never get there just due in today’s brainwashing facilities institutions of higher learning.

How ironic is it that it takes a hateful, bitter misogynist here at this infamous outpost of womyn hatred, to correct this gross injustice, and white knight for these courageous and brave ladies of the past who’ve been ignored and marginalized by the feminist zeitgeist for too long?

It’s time to put them back up on their pedestals where they belong!


http://www.blogblog.com/scribe/divider.gif


Notable Commentary from the Original Post

 Anonymous Reader May 25, 2011 at 07:46

   This approach to political operations is certainly not new. For example, consider this noted liar:

All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true within itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.  —Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X



Opus
May 25, 2011 at 07:58

I am not a legal Historian but perhaps as an Appendix to the above, it might be of interest to compare the position in England and Wales. In 1882 an Act of Parliament – The Married Women’s Property Act was passed allowing married women to own property including land. Previously a woman ceased to have a separate legal identity on marriage at which point all her goods became her husbands. This was not however a one-sided deal, as (most women marry having little by way of property anyway) she was now to be protected by her husband for the rest of her life, indeed as most women marry up it was a very good arrangement for her. Better still her husband became responsible for her debts. In pratice even to this day a married couple in practice treat their possessions as joint possessions and for that matter tend to vote for the same candidate in elections.

The position for single women and widows was quite different in that they – being femme sole – could own property including land in their own right. As I was indicating yesterday in the post concerned with Michael Faraday, voting rights depended as much on land as sex so that many, indeed most men had no right to vote in parliamentary elections.

By an act of 1919 women were allowed to qualify as Solicitors of the Supreme Court (Attorney) and after much aggitation a few having sat the examinations did so, but then for the next fifty years or so the women seemed little interested in becoming Solicitors. I do not know what the position was for women who aspired to the dizzy heights of being a member of The Bar (Barristers). (England and Wales have a split legal profession).

In spite of all this I cannot immediately think of any famous Victorian Women apart from Ms Nightingale – so I suppose they were all being oppressed by ‘The Patriarchy’.




demirogue May 25, 2011 at 08:43

Shhh! How dare ye stir up controversy by telling the truth. Femitwats don’t care for it. As a matter of fact women in general don’t believe in it either. The enormous sales and use of cosmetics alone is proof of that.



Keyster
May 25, 2011 at 08:48

Academic feminists are not only careful to avoid pointing out successful women of the “pre-feminist era”, most of these women were very much opposed to women’s suffrage, and feminism is general. They simply didn’t see the need for it.

Yes, even if you’re dead and gone, but didn’t tow the feminist party line in your writings…they’ll dismiss you as if you never existed at all.

Annie Oakely, who was basically an entertainer as a freakish woman who was good with guns, was very outspoken about what a bad idea women’s rights would be, for all the same reasons we now know to be true.

Read more commentary after the jump...




SingleDad May 25, 2011 at 09:26

@ Opus

The truth is that today even the average woman looks to extend the law to eventual ownership of the man himself. My first wife was much smarter than my second wife (who I met after becoming a MRA).

My first announced that she owned my professional degree by fact of her being married to me during part of my training. I was uneducated in this area but since I never considered divorcing, being a good Catholic, never thought about it much.

When we did divorce I was shocked to find out that in the State of California, a spouse is only entitled to recieve back half of money they paid toward a professionals education, not living expenses. As I had paid my entire tuition and taken loans because my ex decided within a year to stop working, she actually owed me money. But, on the wise advice of legal council, I paid her double alimony because she agreed to a stipulation that she could not take me back to court. It was worth every dime.

My second tried to get me to declare bankrupgy thoughout our marriage. She would not let me contribute to retirement. She clearly was planning divorce from day 1. When she did leave, within 8 months she declared bankrupcy to the tune of $80,000.00 dollars.

I know this because I had her next boyfriend testify for me at my last custody hearing. Interestingly he believed her when she told him that I had run up the debt and what the court had assigned this community debt to her.

The audacity of modern women together with the naivete of modern men never ceases to amaze me.


Raj May 25, 2011 at 09:27

A) Feminism is about acquiring resources, not about equality. All the rights it seeks are just so women can have more resources.

B) Women don’t have to create wealth because they are not good at it. Their strength lies in manipulating men to do it and give it to them. Men comply gladly.



NWOslave May 25, 2011 at 09:27

I must cry “foul” at the premise of this entire article. If you take away the perception that women weren’t eternally oppressed throughout history right up to and including the present day, you have committed a mortal sin. Hatred must be maintained. For propogating such slanderous lies Mr. Price, I demand you put youself on moderation.



Jameseq May 25, 2011 at 09:41
Actually mary seacole was a household name in victorian times here in the uk, and was on the front page of the times of london at least once

In the usa ‘wild west’ it was not uncommon for women, particularly madames, to own houses and businesses. The social and financial power of the madame in the community was hinted at in the wildwest films of the mid 20th c, but the filmmakers didnt er want to dwell on it lol


Opus May 25, 2011 at 09:49

@ single dad

I am shocked and saddened to read your story.

Chivalry is fine if you are a feudal Knight, but applying chivalry to ordinary people in the 21st Century seems to me to be on a par with Don Quixote mistaking a serving wench for a Lady, and Windmills for Giants. Perhaps the legislators of your state have paid one too many visits to Disneyland or Knotts Berry Farm.

  
Quartermain May 25, 2011 at 09:52

@ Opus

Maybe instead of calling them White Knights, we should call them Don Quixotes.

Used to be one but those windmills don’t fight fair.


SingleDad May 25, 2011 at 09:57

@ Jamesesq

Watch “McCAbe and Mrs. Miller”, the tale of a female brothel owner in the 1800′s, played by Julie Christie and her man, played by Warren Beatty, a great movie.

How do I know? My parents took me when I was 12 because they thought it was a typical Western and my brothers friends told my parents it was OK, lol.

I remember it being good although I only saw it through the filter of my moms fingers over my wide open eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCabe_%26_Mrs._Miller


Rebel May 25, 2011 at 10:03

“I think it’s high time that the men of The Spearhead, offer a conciliatory gesture of peace towards the female gender on teh interwebz.”

I’m slow sometimes…

At first, I thought it was serious: it took me five minutes to understand that this was a joke.

I must admit that you had me there…..LOL!!!!

   
Ken May 25, 2011 at 10:11

“Chivalry is fine if you are a feudal Knight, but applying chivalry to ordinary people in the 21st Century seems to me to be on a par with Don Quixote mistaking a serving wench for a Lady, and Windmills for Giants. Perhaps the legislators of your state have paid one too many visits to Disneyland or Knotts Berry Farm”>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Alas, we are trumpeting the SELFISH nature of the average sweet-cheeks!

A man who thinks otherwise is the same sap who thinks a smiling Stripper “likes” him or that a flirtatious waitress “wants” him.


Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 25, 2011 at 10:18

Hi Keoni,

Even the BIBLE talks of women whos husband had died as being the owner of the property and she owned that property until she remarried at which time it became the husbands property UNTIL one of them DIED. Whichever DID NOT DIE would then own the marital property.

Women seem to forget the marriage vow was ‘until death do us part’.

Now. Why would it be that the property was considered to be the property of the HUSBAND? Well? Might that not have something to do with the husband BEING ACCOUNTABLE for protecting and providing for the wife and kids?

Duh? If you are going to hold a man accountable for outcomes then you make sure he has full responsibility for creating the outcomes. Simple as.

It is clear from women of today that they are disasters at managing money, assets, investments in the VAST MAJORITY.

We are STILL awaiting the first fortune 500 company founded by women.

The vast majority of western women just lie through their teeth the whole time now. It’s really disgusting. I’m really sick of it. I simply don’t tolerate it any of this shit any more. If a woman wants to talk to me? She will be honest. End of story. I have no time for talking to women who are liars and hypocrites. They can find some beta-loser to talk to.


Skeptik May 25, 2011 at 10:48

Hey Opus,

Not on any pedestal to get down from. I’m far from being a royalist however I do acknowledge certain facts. Despite what some will say Queen Victoria took an active interest in politics, gave birth to nine children, excelled as a diplomat to the point of being known widely throughout Europe as ‘The Grandmother of Europe’. She held the throne for 61 years and gave her (admittedly condescending) royal seal of approval to vast amounts of commodities, social conventions and legislation.

Tellingly she was VERY anti feminist, although the term wouldn’t have existed in those days.
In my book, like her or loath her these things alone makes her an immense achiever.
And whilst you don’t see her as a role model and knowledge about her diminishes with time, many have done.


Herbal Essence May 25, 2011 at 10:51

You guys are such myisogeniysts. You deny the Truth of the Feminist Time Machine.
Through the technological efforts of numerous highly-trained women’s studies majors, strong & independent Feminists can now travel back in time to defeat the historical Patriarchy.

As we speak, Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte are in early 20th century England working on the White Feather campaign to shame evil patriarchs into dying for strong & independent women.


Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 25, 2011 at 11:00

@Skeptik,
you sound like you have not read this.

http://enlightenedwomen.org/queen-victoria-%E2%80%9Cfeminists-ought-to-get-a-good-whipping%E2%80%9D/

    “I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of ‘Women’s Rights,’ with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to ‘unsex’ themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.”


Half baked May 25, 2011 at 11:01

@Jameseq

I grew up in Alaska in the 60′s, there was a serious shortage of women up there so everyone knew where the local whorehouse was, it was named after the madam that owned it and was quite the popular place to go. She was a respected member of the business community and ended up owning half the town and was on the town council for a while. So yes even after the “wild west” this was true.


Opus May 25, 2011 at 11:06

@ half baked

Perhaps you are familiar with George Bernard Shaw’s play ‘Mrs Warren’s Profession’, and I do not need to tell you what that profession was. Mrs Warren had become through her wealth (brought about by her looks) a respected member of the community – but her daughter was a bit of a feminist. The Irony!

My experience of prostitutes is, that as well as being understanding of men, they (being well paid) come across as very respectable, and well dressed – unlike the silly Toronto sluts.


Traveller May 25, 2011 at 11:07

“I think it’s high time that the men of The Spearhead, offer a conciliatory gesture of peace towards the female gender on teh interwebz.”

I do not think that, do you really believe it would be noticed or understood?

“There’s been too much anger towards the fairer sex ’round these parts as of late, and it’s time we MAN UP”

Oh yes we needed some insults.

Topic already covered (Little House in the Prairie), such women are the PAST of women.


fondueguy May 25, 2011 at 11:37

I liked the ending paragraph.

“Elizabeth Arden, born Florence Nightingale Graham in Woodbridge, Ontario, moved to New York at the age of 30 to pursue her dream of building a cosmetics corporation. There she began working with a chemist to create a beauty cream, something new for the cosmetics industry at that time. After traveling to Paris in 1912, Arden became the first person to introduce the concept of eye makeup to American women and offered the first makeovers in her 5th Avenue salon.”

Interesting that it was a woman who had such an impact at moving the enormous cosmetics industry along… Because feminism told me that women only want to boost each others self esteem and not make everything about looks, and cosmetics comes the patriarchy. It’s not like a woman could be largely responsible for the cosmetics infrastructure, or give a child botox, or pick applicants based on looks…


fondueguy May 25, 2011 at 11:46

“Chivalry is fine if you are a feudal Knight,”

Aside from chivalry being out of place, I get the impression that it has been enormously rewritten to make it look like its for wymenz (prvileges!) and as if that was honorable…


Keyster May 25, 2011 at 11:48

If women were not given special rights and privelages today (as re-payment for past oppression), they’d have to be as forthright and industrious as many of the women from a century or more ago.

Now the either advance through affirmative action or divorce their way into prosperity. Very little actual work is required of them as long as they have “rights”.


SingleDad May 25, 2011 at 11:54

Honor, in the same sentence as wymenz? Deplorable.

Here are our proud feminist moms in the US, the day after mothers day. 52,684 sign in to the Dolly Madison cheating site to:

 “A significant percentage of these women [from Mothers Day] are looking for an emotional connection,” said Noel Biderman, president and founder of controversial matchmaker site http://www.AshleyMadison.com. “If you sign up for a service like this, and a day later you have six people interested in you, that is a revalidation of a time when your partner paid attention to you in that way. I genuinely believe this is what a large percentage of these women are seeking.”

The Slut walkers are amateurs compared to married middle American mothers.

Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/05/11/cheating-moms-mothers-day/#ixzz1NOLexgu4

And you want to marry cupcake so you can have some kids…lol.


SingleDad May 25, 2011 at 11:56

Sorry, that was Ashley Madison. Dolly Madisons are some damn good cupcakes not to be confused with the sleazy cupcakes I described above.

http://www.dollymadison.com/



Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 25, 2011 at 12:13

Speaking of acknowledging women Erin Pizzeys new book is out. Those of you in the UK can get it here.

@Welmer. It might be a good idea for you to talk to Erin and ask her if you can feature her book on the site. If there is ONE woman in the world who deserves our respect and appreciation it is Erin Pizzey.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/This-Way-Revolution-Erin-Pizzey/dp/0720613604/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1306350258&sr=1-1


Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 25, 2011 at 12:22

@SD.
from the article.

“Biderman said women in relationships, especially mothers, expected the holiday to bring extra love and attention. Those who were disappointed in the lack of attention they received took advantage of the deal being offered.”

Funny. In 18 years of marriage I don’t recall getting any extra ‘love and attention’ on fathers day.

I do recall the very first time I came home from Hong Kong to the house we had closed out on the day before I left that my ex and her kids put up a banner saying ‘welcome home peter’ and they made me a cake.

As far as I recall. That was the first and last time that happened. Hhhmmmm.


Keoni Galt May 25, 2011 at 12:24

    "I do not think that, do you really believe it would be noticed or understood?

    Oh yes we needed some insults."

Traveller – It’s called sarcasm. It’s why I tagged this piece with: “subpar satire” and “Underwhelming humor.”


Nico May 25, 2011 at 12:27

I read an article some time ago written by a female journalist angry against feminism which she blamed for becoming a spinster. I can’t find it anymore.

Anyone can help me?

Thanks.


Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 25, 2011 at 12:29

A little OT…..but we call ameriskanks ‘whores’ and they get all upset….yet we have this from lady gaga on the latest album……Yeah…..right….

    I can be good, if you just wanna be bad
    I can be cool, if you just wanna be mad
    I can be anything
    I’ll be your everything
    Just touch me baby, I don’t wanna be sad

    As long as I’m your hooker
    (Back up and turn around)
    As long as I’m your hooker
    (Get her to the ground)
    As long as I’m your hooker
    (Back up and turn around)
    As long as I’m your hooker
    (Get her to the ground)

    Hookah! Yeah, you’re my hooker
    Hookah! Government hooker
    Hookah! Yeah, you’re my hooker
    Hookah! Government Hooker

    I’m gonna drink my tears tonight
    I’m gonna drink my tears and cry
    ‘Cause I know you love me baby
    I know you love me baby

    I could be girl, unless you want to be man.
    I could be sex, unless you want to hold hands.
    I could be anything, I could be everything.
    I could be mom, unless you want to be dad.

    As long as I’m your hooker
    (Back up and turn around)
    As long as I’m your hooker
    (Get her to the ground)

    As long as I’m your hooker
    (Back up and turn around)
    As long as I’m your hooker
    (Get her to the ground)

    Hookah! Yeah, you’re my hooker.
    Hookah! Government hooker.
    Hookah! Yeah, you’re my hooker.
    Hookah! Government Hooker.

    Put your hands on me, John F. Kennedy. I’ll make you squeal, baby, as long as you pay me.

    I’m gonna drink my tears tonight
    I’m gonna drink my tears and cry
    ‘Cause I know you love me baby
    I know you love me baby

    Hookah! Yeah, you’re my hooker.
    Hookah! Government hooker.
    Hookah! Yeah, you’re my hooker.
    Hookah! Government Hooker.

    I could be girl, unless you want to be man.
    I could be sex, unless you want to hold hands.
    I could be anything, I could be everything.
    I could be mom, unless you want to be dad.

    I wanna fuck up on that hooker.
    Stop shittin’ me, government hooker.
    I wanna fuck up on that hooker.
    Stop shittin’ me, government hooker.


Common Monster May 25, 2011 at 12:55

Annie Oakely, who was basically an entertainer as a freakish woman who was good with guns, was very outspoken about what a bad idea women’s rights would be, for all the same reasons we now know to be true. (Keyster)

“Annie‘s parents were Quakers from Hollidaysburg, Blair County, Pennsylvania:”

I have distant kin on the family tree with essentially the same description, though I’m not sure where in Pennsylvania they came from. Some of their descendants ended up being pioneers out on the western frontier (now fly-over country) about the same time Oakley’s career was at it’s height.

One such family lived a day’s horseback ride from the nearest railroad. They lived among Indians, spoke their language, and had been given Indian names. Needless to say, there were nothing but strong, capable (dare I say “independent”?) women in those families. Everyone had to be a jack-of-all-trades, so there were no special public accolades for this. I’m sure they would have been embarrassed if someone had congratulated them on being what they had to be to get by in the wilderness. It’s difficult to point to many who competed with men, rather than worked with men.

They got enough real hunting in that they didn’t need sharp-shooting as a sport or entertainment. Annie got her start hunting for money, a virtually unknown practice on the real frontier, which was almost entirely a barter economy — until they ventured out to make contact with the world of money at the railroad. They wouldn’t have had time for gunplay. When they did seriously downtime it, it was like a big block party, and horse racing (almost the roots of rodeo) were the fiercely contested activities.

You could say they were living the life Oakley ended up selling some highly limited but palatable view of to the information yet attention-span starved masses back East and in Europe. (She lived her entire life east of the Mississippi.) To the extent she made the West seem more dangerous than it was, she discouraged women from going totally off-pavement and finding their fortunes there on their own, though a few did after settlements had become established. The AWALT women back then followed their men, who had gone ahead first to scout out the prospects. (And the Quakers then were thought to have had very progressive views of women for the time, so much so that there are several glowing feminist books on them.)

There are lots of plain (i.e., non-feminist) biographies of pioneer women (and men) from such families all throughout the West. Only the more sensational ones seem to be very well known at all beyond the local historians in the small towns. Many of the stories contain some colorful characters, but they’re swamped by lots of just regular people going about their lives.

Very few that I’ve seen even mention what would be called feminist issues. The people barely had mail from distant family in many instances, so necessary information traveled by direct word-of-mouth from people they knew, more so than by print. If they chanced to get a hold of the odd newspaper or magazine, they’d no doubt have marveled at how strange and puzzling the things that were going on back in civilization were. Nobody bothered having much of an opinion on such things because they were by nature reserved, knew they didn’t understand those things, and it really didn’t matter all that much to them in any event.

Sounds like Annie’s marriage to Frank Butler was very Marriage 2.5-ish.



Traveller May 25, 2011 at 12:55
Keoni Galt May 25, 2011 at 12:24

Traveller – It’s called sarcasm. It’s why I tagged this piece with: “subpar satire” and “Underwhelming humor.”

My fault, I did not get it at the first reading.



DCM May 25, 2011 at 13:02

There’s no problem with accomplished females.

The problem is the many women who do nothing and are touted far and wide as accomplished and those women who are promoted or placed in high level sincures because and only because they are female and despite their real abilities.

It is feminists who poisoned the knowledge of actual acomplished females.

Nobody can believe anything about any females because of leftists and feminists.



Morrisfactor May 25, 2011 at 13:35

Very illuminating.

I’ve always been suspicious about the claims that females weren’t allowed to own property in the old days. For one, there was Martha Washington, a widow who owned the Virginia estate that George married into.

Among the largest land owners in Seattle, Denver and San Franciso in the mid and late 1900th century were females – the madams who owned chains of brothels. When the great fire of 1889 burned down much of central Seattle, it was one of the madams who used her fortune to rebuild it.

I’m sure it was the same in many other cities.


AntZ May 25, 2011 at 13:36

My vote goes to Rosalind Franklin.

Franklin obtained the data that Watson and Crick used to generate their model for DNA. Later, Watson and Crick won the Nobel prize, along with Maurice Wilkins. Wilkins received the prize for Franklin’s work.

Predictably, feminist nobodies who never accomplished anything screamed bloody murder:

1) Feminists complained because Franklin did not receive the Nobel. In fact, Franklin did not receive the Nobel because she was deceased. By statute, the Nobel is only awarded to living scientists.

2) Feminists then complained because Watson and Crick used (or “stole”) Franklin’s data. In fact, Franklin’s research was public domain. True, Watson and Crick rudely asked Franklin’s supervisor for her data (they should have asked her directly). However, bad manners does not constitute theft.

Franklin herself never played the victim and in fact defended the “thieves” by pointing out that her research was public domain. As a result, two years after the DNA comedy, Franklin discovered the first structure of an infections virus — an accomplishment with far greater practical consequences than the original DNA work. The virus discovery won yet another Nobel prize, awarded to her collaborator Aaron Klug.

By the time Franklin was 33 years old, she had participated as an equal in work that led to two Nobel prizes. It is difficult to dispute that, had she lived, she would have been the third person in history to win two Nobel prizes (along with Marie Curie — Sanger, Pauling, and Bardeen came later).

 Both Curie and Franklin dies as a direct result of their dedication to their work. Death in the line of duty, due to different kinds of radiation.


MsExceptiontotheRule May 25, 2011 at 13:40

I have only one thing to say….
(before going on to elaborate)

and that is:
NAWALT.
Someday, a feminist will give this standard response yet remain incapable of comprehending why people are giving her weird looks – and it’s because she just deployed the NAWALT bomb in defense of women that DON’T want to own property, work outside of the home/start their own business, or bear the full responsibility of making the money/spending the money – when she’s carried off by a mob driven to vigilante-style justice and wailing “what did I dooooooo?” the whole way down after being thrown off a cliff by a mob that had enough of circular arguments with opponents who always seemed to switch sides.


Morrisfactor May 25, 2011 at 13:41

Among the largest land owners in Seattle, Denver and San Franciso in the mid and late 1900th century were females – the madams who owned chains of brothels. When the great fire of 1889 burned down the business district of Seattle, it was one of the madams who funded a large portion of the relief and rebuilding effort.


Watcher May 25, 2011 at 14:15

    @AntZ

May I respectfully suggest you look very closely at Marie Curie’s two Nobel awards. It is not as straightforward as it seems.


Lovekraft May 25, 2011 at 14:44

I think the show “The View” should cancel out at least 20 notable achievements.

  
Paradoxotaur May 25, 2011 at 14:45

“The records also show a list of her belongings, which included Belgian carpets, oil paintings, an ice box, numerous pieces of red plush furniture, as well as an inordinate number of sheets, mattresses, blankets, feather pillows and comforters.”

The first thought I had was that this woman ran a whore house (I mean, a private whore house, not one of the Houses of Congress). Does that make me a misogynist?

@AntZ: “Franklin herself never played the victim and in fact defended the “thieves” by pointing out that her research was public domain.”

Well, I think another thing worth pointing out is that Franklin herself had access to her own data, yet didn’t make the connection between her data and the structure of DNA. Sort of like the story of Mary Ann Mantell finding a large, fossilized tooth and leaving it up to her husband Gideon to determine that the tooth was 1) reptilian-like and 2) from an herbivore, specifically like an iguana’s tooth, thus calling the first named dinosaur iguanodon (whereas previously found dinosaur teeth from carnivores were presumed to be from large crocodiles).

s/ Keoni- you forgot other memorable achievements of pre-first-wave women, such as The Widow C. Richards (LA), who in 1860 owned 152 black slaves on her sugar cane plantation, and that, despite massive oppression from men, and whites in general, free black women owned 70% of black-owned slaves at the start of The Civil War. Remarkable achievements, considering women couldn’t own property./s

I can’t remember if it was Richards, The Mistress L. Horry of Colleton District (SC), or some other woman who owned the most slaves at the beginning of The Civil War, but I’m pretty sure that dubious distinction does go to a woman.


DCM May 25, 2011 at 14:56

Also, it’s feminists who deny that there have ever been accomplished females till last week some time. Ever notice how every female who does anything is the first? She probably isn’t unless it’s something impossible before modern times like the first female parachute jump from a plane in 1912.

Some years ago feminists produced a plethora of biographies of famous women going back into early times — then stopped. Why? Because it proved the “Patriarchy” didn’t keep females from accomplishing anything if they tried.

A couple of years ago in an online discussion I happened to mention that the first modern author to have used a rational explanation for apparently supernatural events as a plot element was Anne Radcliffe in, as I recall, “The Mysteries of Udolpho”, published in 1798. Radcliffe also developed the literary form of the gothic novel that persists to today. My statement, which can be looked up anywhere (Wikipedia, for example) unleashed a storm of denunciation, denial, and obscenity directed at me — by feminists. I was told that no woman could have done that. Interestingly, male feminists were more vile and angry than females, who apparently looked it up for themselves.

But the reason was that it proved talented females were not repressed by the “Patriarchy” in the 1700s. Or in the 1300s when English mystic (and social pest) Margery Kempe wrote the earliest known personal memoir in English.

The assertions of female ability, when proven true, contradict feminist doctrine. The “Patriarchy” oppressing female accomplishment is a myth to account for the fact that there are only about 10% as many outstanding females as men — to deny that only 10% of females are as gifted as maybe 70% of men.


Opus May 25, 2011 at 15:25

@DCM

I am glad that you have mentioned Ann Radcliffe because I am familiar with her 1791 Novel The Romance of The Forest. She is not perhaps a great novelist but very interesting nevertheless.

In Romance of The Forest (where supernatural events have rational explanations), our heroine begins the novel in a state of some undress (flaunting herself) and is taken to a castle in a secluded Forest. She is trying to avoid a fate worse than death yet alhough she has the opportunity to escape to a town and acquire a job as a maid, that is just too beneath her. Later she is abducted by some Alpha Male type and again narrowly avoids said fate. The she falls in love with what we would probably regard as a Metro-sexual type. There is a happy ending, but the book just shouts at me. RAPE FANTASY.

  
LaughOrCry May 25, 2011 at 15:29

Both Rosalind Franklin and Marie Curie were first rate lab technicians. Franklin made excellent X-ray crystallography images of DNA, which were instrumental to Watson and Crick’s deduction of the structure of that molecule.

Curie’s skills in the lab led her to being the first to isolate radium, for which she won her Nobel in chemistry. A great discovery to be sure, however since radium is a naturally occurring element sooner or later someone would have discovered it (compare for example with Glenn T. Seaborg and his team’s discovery of ten elements that don’t exist naturally).

Her Nobel in physics was won as part of a group of physicists (including her husband Pierre, himself a brilliant physicist) for their contribution to knowledge of radioactivity. I don’t know specifically what her contribution was.

The Nobel prizes in the sciences are awards for significant discoveries, not for work of scientific merit. Einstein won his Nobel in physics for his work on the photoelectric effect, not for his work on Relativity – which was undoubtedly of far greater importance and is one of the two pillars of modern physics (the other being of course Quantum Mechanics, to which Einstein also made important contributions).

  
Eincrou May 25, 2011 at 15:32

@ Antz: Crucial to properly understanding the Rosalind Franklin issue is the fact that she actively and intentionally hid the details of her research, which was publicly funded. Not only is this an affront due to the funding source, but it is anti-scientific to not make her work available for use by other scientists.

She was self-described as only interested in doing experimental work, and as Paradoxotaur pointed out, she didn’t put it all together into a theory describing DNA and its role, as Watson and Crick did.

This all shows that ambition is an important force in driving forward science, which feminists readily admit is most evident in men’s competitive spirit.


Alex May 25, 2011 at 17:25

Women get confused about concepts like independence and strength. Most women think being strong and independent means being a cold-hearted bitch who is only considered powerful if she hurts men. Women don’t understand that the truly strong people in the world don’t feel the need to have a cutthroat attitude. People, especially women, who run their mouths and act tough are usually nothing but insecure weaklings who fall to pieces at the first sign of adversity.

   
David K. Meller May 25, 2011 at 18:21

The accomplishments cited above indeed are worthwhile efforts to expand public awareness of female accomplishments in business; but it doesn’t change the fact that business, commerce, and finance both then and now, are overwhelmingly male undertakings! These women, were therefore, competing with and displacing men, however impressively they did it!

Nevertheless,they still contributed to the wealth and development of their economy and society, and, therefore, deserve recognition and praise, but I think, as businessmen or entrepreneurs, not as women!

My list of outstanding women is quite different. These are women who added beautifully to the quality to life and well-being to our society in ways that, quite frankly, only women–and women of a certain kind–which we have now largely forgotten, could.

Commediennes and actresses like Lucille Ball, Mae West, Gracie Allen, Carol Burnett, and perhaps, on a different levels, and for somewhat different audiences, women like Marilyn Monroe, Hedy LeMarr, Bette Davis, Jean Harlow, Lillian Russell, or Donna Reed. Overseas, the list would include, but certainly not be limited to, Catherine DeNeuve, Gina Lollobrigida, Sophia Loren, Brigitte Bardot, and Angela Lansbury. These women made lives brighter (often amid dismal circumstances and conditions) spread laughter and love, and dare I say it, looked a damnsight better than your ‘modern women’ nowadays trying to entertain an audience any day of the week!

Other contributions of women which feminists have ignored, overlooked, or denigrated: How about songbirds like Ella Fitzgerald, Fannie Brice, Kate Smith, Dinah Shore, Sarah Vaughn, Theresa Brewer, or Connie Francis, and (at their best) Loretta Lynn, Patsy Cline, or Dolly Parton? Again, the world was a much brighter, more enjoyable place because of these women, and the contributions that these women and others like them–which again, could NOT be done by men–made for their time and place!

I am not as knowledgeable in literature as I should be or would like to be, but I should think that the literary contributions of e.g. Edith Wharton, Agatha Christy, Anita Loos, Edna Ferber, Florence King, and a few others should be noticed and cherished!

Contributions in other areas, from child rearing to cooking and homemaking are also noteworthy, and even–in better times–when the original work was undertaken by a man, e.g. Benjamin Spock, Benjamin Fine, or Haim Ginott in childcare, the advice was implemented and carried out by mothers (and grandmothers) i.e. women. Any success therefore that those men may have had, I daresay, is success owed by those men to those women who found ways of carrying out their instructions and advice. I also think that women writing and lecturing on homemaking and cooking, baking and sewing, contributed immeasurably to a pleasant and civilized environment for the rest of us, and also could never have been done by men, and was–for obvious reasons–totally ignored by the sisterhood from hell! We should rediscover and rehabilitate them and their works!

Why should women try to be imitation men? They have their own sphere of activity, and the longer we have to do without it, the more aware we are of how indispensible that sphere of activity is! No-it has NOTHING to do with voting, owning property, campaigning for political office, competing for executive or professional positions, or any of the worthless rot that feminists–and their renegade male(?) allies–have foisted on us for the past few decades! Dolly Madison or Martha Stewart, Patsy Cline or Ella Fitzgerald, Donna Reed or Marilyn Monroe would be precious and wonderful women even if such accursed “women” like Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Hitlery Clinton, Bella Abzug, or even their precursors like Lucy Stone, Abigail Adams, or Carrie Nation had never even existed!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller


andybob May 25, 2011 at 18:40

Any Aussies remember Caroline Chisolm? I’m old enough to remember her as one of the only women in Australian history significant enough to make it into the history books (Nellie Melba got the occassional mention). Her visage made it onto the $5 note. Her contribution was to ‘rescue’ prostitutes from the streets and steer them into a life of reformed respectability.

Guess wha? Feminists hate her dead guts and have consigned her to historical oblivion. How dare she prevent women from embracing their inner sluts? She must be a patriarchy enabler. They even succeeded in having her yanked off our currency.

She has been replaced by pinko ratbag Mary Durack (on the $10 note), whose principal ‘accomplishment’ was the failed Paraguayan experiment. She and a few other nutjobs tried to set up a Marxist/feminist utopia in the South American jungle. Of course it all ended in tears and dissentry.

Feminists lionise the inept and undeserving while condemning what they fail to appreciate and understand. They play so fast and loose with facts that their every pronouncement is deeply suspect. Aussie school kids have never heard of Caroline Chisolm, but they know all about slut marches.

Depressing.


Paradoxotaur May 25, 2011 at 18:53

    @LaughOrCry: “I don’t know specifically what her contribution was.”

Her contributions were:
1) she was colorably associated with that group of physicists (at least by being married to one of them), and
2) she had the only vagina in the group.

Then, as now, if a woman so much as washed the labware she was credited on the published results and would be pushed forward to accept the award.


LaughOrCry May 25, 2011 at 19:33

@Paradoxotaur: Oh come on, don’t be so patronising. I’m sure Madame Curie’s contribution was more significant than mere tokenism.

Those sammiches didn’t make themselves, you know!


DCM May 25, 2011 at 19:50

 “Opus May 25, 2011 at 15:25
@DCM

I am glad that you have mentioned Ann Radcliffe because I am familiar with her 1791 Novel The Romance of The Forest. She is not perhaps a great novelist but very interesting nevertheless.

 In Romance of The Forest (where supernatural events have rational explanations), our heroine begins the novel in a state of some undress (flaunting herself) and is taken to a castle in a secluded Forest. She is trying to avoid a fate worse than death yet alhough she has the opportunity to escape to a town and acquire a job as a maid, that is just too beneath her. Later she is abducted by some Alpha Male type and again narrowly avoids said fate. The she falls in love with what we would probably regard as a Metro-sexual type. There is a happy ending, but the book just shouts at me. RAPE FANTASY.”

It was “The Mystery of Udolpho” that got much criticism for naturalistic explanations of supernatural seeming events. Fellow novelists were outraged, Sir Walter Scott, it seems, especially. That alone shows that she was considered somewhat of an equal.

I haven’t read her stuff; there are certain literary periods when I can’t really deal with the prevailing style and she came in at the begining of one of them. The novel you describe sounds like a bodice ripper. I wonder if the male feminists who were infuriated by what I wrote were pissed off that a male writer didn’t explicitly give natural explanations for the supernatural.

I’d guess she was one of those persons with original ideas who was somehow limited by her style or background. I’ll never know.

I’d like to note that every era produced many female poets and novelists, most of them mediocre and few known except to scholars. Most male writers have been mediocre, too, but more of them have been original, even important. As is always the case.


Laura Grace Robins May 25, 2011 at 20:04

Keoni,
This is really good. “Women couldn’t own property” and “women couldn’t vote” are the two main cards in the house of cards feminism is built upon. If they didn’t have those two catchy slogans, I wonder what they would say. It’s not that women “couldn’t”, but that they “didn’t”. Largely, they didn’t want to own property or vote and rather deferred such burdens to the men. Women today have romanticized owning property and voting and I think all too often forget the responsibilities attached. With property comes taxes and maintenance and with voting comes diligent research, not merely selecting who Oprah says to. I remember some post I did about a woman back in the day who had property solely in her name, but she was not responsible for the taxes–the husband was! So, if he did not pay taxes he would get thrown in Jail all the while she sits prettyholding her property owning title.


freebird May 25, 2011 at 20:14

OT:
Opra Winfrey is going off free air tv.

Ding Dong the wicked witch is dead!

Good thing she was never allowed to own property or effect politics.

Ted Turner allegedly said,  “The world would be a better place is women ruled,and Opra has brought us one step closer to making that a reality.”

R.I.P you old sow, may your misandry
be forgotten in our son’s time.
(never forgiven)


Legion May 25, 2011 at 20:19

Opus May 25, 2011 at 09:00
“It was also luck that she assumed the title of Empress in the 1870s as she never commanded an Army, never mind a Battalion – I believe the last British Monarch, (other than Margaret, who started a civil-war in the 1140s) and then not British but Icini, to personally make war was one Boadaciea though strangely she has had a name change as she now calls herself Boudica. ”

Maybe they let Victoria be empress since since she had the sense not to lead the army. Bodica lead her 260,000 size army against the Roman Governor’s 10,000 man legion and got it shattered. Estimated were (by the Romans) were at over 60,000. That’s 6 killed per legionaire while fighting off another 20 EACH. Now that’s a day’s work for a man.

Avenger May 25, 2011 at 20:22

@single dad-and I thought that Dolly Madison was one of those outstanding females of the past who invented ice cream. Not those stupid Roman Patriarchs who mixed ice from the mountains with cream lol
But I really shouldn’t mock female inventors of the past beause there were quite a few geniuses like:

1892 Sarah Boone, an African American woman who patented an improvement to the ironing board. Her board was very narrow and curved to fit a sleeve and make ironing both sides of the sleeve much easier.
Outstanding! Now use it girls!

Marion Donovan, inventor of the disposable diaper

Mid 1900′s, Frances Gabe invents the self cleaning house. It is a combination of around 68 time, space and labor saving mechanisms that make traditional housework obsolete haha The only problem was that there were females thousands of years ahead of her in not cleaning the house.

1913, Mary Phelps Jacob – patented the first modern brassiere

1928, Marjorie Joyner – invented a permanent wave machine which curled or “permed” women’s hair.

1809, Mary Dixon Keis – was the first woman to receive a U.S. Patent. She invented a process for weaving straw with thread or silk thereby improving the process of making hats

1898, Lyda Newman – designed and patented a new and improved hair brush – easy to clean, durable and easy to make as well. It also had recessed air chambers to provide ventilation while brushing.

1990, Carol Wior – Wior invented the Slim suit, a women’s swimsuit that was guaranteed to take an inch or more off the waist or tummy and look natural I guess it never occured to her to just go on a diet lol

Bette Nesmith Graham–Liquid Paper Inventor

Ann Moore–The Snugli® Baby Carrier

Ruth Wakefield–Chocolate Chip Cookie Inventor

   
john thames May 25, 2011 at 20:24

Since we are adding to the list of female accomplishments why not credit them with Alcohol Prohibition, the dumbest law ever passed in the US? The author is quite correct that the claim that women were not allowed to own property is not true. If that were the case, how do we explain all the black female slaveholders in the antebellum South who profited off their fellow blacks?

Just to correct Anonymous Poster, the Hitler quote arose from a passage in Mein Kampf where Hitler was attributing the technique of the Big Lie to the Jews; he was not advocating it himself. And his claim that Jews were behind Communism is perfectly correct – as anyone who reads Jewish reference works quickly discovers.

 For Mr. Meller: John Thames and Yancey Ames are one and the same. Keep it in mind as you read the next issue of the Nationalist Times.

 
LaughOrCry May 25, 2011 at 20:35

andybob – interesting, I shall have to look up those names.

Reminds me of Kate Sheppard, who was partly responsible for New Zealand having the (rather dubious, imo) honour of being the first country to give women the vote in 1893, and now featured on the NZ $10 note.

I recently read a book about Sheppard’s “struggle”to gain the vote for NZ women, a struggle which consisted of traipsing up and down the country giving speeches and organising petitions. (Gosh. I am so happy that as a member of the patriarchal oppressor class, I don’t face such a struggle and that I only have to go to work every day to a job I hate.) After it was all over and the “struggle” was successful, the poor dear had to recover by taking a holiday to England.

Somewhere near the back of the book it is casually mentioned that the majority of Members of Parliament were in favour of women’s suffrage(obviously, otherwise the bill would never have passed) and that Sheppard had been asked to show that women themselves were in favour (in other words, Parliament did not want to impose something on women if they didn’t want it) – hence the petitions.

The whole thing of it being a “struggle” is just laughable. Feminists who try to make out that the suffragettes faced a struggle have no fucking idea what a struggle against oppression means. How many suffragettes were arrested purely for their beliefs, as opposed to being arrested for pulling stupid and dangerous stunts? (And when imprisoned suffragettes in the UK went on hunger strike, the law was changed so they could be released and not have to be force fed.) How many suffragettes were taken from their homes in the middle of the night, never to be seen again – tortured to death in some basement, sent to a gulag or simply put up against the wall and shot? Not very many at all.

And so we have Sir Edmund Hillary, you know, the guy who risked his life to extend the boundaries of human knowledge by climbing some stupid nmountain (also responsible for many schools and hospitals being built… somewhere… I dunno… some place where I bet they don’t even speak English, so who cares, right?), featured on the $5 note. At least he had the rare honour of being on a banknote while he was still alive.

  
Avenger May 25, 2011 at 20:49

It’s mostly a myth that females couldn’t own property.George Washington married a woman who was a widow and she owned all of her late husband’s property including a 100 slaves.

In the 1800′s the US government gave away property out west. A man and wife could claim one parcel as could a bachelore but an unmarried female could too. Married people were considered a unit so both couldn’t claim a parcel of land because that would have given them twice the land. The bachelor or spinster could get a parcel but most likely they’d get married too so they’d end up with what the married couple got for a family. But I don’t think that an unmarried female would even want land in the middle of nowhere where she’d have to work a farm and watch out for bandits or the occasional Indian. The rules were that you had to stay on the land a certain number of years not just claim it and keep it without farming it.
   
As far as I know there was never a time where a spinster could not own property. Married couples held property in common and these feminists are just using this to say that women could not own property which is a complete distortion of history. And although property was held in common the wife was still entitled to half if there was a divorce The community property States are all in the west where perhaps the marital property was a farm.


Dark_Triad May 25, 2011 at 20:57

This is how women earn a living in the present day (an oldie but a goodie):

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/17/wife-of-tesla-ceo-demands-10-percent-stake-in-company-6m-cash/

Elon Musk is the closest we have to a real life comic book superhero (Tony Stark: Iron Man to be specific). Downey Jr. even interviewed him to prepare for his role as Iron Man.

Don’t miss the original harridan’s blog post and the corresponding comments. The Hamster is strong with this one…


Opus May 26, 2011 at 02:31

@ Legion

I think one has to be very wary of estimates of numbers in Greek and Roman Literature. It would certainly suit Roman purposes to overestimate the number of belligerent Iceni.

@DCM

Ann Radcliffe was perhaps the best-selling novelist of her era (late eighteenth century). – I mean in Britain. The earliest Gothic novel is usually said to be Horace Walpole’s Castle of Otranto from 1762. The genre reamined popular until about 1820 – Miss Austen’s Mansfield Park is a spoof gothic. Frankenstein (the most famous of all – and in my view a genuinely great work) – owes probably far more to Percy Bysshe than it does to Mary Woollstencraft. Byron is of course the inventor of the proto-Dracula. It is easy to see behind the gothic background the fears and concerns of women (it is women who read these things) pretty much as one can see fears and concerns in the present popularity of MizLit but as people tend to read about what they like it is easy to see what turns women on.

Radcliffe, was averagely well educated although not particularily felicitous and was married to a Barrister who dabbled in book-publishing – hence her chance. I had not previously been aware of Scott’s (an infinitely better Novelist’s) dislike of Radcliffe.

  
MWPeak May 26, 2011 at 04:41

I read this and the first thing I thought was, “Mr. Price, you smartass.”


MWPeak May 26, 2011 at 04:43

Oh, I did notice that the majority of these ladies were successful by appealing to vanity, such hair, face, health, sex, etc.

Women.


andybob May 26, 2011 at 05:48

Laugh or Cry – American and British people can at least point to a few women of merit. Notice that the pathetic ‘achievements’ of Aussie and Kiwi females doesn’t prevent Antipodean dames from being perhaps the most obnoxious and entitled harridans of all WW? Their arrogance and superiority is a mystery to all and stems from…what exactly?

Did you know that the sit-com “Kath&Kim” is so close to the mark in it’s representation of Aussie women’s sociopathic selfishness, that Aussie women react hysterically at the mere mention of it? They all have degrees of Kimmy in them and the revelation made many of them apoplectic with fury. No Aussie woman I know allowed it to be shown in ‘their’ homes after the 3rd or 4th episode. They all declared that, “I know women like that.” To which I replied, eyeing them up and down, “Yeah, me too”. It was the first time Australian women had ever been parodied (that tells you a lot right there), and they didn’t like it one bit. Thin-skinned princesses.

Love the bit about K Shepperd’s need for a post-campaign holiday. All those after-speech Devonshire teas must have been really stressfull. Poor dear!



Charles Martel May 26, 2011 at 10:05

@Dark_Triad    
"This is how women earn a living in the present day (an oldie but a goodie):

http://green.autoblog.com/2010/05/17/wife-of-tesla-ceo-demands-10-percent-stake-in-company-6m-cash/

Elon Musk is the closest we have to a real life comic book superhero (Tony Stark: Iron Man to be specific). Downey Jr. even interviewed him to prepare for his role as Iron Man."

Yeah, women control more than half the wealth in the USA. They still get it the old-fashioned way – marry it or inherit it.

 I see Elon Musk a little differently. Musk’s undoubtedly a brilliant guy but Tesla Motors is just another variant on the only growth industry left in the USA – shaking down the US taxpayer. Tesla got $500+ million in taxpayer dollars ( a loan – ha!) thanks to the intervention of the repulsive Al Gore who undoubtedly skimmed a little off the top. Tesla’s products make no economic sense whatsoever.

It’s so distressing to watch this once great country becoming just another two-bit socialist kleptocracy.

 
Keoni Galt May 26, 2011 at 10:05

Rainbows and Lollipops decided to double down on the feminist idiocy based on her ASSumptions that I didn’t bother to really research history. lol

I was waiting for someone to eventually bring this point up…so let’s make it real clear now: women could ALWAYS own property throughout US history.

The outright lie of feminism was that married women were not held responsible for the legal affairs regarding property, it was her husband.

But – 1) Women have never been forced by law to get married in this country.

2) Women were certainly never forced to get Re-Married either. So all these property owning women really were afraid of losing their precious right to own property and run businesses that they inherited…but they were forced to re-marry, and “lose their property rights” sometimes more than 2-3 times!

"So let me get this right. Because a few women were able to become successes, that means that women weren’t oppressed at all during that time period, that men didn’t hold power and prestige that women weren’t afforded."

Women were no more oppressed than the average men of their time period. And these examples CLEARLY demonstrate that “power and prestige” were not AFFORDED ANYONE. Those things are EARNED due to real accomplishments.

"Madam CJ Walker didn’t become successful until late 1800s – early 1900s, a good several decades after laws were passed about a woman’s limited rights to own property or be able to sign other legal documents that enabled her the ability to have a business to begin with."

LOL – YOU didn’t read history close enough. By the time Madam Walker entered into her own business, she was a widow and a 2 time divorcee. In other words, she ran her own business despite all that oppression going on!

You feminist retards don’t even realize how brainwashed you are.

When you look at the rhetoric you and your ilk ramble on about, one thing becomes perfectly clear: Oppression only means one thing historically…marriage, before no-fault divorce and automatic child custody to the mother were the legal reality, was ‘oppression.’

The right to “vote” and “own property” were laws designed to uphold the Patriarchal system of the nuclear family to build a stable foundation for society.

It wasn’t that “women” couldn’t “own property” or “vote.” It used to be most people followed the Christian principle of marriage – the husband and wife became ONE…a single, legal entity, with the husband responsible for the affairs outside of the home and the woman for the affairs in side the home.

Women have ALWAYS had the choice to forgo marriage and child bearing and become property owning business women and in plenty of cases, actual voters – long before the suffrage movement.


Towgunner May 26, 2011 at 10:56

Historical revision is central to feminism and an example of just how low these people truly are. Truth is an inconvenience for them, the ends justify the means is their mantra. I noticed while watching the revised Ken Burn’s Civil War specials that they added new segments focused on women. Any present day tv or movie that is depicted in olden times MUST have feminist themes represented. “They” know most women watch tv and movies, more so than ever today (as men are rightly disinterested). Things like ‘based on actual events’ etc is code for, well kind-of based on actual events with the directors, producers, actors(ess’s) using license to “translate” into our present times…meaning they feminize and gayinize the story. This keeps that big lie going. It works like a charm, but it is manipulation, it is low, it is spreading falsehoods, and regardless of its effectiveness it is weakness.


Paradoxotaur May 26, 2011 at 11:43

Dear Keoni,

You had me at :”You feminist retards don’t even realize how brainwashed you are”, although I’m certain at least some feminist retards know exactly how brainwashed they are, but keep repeating the same tired old lies because they like the attention.


LaughOrCry May 26, 2011 at 14:53

Keoni Galt – “The right to “vote” and “own property” were laws designed to uphold the Patriarchal system of the nuclear family to build a stable foundation for society.”

Exactly. Historically, women (and indeed, the majority of men) were excluded from politics. These days, men are being excluded from the family. In my country, over 45% of births are to unmarried women; that means the fathers have no paternal rights whatsoever – except of course the right to pay child support. This is a direct result of women’s involvement in politics.

Domestic purposes benefits were introduced originally to support mothers who had suffered the misfortune of being widowed or abandoned, as a form of State-sponsored charity. Nowadays, these benefits are a right for any woman who chooses to opt out of marriage or the workforce.

This would not necessarily be a problem in and of itself, however study after study shows that children raised in fatherless homes are many times more likely to be socially dysfunctional. There are no doubt many reasons for this, however the fact that girls raised in fatherless homes reach menarche earlier suggests to me that there are deep, fundamental (that is, evolutionary) forces at play; forces which cannot simply be cancelled out by superficial measures such as forcing welfare mothers to get jobs.

   
LaughOrCry May 26, 2011 at 15:35

…cont’d: Does that mean that rulers and leaders of the past were wise to the consequences of women in politics? Not necessarily; if they had been then perhaps they would not have let things develop in the way that they have. It just means that societies themselves are subject to evolutionary selective forces: societies that remain strictly patriarchal remain strong and vigorous, whereas societies in which women gain too much political power become weak and eventually die. For those who might say, “So what if a particular society dies? People are entitled to their rights!”, when societies die, that usually means poverty, starvation, disease, suffering… things that are not usually regarded as good. Now that’s not to say that while patriarchy may be necessary for a strong society that on its own it is sufficient; south American countries are pretty strongly patriarchal but they aren’t doing particularly well.

It’s a very popular idea that people are entitled to their rights just by virtue of being people; indeed modern Western governments promote that very idea. Feminist narrative is that men – the Patriarchy – have historically denied women their duly entitled rights out of, I dunno, spite I suppose (sounds awfully like projection).

However, individual rights do not simply fall out of the sky like manna from Heaven, they have to be bought and paid for by society as a whole. It seems that women’s rights are expensive, maybe so expensive that even prosperous Western societies cannot afford to pay for them for any length of time.


LaughOrCry May 26, 2011 at 16:26

…still going: Historically, voting was not considered a right, it was considered a trust which entailed a duty to vote not in one’s own interest, but in the interests of the country as a whole. This fits in with the function of government: government is not there to act in the interests of the people, especially not the people who voted for it (that leads to corruption and tyranny), it is there to act in the interests of society as a whole – the State.

The government preserves the State for the benefit of the people and future generations, it does so by governing the people using its authority over the people. The State is preserved in order to prevent such outcomes as the tragedy of the commons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
in which people rationally pursuing their own interests end up ruining it for everyone.

Another example might be the prisoner’s dilemma: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma
where the “prisoners” represent law abiding people in normal society. The paradox of the prisoner’s dilemma is that the prisoners each rationally acting in their own best interests results in the worst possible outcome for both of them.

A solution to the prisoner’s dilemma is that the gang leader (who is not in prison) gets a message to the prisoners to keep their mouths shut or he will kill them. The prisoners might not be able to trust each other not to talk, but they can trust the gang leader to follow through with his threat if they do talk. While this means (in the wiki example) that both prisoners go to jail for a month, this is the best and fairest outcome for both prisoners.

In this analogy it is clear that in society, the government acts in the role of the “gang leader”; it has authority over everyone in order to ensure the best possible, or at least the optimum, outcome for everyone – society as a whole – not just any particular special interest group that might have some influence over the government.

Indeed, any influence that a special interest group has over government becomes magnified by government’s power and authority over everyone, and can easily lead to large disparities of power. That’s why it’s so important for governments to be scrupulously fair and impartial.

Now if this all sounds rather totalitarian, indeed there is a risk if the State develops too much power – it may start to act in its own interests at the expense of the people, rather than for their benefit. That is why for example the US Founding Fathers placed strict limits on the power of the government.

However if the State starts to act in the direct interests of the people, such as in modern democracies with universal suffrage, you end up with a case of “the tail wagging the dog”; governments pander to the people just to get reelected and lose sight of their primary function of preserving the State: modern Western democracies universally suffer from government and private indebtedness, unemployment, criminality, lawlessness and imprisonment, despair and suicide. Modern Western governments clearly are not doing a good job of preserving their respective States for future generations.


crella May 26, 2011 at 19:01

The first women doctors graduated in 1851 or 2…the 60s feminists were full of sh*t too. All the major women’s colleges were founded in the mid to late 1800s. It was money that made the difference, not sex. A whole lot of men didn’t go to college either.

   
LaughOrCry May 26, 2011 at 19:22

andybob – I don’t know if I’d say that all Aussie girls are completely useless; they still have Meter Maids over there, don’t they?

They made a TV commercial for beer here in which the brewery was completely manned… er, staffed by gorgeous women in skimpy attire (this commercial, in fact: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAmJEqBSBqI )

Rumour was that they couldn’t find enough Kiwi girls who were sufficiently gorgeous and prepared to be filmed in skimpy attire, so all the girls in the commercial had to be brought over from Aus.

   
andybob May 27, 2011 at 01:44

    “…so all the girls in the commercial had to be brought over from Aus.”

Watch closely, LaughOr Cry. Those girls are definitley dubbed – probably Swedish backpackers having a laugh. No sour-faced Aussie Sheila could flog beer to discerning Kiwi gents. The breweries would go under. Hilarious ad by the way!


DCM May 27, 2011 at 03:37

Ho-hum. It’ll be repeated into eternity and rendered trite:

“History’s First Recorded Museum Was Founded By A Woman
by Susana Polo | 2:56 pm, May 25th

io9 has a very interesting article today about a singular discovery made by British archeologist Leonard Woolley: the earliest recorded example of a museum, the collection of Princess Ennigaldi of the Neo-Babylonion Empire in the city of Ur. And no, this wasn’t just a private collection, as Woolley also found the earliest example of a museum label. Except instead of a little white card, it was this thing on the left.

Woolley describes finding clay cylinders in the chamber, each with text written in three different languages, including the language of ancient Sumerian and the more modern (for the period) late Semitic language… Sure, Woolley didn’t think much of the scribe’s attention to detail. But he was man enough to admit when he had been beaten to the punch – and in this case, he readily acknowledged that archaeology in Ur had been thriving about 2,500 years before he had ever set foot there. And, even more remarkably, this most ancient museum predated the first modern museums by about two millenniums.

As for the museum’s founder, Princess Ennigaldi, she was the daughter of King Nabonidus, who was the last king of the Neo-Babylonian empire. Her traditional role was that of the high priestess of the goddess Nanna, and as a teacher (in an 800 year old school for priestesses of Nanna, basically making her the dean or president of a university as old as Oxford). Her small museum’s collection contained only half a dozen items, including a carved “large oval-topped black stone” from 1400 BC, a fragment of a statue of Dungi (king of Ur in 2058 BC), and a “clay foundation-cone of a Larsa king” from 1700 BC. The artifacts she had amassed were roughly as old to her as the Ancient Romans were to us.

King Nabonidus himself was something of a historian, instituting projects of restoration around Ur, and the thousands of years old culture itself was going through a period of great historical nostalgia, just as it was about to fall to the Achaemenid or Persian Empire. Makes you wonder about the significance of our own museums, huh?

http://www.themarysue.com/the-first-museum/“



Eric Weaver May 27, 2011 at 07:01

But what about those women who are laudable, but unknown to history?

I am thinking about the one who invented the blowjob. She deserves a statue somewhere.


Rainbows and Lollipops May 27, 2011 at 09:24

Keoni Galt:“Rainbows and Lollipops decided to double down on the feminist idiocy based on her ASSumptions that I didn’t bother to really research history. lol”

Watch, I can capitalize too: YOUR’RE ever so clever in your capitalization of “ass” in assumptions. How did you ever come up with that one on your own. :o

Regardless, I am not and never been a “feminist”. Anytime someone on this board decides to call me one based on their own assumptions (please note that I didn’t feel the need to be ignorant enough to capitalize the obvious) that’s based on pure emotion, not logic or fact. Infact, there is nothing in my previous posts that points to feminisnt theory.

“I was waiting for someone to eventually bring this point up…so let’s make it real clear now: women could ALWAYS own property throughout US history.”

Unmarried women could and I stated that in my post. That is if an unmarried woman was lucky enough to be given property because usually men did not want to give women property. But once a woman got married, her husband took over that property and she lost her rights. There’s really no rational reason why that was the law but it was. You also are hugely ignoring how women were brought up in that time and many were brought up believing that being married was their top priority, followed by having children. This is how families brought up their daughters, they didn’t tell them they could be successful business leaders or get into politics like they told their son’s they could. That is a huge social construct that you like to leave out in your assertion that women had as many freedoms back then as men.

    “The outright lie of feminism was that married women were not held responsible for the legal affairs regarding property, it was her husband.”

Show legal documentation that states that married women were 100% equal to men in their ownership of property and legal matters. You can’t because the law as the exact opposite, and it wasn’t until the 1830s-1860s that laws were passed that enabled married women more property freedom. And ALL of the women you used as examples of success, garnered their success AFTER those laws were passed. Amazing isn’t how you are really proving that once women were given the rights to accomplish goals like men where, by the laws that were passed, that there were women that actually accomplished those goals once given the freedom to do so. Fighting generations of social grooming that they were only to get married and have babies.

    “But – 1) Women have never been forced by law to get married in this country”

And some women didn’t. However, even you can’t deny that back in that time unmarried women were more shunned culturally by both other men and women then married ones. Women were groomed since little girls that they were to get married, be loyal to their husbands and have babies. Back then do you think they had brothels for women? No. They had them for men because men could both get married and still sleep around and cheat on their married partners. Brothels were quite common place back then. For men, certainly not for women. Another fact you like to ignore in your pursuit to act like everything was all equal between men and women.

    “Women were certainly never forced to get Re-Married either. ”

See above. You’re arguing points no one even said.

    “Women were no more oppressed than the average men of their time period. And these examples CLEARLY demonstrate that “power and prestige” were not AFFORDED ANYONE. Those things are EARNED due to real accomplishments.”

Okay, tell that to African American’s that became slaves to white men. Tell them how everyone was afforded the same chances.

Again, you’re trying to argue that because a few women were able to become successful, ONLY AFTER (we love to captalize here) laws were passed that allowed women more freedom, that means that women weren’t oppressed at all during that time period, that men didn’t hold power and prestige that women weren’t afforded. Nonsense.

“LOL – YOU didn’t read history close enough. By the time Madam Walker entered into her own business, she was a widow and a 2 time divorcee. In other words, she ran her own business despite all that oppression going on!”

Excuse me but did I argue that she didn’t run her own business? No. What I *did* argue was that factually, she didn’t become a success until certain laws where passed between the 1830s-1860s that enabled women more freedom. Legal laws came into play that enabled married women to have more legal rights regarding property and legal documentation. The success of all the women you listed came AFTER these laws where inacted. Not before.

    “You feminist retards don’t even realize how brainwashed you are.”

You’re reaction purely emotionally here.

    “The right to “vote” and “own property” were laws designed to uphold the Patriarchal system of the nuclear family to build a stable foundation for society. It wasn’t that “women” couldn’t “own property” or “vote.” It used to be most people followed the Christian principle of marriage – the husband and wife became ONE…a single, legal entity, with the husband responsible for the affairs outside of the home and the woman for the affairs in side the home.”

Awww..so your point isn’t that women weren’t oppressed. But that they were oppressed and that that was really for their own best interest. It’s really strange this whole time you tried to argue how equal women were to men in that time but you *just* above stated that women infact where equal. Make up your mind.

In a perfect relationship, a man and woman would become one in their relationship. And I have no problem with the man being the leader in the relationship as long as he consider’s his wife’s needs before his own. But that’s not what happened. Men abused their position in soceity and didn’t consider their wives or families which is what lead to women’s sufferage in the first place.

Did you know that historical evidence indicates that most prehistoric hunter-gatherer societies were pretty egalitarian. The Patriarchal social structures did not develp until many decades later.

    “Women have ALWAYS had the choice to forgo marriage and child bearing and become property owning business women and in plenty of cases, actual voters – long before the suffrage movement.”

Then why are all the examples of the women you used success stories of women AFTER laws where passed that enabled women more rights. Do you know when suffrage movement first started? It was around the 1790s. And it grew from there. Again, take a look at the dates the women you listed became successful.


David K. Meller May 27, 2011 at 17:05

Isn’t it interesting that there was–and apparantly is–some debate regarding the “accomplishments” of women (or were they–and their acomplishments in the male sphere of activity–imitation men)?

I notice that the REAL accomplishments of real women cited all too briefly in my article are overlooked. Women do not need ownership of property, nor do they need voting or poltical jobbery do be loving and attentive wives,mothers, and homemakers, laying the groundwork in and through the home, local community and church, for what America was eventually become in the eighteenth and nineteenth century! they don’t need “equality” in property ownership rights, they didn’t need the vote, and they didn’t need to infest male centers of activity outside the home, from the armed forces to government and the civil service, from academia to the senior management of sports, entertainment, or business enterprise! They dind’t need any of that to become excellent nurses brilliant writers, and outstanding singers, actresses, comediennes, dancers, etc. They didn’t need any of this to become equally outstanding in the giving of pleasure, the services of courtesans and ladies of the evening (although some of those, especially on the frontier, succeeded in gaining and holding property in ways that would be the envy of most businessmen of the day)! Where women were not skilled themselves in the arts, sciences, and technology of men, they often inspired their men to greatness in such fields. This too, should be noted.

Women’s accomplishments in the larger world–outside of the areas specific to the female–are paltry, unconvincing, and probably unnecessary! It is indeed difficult to believe that no man could have come along and done what the woman or achievement was credited with doing, and probably doing it better in the end! The creation of beauty, the growing of culture, and the evolving of civilization, in its best sense, is the work of women ( in the private sphere of life) as much as that of men in public–including property ownership and management, business, and law, scholarship, and politics.

Over the past century we have forgotten this–both men and women–and the world which is devolving is one that offers little good to anyone, In fact, one might say that in the absence of the female forces (the “Yin” principle according to the Chinese) and its misplaced mischief polluting the masculine “Yang”, it is entirely possible that we–and our children–are not capable of avoiding a new version of the dark ages!

Wishing everyone
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller


Keoni Galt May 27, 2011 at 18:28

Rainbows & Lollipops, you may deny being a feminist, but you sure argue like one.


David K. Meller May 27, 2011 at 19:11

Paraphrasing a noisy but more-or-less honest and patriotic Senator when he was talking about communists and their agents and sympathizers in the early 1950′s: “If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a DUCK”!!

It ain’t no bald eagle!

She may deny being a feminist, Keoni Galt, but she writes like one, quacks like one, and probably even looks like one (her cute feminine-sounding internet moniker notwithstanding)–Rainbows and Lollipops shows herself by her unwanted, totally insensitive, and obten bitter articles in the-Spearhead to be just that! She is an accursed, unlovable, fully paid-up member of the sisterhood from Hell! She IS a f******t!!! She is NO sweet old fashioned girl!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller

 
jameseq May 28, 2011 at 09:16

Rainbows and Lollipops May 26, 2011 at 08:08 .

..Further, if a woman did own property, it by default of getting married became her husbands, not hers, and *he* had control over the property as the law dictated and she didn’t have any rights to it whatsoever. Unmarried women were able to own property that was passed down to them but unmarried women were scorned by both men and women alike.

You’ll notice that most of these women gained property only through the death of their husbands and all of these women had success only after futher laws were passed regarding women’s ability to own property. By law, married women were not allowed to acquire or control property until the mid 1800s where they were given some ability to control property only."

 r+l youre not in your genderstudies class now. You can not fool the men AND women on this board

We KNOW, the real history is a lot more nuanced than that. The history your reading seems to be drawing from victorian reintrepetation of history to fit their stulifying upper middle class notions of masculinty and femininty. The fact is women in Europe (and in other parts of the world) have usually been able to own property. Ive provided historical links from feminist women .

 http://mahan.wonkwang.ac.kr/link/med/feminism/emily.htm

WOMEN IN THE MIDDLE AGES

The reason that I chose to create a web page on women in the Middle Ages was a result of my own frustration with the lack of information that existed on women at this period of time and a natural curiosity about what rights women posessed, the power they yielded and how they spent their days. I will include links to other web sites as well as enlighten you, the reader, with some interesting information.
       
Single Women Versus Married Women

What I found out about women in Europe between 500 and 1500 a.d. was that their power waxed and waned throughout their lifetime. Unmarried adolescent women and widows and in some cases women from the knight and noble classes had particular priveleges that only men had. The general structure of society prevented women from claiming ownership to public authority, but this is not to say that they did not demonstrate power in the private sphere. For instance in 14th century Brigstock, England, adolescent women and widows could accumalate property. Young women could save money through land sales and wages earned through work. Widows could trade, exchange and sell their property and were considered legally liable for their actions. In courts they could appear without a man to pursue litigation, and answer complaints.

In contrast to the freedoms that single women posessed, married women encountered a loss of power when they tied the knot. The wife gave her land to her husband, thus reducing her power and increasing his. A woman’s dowry consisted of a land tract and her land was merged with her husbands. The woman lost legal competancy and was not held responsible for her own actions. Also married women sealed documents jointly with their husbands whereas unmarried women in France between 1150 and 1350 could seal acts in their own names. Seals were a representation of the right to own property and be legally capable. In the area north of the Loire Valley aristocratic women frequently used seals, but it was the women of lesser nobility who sealed more acts in their own names, thus they were more legally independent than the former. The proportion of female to male seals that existed during this time was more equal which is a reflection of women’s secular

[..]
      
In the south of France during the 9th-11th centuries women were the heads of families and households. They also exercised their power in other areas as well because their were no effective barriers to hold them back. Women were judges, military leaders, castellans and controllers of property. Within the realm of the church, women in an advantageous family position influenced the affairs of the church and before men were sworn to an oath of celibacy their wives took ecclesiastical property into their own hands.

[..]

Women, Land and Ownership

Land ownership was a great source of power during the Middle Ages. According to the Salic Law of the late 6th and 7th centuries in France women could inherit land which did not come to their parents as part of the patrimony. King Chilperic (533-566) allowed women to inherit Salic land provided they had no brothers. In cases where land was aquired by means other than inheritance, both sons and daughters had equal claims to the land. Merovingian women took what land they could and held on to it as long as they were not forced to give it up. In Italy the Lombard Law stated that when a father had no sons he could leave 1/3 of his land to his daughter.

Moving on to the middle of the eighth century we see the decline of the Franks and with that the obliteration of restrictive inheritance rights. The Carolingians who succeded the Franks gave women the private right to control their property, thus giving mothers, daughters, sisters and wives clout within the family sphere. Women contributed tracts of land during a marriage and thus gained power within the household…

Women and Work in the Middle Ages

Modern historians are beginning to discover that medieval women made a significant contribution to the economy of the medieval world. In past histories, women were either ignored by men or taken for granted. Neither religious nor romantic literature gives us an accurate accounting of the activities of the real medieval woman. Today, letters, wills, business and legal documents, convent, manor and census records and manuscript illuminations are used to complete our concept of the world of medieval women. It is hoped that this study will assist the female members of the Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc. with their persona research and their attempts to become real medieval women. For women in the Middle Ages played an active role in medieval society, although their economic efforts were affected by their social class, marital status and by the place and time in which they lived.

[…]

Middle class women were expected not only to maintain their households, usually a townhouse within the city, but also to assist their husbands in business. A woman could be of assistance to her husband by helping him in his trade or by practicing one of her own (the “femme sole”). (Bornstein, p. 96) The period of 1300-1500 was a time of great expansion in industry and commerce and an increase in the number of workers was necessary. It seems to have been taken for granted that women would do their share. In London no trade was closed to women by law and evidence exists of women’s employment in occupations of many kinds. (Abram, p. 276) In fact a married woman in business had two advantages over her husband. First, she had the choice of taking full responsibility for her actions and the debts incurred in her business (the “femme sole”), or of placing the responsibility on her husband. Additionally, in 1363 in London , a city ordinance declared that men had to keep to one trade while women were free to follow as many as they chose. (Bornstein, p. 96) Women sometimes pursued two or three occupations. However, rather than liberating, this ordinance might be construed to imply that women were less skilled or not “masters” of their trades.

http://sandradodd.com/sca/womenandwork



Rainbows and Lollipops May 29, 2011 at 06:38

    “The Carolingians who succeded the Franks gave women the private right to control their property, thus giving mothers, daughters, sisters and wives clout within the family sphere. ”

What do “private rights” mean? And why would a woman’s right have to be private if men and women were equal?

I could go on..I have alot of questions about the information you provided. I hope you can take the time to answer them.

Thanks.


DCM May 29, 2011 at 06:56

    ‘”Rainbows and Lollipops May 29, 2011 at 06:38
    “The Carolingians who succeded the Franks gave women the private right to control their property, thus giving mothers, daughters, sisters and wives clout within the family sphere. ”

    What do “private rights” mean? And why would a woman’s right have to be private if men and women were equal?

    I could go on..I have alot of questions about the information you provided. I hope you can take the time to answer them.

    Thanks.”‘

You either know perfectly well it means women had rights as private individuals apart from men, or you’re an even bigger idiot than you seem, or you think we are stupid, or all or some combination of the above.

You might want to check the works of Barbara Hanawalt on English medieval society. Since she’s female you must uncritically accept everything she says. Men give what she says much credibility because she cites and references the documentation on which her studies are based.

Don’t worry about reconstructing your post. I’m sure we can assume what you said.


David K. Meller May 29, 2011 at 13:03

Why are too many of us arguing with Rainbows and Lollipops”? Aren’t we just too d–n INTELLIGENT for that? The posts documenting the provisions for private ownership of property, choice in marriage, equality before the law, etc. are certainly appropriate to an article celebrating womens’ accomplishments (and debunking the feminist “herstory”cited by R+L) citing the contrary, but I can’t help wondering if this legal equality offered to women (at least unmarried ones) wasn’t a serious mistake; given the fact that more than a thousand years later, the result of all this “equality” is Rainbows and Lollipops–and FEMINISTS like her–polluting our economy and society with their thoroughly demented vision of female supremacy masquerading as “equality”, and making our lives hell in the process!

I think that we men (and the women who love us) could have done without this! Maybe there is more to be said for accomplishmets of women keeping OUR property safe and clean, giving pleasure to men–both in and out of the bedroom–and creating the love, bueauty, and and wholesomeness that women–at their best–and only women, are capable of creating! Property for women? Perhaps necessary, so, when men are e.g. off to war or exploring,or trading oversea, and soem trusted agent must manage the estatel but I rather doubt that this development is something which should be universally welcomed, and may have, over time, played a large part in us coming to grief!

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller


DCM May 29, 2011 at 15:33

“Why are too many of us arguing with Rainbows and Lollipops”? ”

Fun.
I still like to watch the Three Stooges now and then.



Attila May 30, 2011 at 01:28

Don’t feed the fire – if you want a fembot to stop chattering – let her have the last word or just let her go on with her verborrhea. Don’t give her any more pretexts- and besides- her retorts are only going to get more nonsensical/illogical/irrational as the chat goes on. Keep the Peace…Shut Up!


Jean Valjean May 30, 2011 at 21:23

Elizabeth Cady Stanton went to law school. She married a man who also went to law school and after school she had his children.

For most of her “feminist activist” career she lamented “domestic tyranny” which is the obligations and demands of being a mother which prevented her from writing speeches and giving appearances.

Of note here is that she married a wealthy man who bought her a big house with servants and wet nurses to do all the work for her but she was still oppressed.

And what was the main reason that colleges gave for not accepting women? Because there were limited spaces available for students and they wanted to reserve those for men because men would perform in a field (medicine, law, etc.) all their lives. They didn’t want to give those scarce spots to women because women used them to meet available young men and get married.

And what did E. C. Stanton do? She met a law student, got married, never actually practiced law, but sure as hell complained about it for the rest of her life.

Somewhere out there was a young man who might have gone to law school had Stanton not taken his spot. What became of that man thanks to her selfishness?

Flash forward to present and around 65% of medical students are female. Yet on average 85% of women will have children. Many of these women who get medical licenses will eventually quit or go part time as a general practitioner (the low end of medicine) so they can spend more time with their families. Isn’t that nice?

But the end result is that we all pay more for healthcare because the shortage of doctors (thanks to women) drives up wages in specialist areas.


2 comments:

His Majesty said...

I don't know where the alleged Hitler quote (dare I say "lie"?) fits in with this article on feminism and women's rights but here's what Hitler actually wrote about "The Big Lie":

This military collapse [the First World War] was itself only the consequence of a large number of symptoms of disease and their causes, which even in peacetime were with the German nation. This was the first consequence, catastrophic and visible to all, of an ethical and moral poisoning, of a diminution in the instinct of self-preservation and its preconditions, which for many years had begun to undermine the foundations of the people and the Reich.

It required the whole bottomless falsehood of the Jews and their Marxist fighting organization to lay the blame for the collapse on that very man who alone, with superhuman energy and will power, tried to prevent the catastrophe he foresaw and save the nation from its time of deepest humiliation and disgrace. By branding Ludendorff as guilty for the loss of the World War they took the weapon of moral right from the one dangerous accuser who could have risen against the traitors to the fatherland. In this they proceeded on the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others; yes, even when enlightened on the subject, they will long doubt and waver, and continue to accept at least one of these causes as true. Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick – a fact which all the great lie-virtuosi and lying-clubs in this world know only too well and also make the most treacherous use of.

The foremost connoisseurs of this truth regarding the possibilities in the use of falsehood and slander have always been the Jews; for after all, their whole existence is based on one single great lie, to wit, that they are a religious community while actually they are a race – and what a race! One of the greatest minds of humanity† has nailed them forever as such in an eternally correct phrase of fundamental truth: he called them ‘the great masters of the lie.’ And anyone who does not recognize this or does not want to believe it will never in this world be able to help the truth to victory.



† Artur Schopenhauer

From Volume One, Chapter X of Mein Kampf


Herr Hitler was clearly not endorsing it!

Michael Maier said...

No woman belongs on a pedestal.