The Guardianship of a Woman, Part VIII: Conclusion

[The Guardianship of a Woman FULL ARTICLE PDF here (link stays on-site)]




The results of all this have been to lock all those in modern society into a box. Even if we are unhappy, nobody is to question the dogma of “gender equality” as some kind of humane aspiration and social good. But has it done good? When the Federal Government first got involved in the civil rights game after the Civil War, they ran into opposition from president Andrew Johnson, who had succeeded Lincoln after his assassination. Despite Johnson’s loyalty to the union, he could not support such a broad extension of Federal power and clung to his Jeffersonian and Jacksonian beliefs in a limited Federal government. Despite modern beliefs about racism and civil rights, Johnson’s veto of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (easily and promptly overridden by Congress) gives a chilling premonition in light of modern circumstances and the absurd ways in which the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment[41] has been expanded far beyond the intentions of its framers:

I do not propose to consider the policy of this bill…Capital, it is true, has more intelligence, but labor is never so ignorant as not to understand its own interests, not to know its own value, and not to see that capital must pay that value.

This bill frustrates this adjustment. It intervenes between capital and labor and attempts to settle questions of political economy through the agency of numerous officials whose interest it will be to foment discord…

In all our history, in all our experience as a people living under Federal and State law, no such system as that contemplated by the details of this bill has ever before been proposed or adopted…[It] interfere[s] with the municipal legislation of the States, with the relations existing exclusively between a State and its citizens, or between inhabitants of the same State- an absorption and assumption of power by the General Government which, if acquiesced in, must sap and destroy our federative system of limited powers and break down the barriers which preserve the rights of the States. It is another step, or rather stride, toward centralization and the concentration of all legislative powers in the National Government. The tendency of the bill must be to resuscitate the spirit of rebellion and to arrest the progress of those influences which are more closely drawing around the states the bonds of union and peace.[42]

But our Founding Fathers left to the American people the right to appeal to our legislators and to appeal to the courts to redress any wrongs and grievances. I do here and now so appeal. I appeal to the legislators of the states, I appeal to the courts of competent jurisdiction, and I appeal to the Representatives and Senators of the United States Congress that feminism has been a mistake since its very inception, and that the distinctiveness of the natures of the male and female sexes must be acknowledged, upheld, and- at the most personal level- delighted in for all the ways in which nature has so carefully designed them. It must also be considered why we continue to indulge in and be obsessed with “equality” of the sexes. Do we do so only because we have been taught to do so? Do we do so only because of what was once the beliefs of a radical minority that pushed and prodded and campaigned until legislators and the courts finally caved in to their demands? Is it blind adherence to dogma without reason or critical reflection? For the liberty and welfare of the people, for the safeguarding of our families to ensure to our offspring their best chances of succeeding in life, and to truly find peace and happiness, I appeal– unless we are to conceded that we are all slaves to the state and are to be ruled by a tiny and vocal minority while our happiness and humanity is thrust aside in the name of a fictitious and fanciful view of fairness and equality.


[41] U. S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1-2 states, (emphasis added) “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws…But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”

So why is an amendment that itself clearly discriminates on the basis of sex being used to hold that discrimination based upon sex is unconstitutional, according to that very same amendment? This amendment was clearly intended to protect African-American males from the tyranny of the Southern states. So what happened? Perhaps the answer can be found in the words of the late Supreme Court justice William J. Brennan, Jr.: “Five votes. Five votes can do anything around here.” The Constitutionalist by Nat Hentoff, (Last Visited December 5, 2018).

[42] Quoted in Urofsky & Finkelman, Documents of American Constitutional and Legal History, Volume I, p. 472