Feminist Hypocrites II: Feminists Lie to Women, Mothers

Warning: Post contains some graphic material

Feminists have long been taking credit for things they never did for women. In fact, they have actually taken part in removing the very rights of women and mothers they claimed to have given them. They will never acknowledge this now, of course. Second and Third Wave feminists just love to jump on board and say they are an extension of “First Wave” feminism, but in fact they are not. But here is what it has done. Modern feminism has relieved fathers and husbands of their burdens and responsibilities. Loss of laws that protected and favored women gives men an unprecedented power to control women like never before.

“The feminist quest for female fungibility with males has led the women’s movement to support the invalidation of laws benefiting and protecting women. This was the thrust, for example, of litigation directed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was director of the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union and , often using male plaintiffs, secured invalidation of laws that favored women…In the area of divorce reform, one of the benefits women have lost is the maternal preference which favored awarding custody to the mother. Almost all states now grant men and women a statutory equal right in custody… In order to secure custody, many women will drastically compromise their financial interests: ‘women who are scared to death of losing custody will trade away anything else- child support, property, alimony to keep it from happening.'”[i]

The main thrust of modern feminism has been to remove laws that protected and benefited wives and mothers in the name of equality. I have plenty of blogs posts about this that I have written. With the current fabrications father’s and men’s right groups like to come up with about women and our modern judicial system I’m sure this might be downright shocking and insulting (the truth usually is). But, I am not exactly known for mild, politically correct blog posts either. My views are generally shocking and insulting to both sides. I’m not interested in approval from anyone or a pat on the back for a job well done. The day approval is what I seek, is the day I should resign from writing as my mission means nothing any longer.

Our grandmothers may have been shamed for having babies out of wedlock, but this shaming helped to ensure protection for all women. Women today are forced to become single mothers. They don’t want to be, but with promiscuity and the granting of rights to men over illegitimate children without them having to take traditional responsibilities causes these hardships. In the past, many women were pregnant on their wedding day. The social and legal pressures on both parties forced them to come together or pay the price. If the man wanted rights, he had to take on the responsibilities of marrying the mother and supporting her for life. If the woman wanted to keep her reputation and be supported she knew she too would have to marry. The widespread availability of birth control and abortion shifts the responsibility from men to women as now men can have easy sex because they know the woman is pumped full of hormones to keep her from ovulating (or trick her body into believing she is already pregnant) and if she should become pregnant, once again it is her responsibility as Planned Parenthood is right around the corner to perform the abortion (the man might pay for it or he might force that responsibility onto her but either way he knows it is not his problem as neither law or custom forces him to take responsibility).

“Our grandmothers might have led more sheltered sex lives, but they also controlled what amounted to a sexual cartel: setting a high price for sexual involvement and punishing both men and women if they broke the agreement (either by forcing them into marriage or by ostracizing them from respectable company). Sexual rules create sexual solidarity among women. If men feel they can flirt from woman to woman, they will. They will enjoy our ready availability and exploit it to their advantage. But if women as a group cease to be readily available- if they begin to demand commitment (and real commitment, as in marriage) in exchange for sex- market conditions will shift in favor of women. “[ii]

The feminist war against women has been a massive one that has wrecked the lives and shattered the very beings of millions of women and children everywhere. Feminists today lie. They say they “need” feminism because of the most absurd issues, such as society’s unwillingness to take rape seriously. Yet feminists have never taken rape nor women’s bodies seriously. Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself and others filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as amici curiae in the case of Coker Vs Georgia (1977) to argue that rape of a grown woman was not worthy of the death penalty.[iii] Thirty years later we would see Ginsburg further degrade women as a Supreme Court Justice by joining the majority opinion in the case of Kennedy vs Louisiana in a case involving the rape of an eight year old girl where

“…An expert in pediatric forensic medicine testified that L. H.’s injuries were the most severe he had seen from a sexual assault in his four years of practice. A laceration to the left wall of the vagina had separated her cervix from the back of her vagina, causing her rectum to protrude into the vaginal structure. Her entire perineum was torn from the posterior fourchette to the anus. The injuries required emergency surgery.”[iv]

This is really not so surprising coming from a premier player in the women’s movement who believes that protecting any group of people creates “harmful stereotypes” and the courts now long-gone “paternalistic” treatment of women was subjecting women to “second-class” citizenship.[v]

Today women face hardships that would not have happened in the 1950s. Husbands held responsibilities for, and to an extent authority over, their wives. But lest he wish to support her for life while she continued to live in the house with the kids, he would not leave her. Until women’s liberation a man had to provide the needs of his wife by law. Although coverture was mostly abolished by the end of the 19th century many aspects still remained in law. “Married women’s ability to make purchases on credit in their own name was denied by coverture. [Yet the wife was permitted to be] economically active by pledging her husband’s credit for necessaries (food, clothing, lodgings and medicine).”[vi]

Feminists love to tell us about the terrible days where women were treated so badly and unwed fathers didn’t have to support their children. Yet, they never tell us about the other side of the story. If a man fathered illegitimate children he could claim no rights. Today’s men have rights without having to take on the responsibilities for women and children that come along with it. Few unwed fathers actually support their children (and the feminist movement fought fiercely, winning Supreme Court decisions such as Orr vs Orr that forced states to gender-neutralize family law thereby making the traditional burdens of fathers and husbands the burdens of mothers and wives as well) and the loss of the maternal preference is a wonderful technique used against women to get them to forgo child support altogether in order to hang onto their children.

“Also absent from the discussion was any notice that Steven was not married to the mother. As will be discussed in chapter 4, it has been little more than twenty years since the U.S. Supreme Court, in Stanley v. Illinois, recognized any custodial rights for unwed fathers, much less those equal to the mothers’. This case seems to have given Steven-who never lived with Jennifer and Maranda-the same rights as a recently divorced father who had always lived with them, or, for that matter, the same rights as Jennifer. And no one found this worthy of comment.”[vii]

“The tender years doctrine (or maternal presumption, as it was often called) was well established by the 1920s. By the 1950s in Michigan and all other states it was the law The rule of maternal presumption reflected a universally held belief in the early part of this century that mothers by nature were the more nurturing parent for very young children. In their drive for equal rights in the seventies, many feminists spurned this very assumption, believing it fixed women as second-class citizens in a patriarchal structure.”[viii]

But, not to worry, feminists are on the scene to help. They realize women’s newfound predicament and are seeking justice.

“There is a national crisis for women and their children in the family law courts of this country. Affirmed by experts and leaders in the women’s movement, the existence of this crisis is verified by women in every state who report injustice in their family law cases, especially battered mothers trying to protect their children from abusive fathers who aggressively litigate against them, using family court to stalk, harass, punish, and impoverish their former partners and children. NOW recognizes this crisis for women and their children and seeks to address discrimination against women in family courts.”[ix]

The new wave of feminists seek to carry on the legacy of their woman-hating older sisters still pining for the same “equality” and rejecting “the patriarchy,” yet seem to have developed a convenient case of amnesia. “Yet, having been taken seriously by every state legislature in the country…feminists seek to absolve themselves from the blame, as if society should have known better than to listen to them.”[x] They have contributed largely to many social ills and problems women face. Their support of no-fault divorce laws and abolition of hundreds of laws that protected women largely contribute to the widespread “feminization of poverty” and the way out, they suggest, is affirmative action and subsidized daycare. Never will you hear them admit that they had anything to do with the problem’s women face today.

“No longer concentrating on the oppressiveness of home and family for women, feminists argue instead that, unfortunately, married mothers must remain in the work force to protect themselves from the very likely possibility of becoming single-parents impoverished by divorce. This is a likelihood, they choose not to remember, their movement was highly instrumental in creating.”[xi]

“Enactment of no-fault divorce laws unambiguously warned women to adopt the feminist perspective and replace homemaking with full-time career. The ‘present legal system,’ concluded Lenore Weitzman, “makes it clear that instead of expecting to be supported, a woman is now expected to become self-sufficient…’Thus, as always, feminist ideology converged with the interests of men who would avoid the responsibility for women that traditional marriage entails.”[xii]


[i] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p.295. Spence, 1998.
[ii] Crittendon,D. “What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us,” p.35. Touchstone,1999.
[iii] http://aclu.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=3131#AmiciCuriae
[iv] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-343.ZO.html
[v] Cushman,C. “Supreme Court Decisions and Women’s Rights” CQ Press, 2001.
[vi] http://economics.ouls.ox.ac.uk/13127/1/Item.pdf
[vii] http://www.law.berkeley.edu/3158.htm
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/family/
[x] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p.296. Spence, 1998.
[xi] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p.296. Spence, 1998.
[xii] Graglia, F.C. “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p.136-137. Spence, 1998.


© 2012 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

Feminism Hurts Women, Child Custody and Support for Rapists

“…In regard to the only issue that I consider properly before the Court, I agree with the State’s argument that the Equal Protection Clause is not violated when Illinois gives full recognition only to those father-child relationships that arise in the context of family units bound together by legal obligations arising from marriage or from adoption proceedings…The Illinois Supreme Court correctly held that the State may constitutionally distinguish between unwed fathers and unwed mothers. Here, Illinois’ different treatment of the two is part of that State’s statutory scheme for protecting the welfare of illegitimate children…Court today pursues that serious business by expanding its legitimate jurisdiction beyond what I read in 28 U.S.C. 1257 as the permissible limits contemplated by Congress. In doing so, it invalidates a provision of critical importance to Illinois carefully drawn statutory system governing family relationships and the welfare of the minor children of the State. And in so invalidating that provision, it ascribes to that statutory system a presumption that is simply not there and embarks on a novel concept of the natural law for unwed fathers that could well have strange boundaries as yet undiscernible…”- STANLEY v. ILLINOIS, 405 U.S. 645 (1972); dissent by Justices Burger & Blackmun


“The feminist quest for female fungibility with males has led the women’s movement to support the invalidation of laws benefiting and protecting women. This was the thrust, for example, of litigation directed by Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she was director of the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union and , often using male plaintiffs, secured invalidation of laws that favored women…one of the benefits women have lost is the maternal preference which favored awarding custody to the mother…In order to secure custody, many women will drastically compromise their financial interests: ‘women who are scared to death of losing custody will trade away anything else- child support, property, alimony to keep it from happening.'”[1]




“Prewitt revealed that what she discovered was that the majority of U.S. states, 31 in total, have no laws that prohibit a rapist from exercising custodial rights. A woman is forced to risk her own legal rights to have the rapist brought to trial in exchange for the man dropping his interests in interacting with the child.”[2]

“Another survivor, a 14-year-old girl, decided to give up her baby for adoption. She was required by law to give notice of the adoption to the rapist, an adult man. While she was permitted by a court to give up her rights to the child, the rapist retained his and then sought child support payments from her,” the lawyer writes. “Another survivor, who gave birth to twins after a date rape, raised them peacefully with her intimate partner until they were five years old, at which time the rapist learned of their existence and filed a lawsuit to establish his paternity and gain visitation rights, and attempted to use the mother’s sexual orientation against her in the legal proceedings.”[3]

1. Graglia, C.F. “Domestic Tranquility:a brief against feminism,” p. 295. Spence, 1998.

2. http://global.christianpost.com/news/rapists-can-claim-custody-visitation-rights-for-victims-babies-80656/#IIAKAsVzsz6QCvgD.99

3. ibid.

Great Quotes by George Gilder

“Another male trait-manifested in every human society but just as hard as aggression to measure in an exam-is aptitude for group leadership. Partly a result of greater aggressiveness and larger physical stature, partly an expression of the need to dominate (perhaps based on the neurophysiological demands of the sex act itself), males in all societies ever studied by anthropologists overwhelmingly prevail in positions of leadership and hold authority in relations with women.”

“The ancient tradition against the use of women in combat embodies the deepest wisdom of the human race. It expresses the most basic imperatives of group survival:a nation or tribe that allows the loss of large numbers of its young women runs the risk of becoming permanently depopulated. The youthful years of women, far more than of men, are precious and irreplaceable.”

“Beyond this general imperative is the related need of every society to insure that male physical strength and aggressiveness are not directed against women. All societies teach their men to avoid physically fighting with women and, most often, to avoid competing face to face with them. All civilized societies train their men to protect and defend women. When these restraints break down-as in tribes like those studied by Colin Turnbull and the Mundugumor, described by Margaret Mead-the group tends to disintegrate completely and even to become extinct.”

“The military services, however, are unanimous in asserting that successful use of women in battlefield units depends on men overcoming their natural impulses to treat women differently and more considerately. The consequence of this latest demand for equality would be nothing more or less than a move toward barbarism.”

Gilder, G. “Men and Marriage.” Pelican, 1993.

Advice for Men on Traditional Values

We all know that it can be hard for women who have traditional values, but what about the men of society who believe in it as well?
As a traditional woman, I speak to many men who by their actions appear to favour traditional roles, but feel imprisoned by political correctness. Many feel that they have to say that they support feminism because they are made to feel that they are compromising women’s rights otherwise. This is not true. In fact, feminism makes women, children and men alike unhappy. It makes society dysfunctional, it has ruined the economy and abolished the family wage, it has stopped people from being able to speak up, it has brainwashed a large portion of society. Feminism sadly is everywhere.

I have some advice that might be helpful to men. Men are the heads of our society, and have been denied their full potential and the power and freedom to express their full masculinity in recent times. Women, men and children will benefit from it if men start standing up again and taking on their masculine roles.

*Remember that you are the man.

Don’t allow feminism to walk all over you. Appear confident and strong and don’t be afraid to show you have pride and are the boss and leader in any given situation. Contrary to popular belief, this does not mean that men are arrogant, or pig-headed. There is nothing at all wrong in getting a little macho. Women subconsciously find this very attractive in a man. It’s wired into our natural instincts to appreciate a macho man.

*Ignore any advice that tells you to be a jerk and how being macho is not necessarily the same thing

You have probably heard it all before, women love ‘bad boys’ and ‘jerks’. This could not be further from the truth. Being a macho man does not always constitute to being a jerk. A macho man is one who is noble and proud in his responsibility as a male. He is a man who can stand up and lay down the law and take charge of a situation. He’s the man who offers to carry a woman’s heavy bags, he’s the man who stays faithful to his wife, he’s the man with good virtue, he’s the man who opens doors, he’s the man who offers his seat on the bus, he’s the man who keeps his cool composure and sticks to good morals, he’s the man who defends his loved ones, he’s the man with absolute authourity over his wife and children, he’s the man who does his best to provide for his family and stand up for the weak. Please do not confuse good virtue with being a ‘pushover’. Pushovers are men who allow themselves to get bitter, and don’t speak up for themselves in a way in which benefits society or themselves.
Treat every woman like you would want your daughter, mother, sister or grandma to be treated. Be the man you want every other man or boy to be.

*Be the better example

So a woman who holds feminist views got mad because you tell her your opinion, or open a door for her? You might feel somehow like it’s been thrown back in your face, you might feel offended and defeated. Take a step back and be the better example. Don’t stop opening doors or offering seats to women. Don’t stop politely expressing your views or your acts of chivalry. If some get offended, that’s because feminism has society brainwashed. Be the better example, kill them with virtue and keep your cool composure. A good woman who knows the truth WILL appreciate this and you will feel more in control if you do not allow yourself to go down to a feminist’s level of getting bitter and thinking ‘what the hell’. There is nothing healthier for a man’s ego and self esteem than feeling secure and in control, and feeling like he’s the leader and teacher who gives a better example. Assert yourself. Who do we look to for higher power? authourity and leadership, the better example. The more men who stop believing in traditional gender roles and stop chivalry and stop asserting themselves the more society will go downhill. As a man this is in your hands. Do not let women take over the authouritive role. See badly behaved women almost like you would see a naughty child, don’t see them as equal. When you start seeing them as equal you start seeing them as other men. This is very damaging for society and damaging to everything that keeps it stable and structured. When men start seeing women as equals and women stop looking to men as the patriarchy this is when problems really start to go down.

*Lay down the law with your wife or partner and be in charge of big decisions

Let women know that you will not stand for things that you don’t approve of. Make sure you give logical/noble/fair reasons for this and here are some examples:

“I don’t want you wearing that outfit out without me there, it shows too much skin, and I worry about your personal safety and how you might get treated. I will not have you leave the house with next to nothing on”
“I will not allow you to spend this much money or buy this item now. We need to budget for household essentials but we can find an alternative, or perhaps save”
“I will not allow you to talk to this other man or hang out with these friends. I don’t trust this person/people and think that they could possibly lead you into trouble. You are not to go there with them or do that, because I want what is best for you and that’s final”
“I will not allow you to go there or do that, because I worry about your safety, I don’t think it’s right for you to go there or do that because of this reason and my decision is final”.
This is very different from being abusive, or truly controlling. You are protecting your wife/partner, looking out for any children and laying down the law as king of his castle. Even if some women might try and rebel at first because this seems unusual in western culture today, we subconsciously prefer a man to be domineering in a masculine, fair and noble way.
Don’t be afraid to confiscate harmful things, or stand in the way of doors, or use gentle physical restraint if your wife/partner is doing something to disobey you.
Hitting, nasty name calling, or using any more physical restraint than necessary on a woman is out of bounds. You are the boss, bosses should not behave like this. (see be the better example).
Never be afraid to discuss with your wife if something she does personally upsets you. However, use your senses to define what is reasonable and unreasonable. For example, not allowing your wife to dye her hair because it makes you feel jealous that she looks good is not fair, or reasonable. Not allowing your wife to wear any make-up, trying to alter your wife’s appearance for vanity reasons, trying to get your wife to do sex acts that she feels uncomfortable with, spending your household budget unwisely so that your household goes without essentials, These examples are not the practise of a good leader. If your wife is flirting with other men, using pornography or sex toys you do not approve of, listening to vulgar music, drinking, or smoking, is rude or is watching TV shows that you deem as seriously not suitable, or your wife is allowing the house to overflow and get dirty, or treats the children unreasonably you have a right to lay down the law. Yes your feelings need to be considered, but not above fairness and reason. Women and children respect and obey a man who can remain firm but fair. Your wife and children should not obey you out of fear, but out of respect as the main authourity.

*Be a good role model

Never allow your children to see you doing anything that you wouldn’t want them to become. A wife that respects and values her Husband’s authourity is also a good example to children (see above).
You have a right to keep your daughter from dating boys that you do not deem suitable. However, be fair with this. Do not abuse this responsibility. If he treats her well, and genuinely loves her and wants to look after her, give them your blessing but watch over her at the same time. If she brings a rude, abusive thug home who you can tell makes her feel afraid take her aside and talk to her and lay down the law. A guy being currently unemployed, socially awkward around you, or a little scruffy does not mean that he’s necessarily a bad guy but do make it clear of your expectations. Make sure you are fair and realistic. Don’t expect a socially deprived working class boy to suddenly become a lawyer overnight. Try and befriend your daughter’s suitors if possible so that you get to know them, there is no other surefire way of getting to know if someone is a good person. Spend male quality time. You might even be the positive influence that this boy needs to be the best match for your daughter.
Teach your son the value of respect, be the man you want him to be. He will follow your example.
Be the type of man you want your daughter to marry and make sure your wife is a good example to your children. The way that you treat your child’s Mother and whether or not she respects you will shape children’s relationships when they are adults. Think what is best for them at all times before you act.
You also need to lay down the law. As I said before. You make the rules, make sure that your children obey them as does your wife. Use reasonable punishments and set curfews. Never use draconian measures that make your family feel afraid of you. Use measures that make them understand that they can’t get away with misbehaviour and that you are boss and you know best.
If your wife is treating the children in a manner that you deem unreasonable, step in and discipline her. Do not aim to create loud arguments, no family is perfect, but try and be placating and use reasonable physical restraint (see above) if needs be.

Never resent or become bitter about your responsibilities like society might sometimes tell you to. You are your own best judge. Your responsibilities are noble, and help keep society functioning and families intact. You are the pillar, creator and head of society. That is something to be proud of and something to inspire you and to work on. Society is a mess today, and things like no fault divorce do exist. Sadly men do not have the legal control that they used to have, but we still need to make the best out of a bad situation. Do not let life and the terrible outcome of feminism and women’s lib bring you down to the lowest possible place. You are better than that, and you can be. The only power you need is believing in yourself and don’t lose all faith in humanity. Whenever there is a will there is a way.



© 2012 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

My review of “Feminist Fantasies”

This is my review of Phyllis Schlafly’s book “Feminist Fantasies”

This book is kind of like a history about the women’s “liberation” movement and letters Schlafly wrote and the history of the things that happened. Nobody ever questions this thing called “equal rights.” Many people have not looked into it far enough to realize the agonizing effects it has really had on our society and the lives of millions of women, children and even men.I have heard some women think the assertion that women’s liberation has actually harmed women was simply the most ridiculous think they ever heard. Even I never really thought about things until after I had a child. It was only then that I really longed to understand why I was put at such a disadvantage. It seemed that nobody cared that women and men are indeed different and that women do things that men do not. We carry burdens that men do not. I didn’t understand that we used to have laws that PROTECTED us from men that wanted to take advantage of us and exploit us in many different ways. It seemed that making us all “equal” in the eyes of the law and treating a woman the same as a man was not only putting women at a disadvantage in multiple areas of life (think forced military service)but also similar to allowing an adult to pick on a child (think men exploiting women).

I have been a housewife for years and anytime I talk about how my husband has always taken care of us and provided for us everyone always talks about how I MUST have some way to support myself because, hey, he could take off and leave at anytime then how would I survive? What some of them apparently don’t understand is that the only reason a man is able to do that is because of the women’s liberation. The very laws that used to protect us are either 1) not in existence anymore or 2) routinely used against us BY men. When I truly came to the understanding of things and really learned our history and how the women’s movement (that was supposed to “liberate” us and give us all kinds of wonderful rights) had simply left us out there without any protection, the truth was enough to practically bring me to my knees. My heart literally cries inside for what we have truly lost and what women’s liberation has truly ripped away from us. I see girls everyday being taken advantage of. Nobody cares that our entertainment many times consists of men bashing, making false allegations and calling women every name in the book (something that used to be illegal). Even my own mother was taken advantage of by my dad (who was in his 30s when they married while she was only 18). Instead of being required to provide for his wife he controlled her and took advantage of her in every way possible (something he could not have done before women’s liberation).

I am so thankful that someone like Schlafly was there to stand up for women. Even though the ERA never did pass (thanks in large part to Schlafly) that didn’t stop equal rights fanatics and feminists from going on a rampage to make all laws gender neutral (no matter how absurd, unjust and illogical it is). It seems as though nobody has the courage to stand up for women anymore and the injustice the women’s movement has done to us. It just makes you wonder what the future holds…


© 2012 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.