of the most poisonous feminist fabrications over the past thirty years concerns our
recent History. For example,
for almost two whole generations now, our children have been fed the deceitful propaganda that
marriage is a mechanism whereby men have oppressed women and, somehow, forced
them to remain in the home, while they themselves ventured outside into the
liberating world of work - presumably for fun, frolics, fulfilment and independence.
the world of work has been, for the most part, an
extremely unpleasant world
The deceit herein is that,
in reality, the world of work has been, for
the most part, an extremely unpleasant world in which to live - until quite recently.
The majority of men
in recent History were working in terrible conditions - down filthy, dangerous
mines - in the hot, unwholesome, poisonous construction industries of ship and
house building, and in arduous heavy engineering projects such as building roads and
bridges - in tedious, sweaty factories, labouring for 16 hours non-stop, day
after day - in the military, sent away from home, sometimes for years, to the
most inhospitable and hostile of conditions and climates, to face disease,
damage, death, and war - in agriculture, where men toiled and tilled without the
advanced machinery of today - and even in the new offices, where rows upon rows
of clerks spent their hours laboriously copying out, by hand, the mountains of information
that needed to be documented.
In the world of work, men were being 'oppressed' far
more so than were their women at home.
In the world of work,
men were being 'oppressed' far more so than were their women at home. They were
at the beck and call of their bosses, and were given little in the way of rights, safety, security or decent
For the most part,
therefore, the jobs of the past were mostly soul destroying, if not downright dangerous and debilitating,
and it is men who did most of them in order to provide for their women and
The world of work was
not a pleasant place to be. And it was not somewhere where most women, then, or
choose to have been.
When feminists give the impression to
our younger folk that working
for a living in the recent past was invigorating, cathartic or therapeutic in
some way, they are lying.
In more recent times, technological advancements
have removed much of the worst
aspects of 'work', and, further, other huge industries requiring less odious
forms of work have sprung up; e.g. media, computer, financial.
And it is in these
far more benign circumstances that today's women are continually indoctrinated
with the view that some glorious world of 'work' was somehow denied to them in
The truth is that
they were not denied
They were saved from it.
In 1900, only 6 percent of married women worked outside
Here is an extract from David Thomas' book
Not Guilty ...
This was regarded as a huge step forward for
The desire to free oneself from work
was common to all classes and both sexes. Dr Joanna Bourke of Birkbeck College,
London, has studied the diaries of 5,000 women who lived between 1860 and 1930.
During that period, the proportion of women in paid employment dropped from 75
per cent to 10 per cent. This was regarded as a huge step forward for womankind,
an opinion shared by the women whose writings Dr Bourke researched. Freed from
mills and factories, they created a new power base for themselves at home. This
was, claims Dr Bourke, "a deliberate choice. . . and a choice that gave
Teenage Girls Just Want to Marry and Stay
Amelia Hill Sunday October 19, 2003
Their grandmothers fought for the
vote, their mothers battled to have it all, but the upcoming generation
of girls have decided to turn the clock back and just want stay at home
with their babies.
According to a survey of 5,000-plus
teenage girls, their main ambition is to complete university then return
to the homestead - whether their partners like it or not.
More than nine out of 10 of the girls believe it
should be up to their husbands to provide for them
More than nine out of 10 of the girls
believe it should be up to their husbands to provide for them, with 97
per cent disagreeing with the statement 'It doesn't matter who is the
main earner, as long as we are happy.'
More than 90 per cent of those polled
for CosmoGirl magazine's November issue believe it is the man's role to
provide the household's money, with 85 per cent maintaining they would
rather rely on their partner for financial support than be a successful,
Instead of making a career for
themselves, girls today plan to be married by the age of 25 - three
years below the current national average of 28.2 years old.
one in four say getting married is their number one
priority in life.
And although 43 per cent of those
questioned believe they should continue with their education until they
have achieved a university degree, one in four say getting married is
their number one priority in life.
The supposedly super-modern, 'fun
comes first' teenage generation has proved to be remarkably traditional
in every area of their beliefs, with over 50 per cent saying they would
not dream of having children before seeing a ring on their finger.
The desire to have children is kicking
in earlier too, with the girls taking their 'ticking biological clock'
cue from role models such as Kate Moss, Posh Spice and Reese Witherspoon
and wanting to have their first child in their twenties.
On average, teenage girls plan to have
their first child at 26 and most plan to have one or two more children
over the following four years, The national average now is 1.64 children
'This is so unsurprising,' said agony
aunt and author Claire Rayner. 'The majority of girls have no glamorous
future and nothing very special to look forward to. All they can hope
for is their own man and their own baby - like their mothers and their
grandmothers before them.
'This survey doesn't indicate that the
battles of feminism have been lost,' she added. 'Feminism was never
opposed to marriage or children. [AH: Rubbish; feminists have done
everything in their power to destroy marriage] On the contrary, feminism was about
equal opportunities for women to do what they wanted to do, when they
wanted to do it, which is exactly what these girls are choosing to do.'
And now, study closely the words of one of the
most powerful and influential women the world as ever known.
"I love peace and quiet, I hate
politics and turmoil. We women are not made for governing, and if we are good
women, we must dislike these masculine occupations. There are times which force
one to take interest in them, and I do, of course intensely"
" 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."
Queen Victoria 1870
And when today's vindictive men-hating
feminists purposefully distort the whole of our history in order to make you
hate men, by telling you that men have always tried to hold women back, and were
only, finally, defeated in this heinous operation by the feminists of the 60s
and the 70s, please take on board the fact that it was WOMEN - influential
women like Queen Victoria - who, rightly or wrongly,
promoted whatever views of men and women people had in those earlier days.
And so, for example, if women did not go out
to work in greater numbers in those days it was because both men AND WOMEN
thought that this was the best way to handle the circumstances in which they
the circumstances of women were CHOSEN as much by women
as by men.
So, when you listen to the media feminists,
and to those who lecture on Women's Studies courses, take note on whether or not
they EVER point out to you that, in recent history, the circumstances of women
were CHOSEN as much by women as by men.
And if they do not point this out to you, or
if they even try to deny the huge influence that women have had in the past,
then ask yourself why they do this.
Is it because they wish to continue to
engender hatred toward men by distorting the truth? Or are they just plain
Ask them also, what jobs there were,
realistically speaking, that were actually available, even fifty years ago, that
women actually wanted to do, but were prevented from doing.
There were some, yes. It was very difficult
for a woman to become a doctor or a lawyer. But, firstly, how many women were
actually affected by this? Very few indeed! There were not many such jobs around
in those days. And, secondly, for the most part, only the well-heeled well-connected men
near the top of the food chain could actually get such jobs. For 98% of men these jobs
were just as unavailable as they were for women.
it was mostly men, not women, who were actually
In fact, it was mostly men, not
women, who were actually discriminated against when they were turned down for
Finally, feminists, with tiresome frequency,
like to point out that women, even fifty years ago, were often forced to
retire from their jobs to make way for the men if they became pregnant. And
feminists have used this fact for 30 years as an example of oppression and
But it was absolutely the right thing to
Can you imagine what would have happened to
society - and to its women - if millions of unemployed men had
been roaming the streets with nothing to do, with nowhere to go, with no money
to pay for the bills for their families, their children and their sweethearts,
while, among their very own neighbours, there were husbands and wives who BOTH
had jobs and were doing very well thank you.
Society would have lived its life completely
enmeshed in crime, violence and mayhem.
There was no modern police force in those
days, no sophisticated communications technology, no major welfare benefits to
be had, and so, no real protection whenever things went wrong.
One only has to look at what happens in poorer
sections of our own society to see what happens when men are not occupied in
gainful employment and the children are not well looked after to see what would
have happened to the entire nation if both men and women had not accepted the
solution of giving men the priority when it came to allocating jobs.
But, for thirty years, most of you will not have heard
about any of this thanks to the hatred that feminists want to keep heaping onto
the heads of men by preventing the truth from being told.
Women Pulling Their Weight
Here is an example of women pulling their
weight in a manner which would have been unthinkable had they been truly oppressed ...
... Yep. That was the Austrian
Netherlands, circa 1770 - a full 200 years before the vindictive feminists of
the 1970's came on the scene.
Finally, given that feminists have expended a great deal of their energy
trying to engender male hatred by brainwashing women into believing that their
lack of voting rights until the beginning of the last century is, somehow,
strong evidence of oppression, it is worth pointing out that governments in
those days hardly did anything.
Further, given that it was men who, by and
large, had to defend and fight for the country, and that it was men, mostly,
whose labours created the nation's wealth and built all the physical structures
within it, and that it was men, mostly, who were expected to labour outside of
the home in order to support the enterprises of the government as well as their
families, it seems quite reasonable that men should have been the ones to decide
the direction in which the economy would develop and to determine what
governments could and could not do on their behalf.
For example, why should women have had the
right to determine whether or not men should be conscripted to go and die or to be
maimed for their country in times of war?