When feminism is finally well-exposed for the destructive ideology that it is,
my guess is that the majority of people will describe themselves as
That is the good news.
The bad news is that women are still being
heavily indoctrinated with the view
that the 70's feminists achieved great things for women.
And, as we know, they did not.
For example, one only has to look back over
the past few centuries to realise that when women wanted to go out to work, they
If anything, 70s feminism retarded the
progress of women with their gender-divisive policies and their family-breaking
Life is much more pleasant now for women both
at work and in the home because of the progress in science and technology -
which had nothing to do with feminism and everything to do with the natures and
obsessions mostly of clever men - and because ordinary people were gradually
able to loosen the grip over them exerted by the traditional sources of
authority e.g. the state, the church, psychoanalysts and employers.
Millions of individual people chipped away at
achieving these ends, in their own little way, and many other groups also took
significant parts in the battle - e.g. trades unions, students, gays, racial
groups, and, most influential of all, pop stars.
And yes, the feminists.
But their agenda was totally selfish and
divisive, as it still is today.
Indeed, if the west had not been forced to
spend so many billions upon billions of dollars having to cope with the negative
consequences of feminism, we would have made much more progress by now.
The streets are less safe for women than they
were fifty years ago. There is more violence against women. Women are just as
overworked now as they ever were. They are less likely to be able to hold on to
their marriages. They are less able to afford not to have to work if they are
married with children. And they are less likely to be cared for properly in old
I was actually alive well before the arrival of the 70s
It is also the case that I was actually alive
well before the arrival of the 70s feminists. And there is absolutely no question in my mind that, for example, gays and blacks were, at the very least, often frowned
upon - to put it mildly - but the same was not true of women.
For example, here in the UK during my
young boys of the 50s and 60s were being brought up to respect women (open doors
for them etc) to treat them kindly, and to take pains to look after their
interests. This was the message that was constantly relayed to the growing youth
from every quarter in the land - e.g. the media, the churches, the schools.
Nowadays, this might all sound rather silly,
but the point is that women in those pre-feminist days were not seen as inferior
beings to men, they were simply seen as different, more fragile, and worthy of
greater consideration than men - and with definite talents of their own.
But this is not the image of the past that the feminists
have ever wanted to portray.
For example, they would prefer to describe the
men of the 50s and 60s who brought up their youths in this
silly way as 'oppressors of women'!
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Think about it.
"Now you look here young AH. You open that
door for that Lady. Offer your seat to that one over there. Don't you ever raise
your hand against a woman. Go and help that woman carry her shopping bags."
And yet, according to feminists, these were
the men of the 50s and 60s who hated women and oppressed them!
This is nothing but a pretty disgusting slur -
and one that is still propagated throughout the west by feminists, women's
studies teachers and the politically correct, all of whom continue to do their
best to undermine and demonise men.
Can anyone really believe that women in those days were
seen, by men, as being of a lower status than men?
Can anyone really believe that women in those
days were seen, by men, as being of a lower status than men? Open the door for
her. Give up your seat to her. Pull the chair back for her so that she can
be seated properly at the table without any effort on her part.. Stand up when
she walks into the room. Rush over to the other side of the car and open the
door so that she can get out. Walk on the side nearer the (dangerous) cars when
walking together on the sidewalk. Raise your hat and bow slightly should you
accidentally meet in the street.
On and on it went.
Also, as a teenager during the late sixties, I, needless to say, made a great many friends - such was
my beguiling nature.
And I got to know many families.
In not one did I know of a father who ruled
the roost at home.
This is not to say that this did not happen,
and that there were no homes wherein the fathers did, in fact, rule their
roosts. (Indeed, since that time, I
have met quite a few people for whom this was definitely the case.) But my point
is that this was clearly not the rule, by any means. And that, for every man who
might have terrorised his family, there were probably just as many women, if not more, who
did the same.
And so the notion that the husbands of the 50s
and 60s were happily oppressing their wives until the feminists came along in
the 70s is utter nonsense. It is pure fabrication.
Now, for all you youngsters out there who might
still have some doubts about this, take the following leaf out of my book and
do some research while sipping a beer.
Being something of an obsessive anti-feminist,
whenever, perchance, a bit of old film footage appears on the TV screen, for any
reason, my mind automatically disconnects from whatever topic happens to be
under scrutiny at the time, and I focus, instead, solely on examining the
faces and the demeanours of any men and women who appear in it, in order to
answer the following questions.
Who looks happier in these old pieces of film
- the men or the women?
Which gender appears to be the more relaxed,
the more comfortable, the less harassed, the less worn, the better cared for?
Well, look for yourself while sipping that
Keep your eyes open.
And see what you see!