Vagina pass: Oxford student (girl) who stabbed boyfriend could be spared jail.

British society is obsessed with political correctness.  The Myth of Equality is often falsely promoted by feminists and SJWs, when in fact, they want more privileges

True equality is not possible, and those who would try and achieve it do so only by leveling downwards – making conditions worse for many. These are the facts in socialist countries like Cuba and Venezuela.

However, our legal system should protect the victims (men, women, children) and jail criminals. We think criminals are not able to live in society. Zero tolerance policy is the best thing for them. It does not matter their physical aspect or gender.

But our system is protecting criminal women AGAIN.  Read our article .Is the UK Legal System directed by feminists putting women above the law?

The same kind of woman who wants equality, but is protected by the system due to the vagina pass created by feminists.  Erin Pizzey, British domestic violence specialist and woman has been exposing this fact for years.  Pizzey has been the subject of death threats and boycotts (from  feminists) because of her research into the claim that most domestic violence is reciprocal, and that women are equally capable of violence as men.

In fact, feminists have been promoting false rape accusations for the last 25 years and we still can see it today.  Read our article about that.

What is a vagina pass?

Vagina pass is the phenomenon that female criminals get off with a lighter sentence than males for the same crime.

See below:

This Oxford University student who stabbed her boyfriend could be spared jail after a judge said she had an “extraordinary” talent for medicine

Lavinia Woodward, 24, who studied at Christ Church College, Oxford, stabbed her Cambridge-educated boyfriend in the leg on December 30 last year following a row.

The pair had a drink and drug-fuelled argument, and Woodward punched and swiped at the victim with a bread knife.

She then stabbed the man before hurling a laptop, glass and a jam jar at him.

Prosecutor Cathy Olliver said Woodward met her ex-boyfriend on Tinder.

The pair had a row, and when he threatened to call Woodward’s mother, his then-girlfriend punched him before picking up a bread knife and stabbing him in the leg.

The victim, believed to be a PhD student at Cambridge University, had begun dating Woodward earlier in the term after they met on dating app Tinder.

According to her Facebook page she attended Sir James Henderson British School of Milan, a £16,000-a-year international school in the Italian city.

She had had a “very troubled life” and had been abused by another former partner, her defence lawyer told the court.

Woodward, who was present in court for the sentencing hearing, is currently believed to be on holiday in Barbados. She is set to return to the university for the next academic year.

Woodward will be sentenced on September 25. She was given a restraining order, and told to stay drug-free and not to re-offend.

Can you imagine a male student stabbing a girl? Feminists would go crazy. We suspect if she was male then it would be an undoubted prison sentence. There is still a massive statistical injustice between men and women being jailed for similar crimes.

Is the UK Legal System directed by feminists putting women above the law? What do you think about it?

Miss USA 17: woman, black, scientist and non feminist under fire for feminism comments

Kara McCullough, a 25-year-old scientist working for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, was crowned Miss USA 2017 on Sunday by 2016 winner DeShauna Barber, also of the District of Columbia, at the Mandalay Bay Convention Center in Las Vegas. McCullough will go on to represent America in the Miss Universe contest.

The new Miss USA 17 is a woman (sorry, transgenders), black,  scientist and non feminist.

“I’m extremely thankful for this opportunity,” McCullough told reporters after the event. “I just want to encourage so many women nationwide to find their passion in any subject possible and understand that nothing is difficult if you really, truly put the work in for it.”

Yes, smart, beautiful (beauty is not relative, feminists) and not playing the victim card.

During the pageant, McCullough created a controversy when she was asked some questions:

Are you a feminist?

She said: “I don’t want to call myself a feminist,” she said. “Women, we are just as equal as men, especially in the workplace.” “Is health care a right or privilege?”

Yes, people. She is clever and the feminist “equality “ fake definition did not work for her.

About health care?

“I’m definitely going to say it’s a privilege,” McCullough answered. She added: “As a government employee, I’m granted health care and I see firsthand that for one to have health care, you need to have jobs. We need to continue to cultivate this environment that we’re given the opportunity to have health care as well as jobs to all American citizens worldwide.”

Smart. Like we said in the past:”There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”

What was so good about her answer was the fact that she went way beyond the easy way out of just telling people what she thought was right or most compassionate. Instead she got down to the heart of the matter by reminding us that when it comes to health care or any other commodity, you can’t talk about providing it until you cover who’s paying for it.

This has always been the core of the issue about health care even if it only seems like we’ve been arguing about it since the Obamacare debate began in 2009. Put into specific “right” vs. “privilege” terms, it began as early as 1936 when the still new Soviet Union guaranteed health care as a right to its citizens.

Predictably, McCullough was pilloried by feminist critics online after her response. She was attacked as a “dumb broad” and had her comments deliberately misrepresented.

Miss USA, who also happens to be a scientist working at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, whose answer is like a much needed shot of reality.

Real science and not that piece of rubbish called gender studies.

Is it right to take more than 50-60% in tax? Feminists said yes.

hqdefault

This feminist above is called Dawn Foster. She is a journalist from The Guardian. During the TV programme The Big Questions she defended taxes rise above 50%. In fact, she said she was happy to pay 70% in taxes. Can you imagine paying 70% in taxes? Nanny State parasites and socialists love that. Normally, they don’t build wealth. Someone else must pay for them. They still believe the government is superior to personal choices.

The Big Questions is usually presented by Nicky Campbell. It is broadcast live on BBC One between 10:00am on Sundays. On 14th May two questions were asked:

1-Is it right to take more than 50% in tax?

2-Do we have a right not to be offended?

maxresdefault

This feminist is also against capitalism.

We are not surprised about feminist opinions. Feminists and socialists think the government is their hero. They think the government is perfect. They think everything is free. BUT they forget the government doesn’t create wealth. In fact, our taxes are the government money source. More you want from the government, more taxes would be raised.

The  prominent economist Milton Friedman said once: “There is no such thing as a free lunch? (Explaining: Whatever goods and services are provided, they must be paid for by someone – that is, you don’t get something for nothing).

Milton Friedman believed the Government had three primary functions. His words:

“Government has three primary functions. It should provide for military defense of the nation. It should enforce contracts between individuals. It should protect citizens from crimes against themselves or their property. When government– in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player.”

Milton Friedman was not alone. Economists as Thomas Sowell and Ludwig von Mises were against socialism and the Nanny State.

Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it (Thomas Sowell ).

ThomasSowell

thomas-Sowell-on-taking-money-from-others

socialism-is-an-alternative-to-capitalism-as-potassium-cyanide-is-18004624

karl-marx-ludwig-von-mises-advocated-dictatorship-of-he-escaped-2734231

Sadly, we still can see  people defending socialism due to ignorance in relation to political agendas and economics. It is shameful that some of our politicians want to implement socialism in the UK. It is a shame that feminists support them. Where there is socialism, there is poverty and misery. Do your research about Cuba and Venezuela.

We are still blaming the people that are wealthy in the UK how terrible villains. What if they honesty worked for that? Are Margharet and John guilty for have worked hard for 20 years and have made good business decisions to have some wealth? Is the small businessman/ woman guilty for try to increase his wealth opening a business and creating jobs?

Socialists and feminists are still using the same strategies, tactics and arguments based on class struggle and their supposed good intentions and worries about the poor. What’s their solution? More taxes, more Nanny State, more government dependency. What do they offer? Nothing

We should remember that Socialists / Nanny States are full of poor people escaping from their own countries ( North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela).

Winston Churchill once said: “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery”. This quote is still relevant.

Feminists are supporting raises taxes. We are not surprised. From feminist strategies to tactics and arguments used the feminist agenda is politically clear. In Britain, the women’s movement has been allied with the socialists and communists for decades.

It is time to wake up and learn some economics, people. The feminist agenda is politically clear.

 

 

 

 

False rape accusations: Teacher falsely accused of rape found not guilty. What will happen with the schoolgirl?

innocent

An old feminist (Catherine Comins, 2nd wave of feminism) said once:….”men who are unjustly accused can sometimes gain from the experience. ‘They have a lot of pain, but it is not a pain that I would necessarily have spared them….”

Well, a bad tree cannot bear good fruit and we can see it in 2017 after years of feminism brainwashing our children.

Rape is a serious crime and all rapists shoud be punished (both genders) severely. No mercy with  criminals. However, serious crimes should be carefully investigated.

Read the article below \/

A teacher found not guilty of raping a 14-year-old pupil has said that no man “in his right mind” should become a teacher.

Kato Harris, 38, was accused of raping and sodomising a pupil at the private girls’ school he taught at during the autumn term of 2013.

The girl alleged the attacks happened when Mr Harris invited her to join him in a classroom during lunch break.

Mr Harris, who was head of department at the London school, was cleared last year of three counts of raping a girl under the age of 16, following just 26 minutes of deliberation by the jury.

Speaking to TalkRadio today in his first broadcast interview since clearing his name, Mr Harris said that he had been left questioning why any man would possibly want to consider a career in teaching.

Mr Harris told TalkRadio: “After the ordeal I’ve been through, would I go back and make the same decision to be a teacher again? The answer is no, and the public would understand that.

“I’ve tried to explain why my case delivers a very strong message to men who are thinking about being teachers, about why that is not something they should do.

“There is a narrative now in safeguarding in schools as much as anywhere else that every male employee is viewed through the lens of being a potential pervert. Every male teacher is a potential child abuser.”

He said that male teachers are “buying a lottery ticket”, adding: “You might win a £10 prize and have a false allegation made that you called a child a rude name, or swore at a child. You might win the £1,000 prize and have a pupil suggest you inappropriately touched them while passing in corridor.

“Or you might win the jackpot and be accused of, on three separate occasions and in full view of the school, anally raping a pupil. Whatever the prize, who would want that ticket? But you can’t be a teacher without one and you have a one in five chance of winning.”

“You’ve got a one-in-five chance of ‘winning a prize’ that we know – I wouldn’t want to buy that ticket and I don’t see why any man in his right mind would want to either.”

Mr Harris said he felt no bitterness towards his accuser, instead saying he felt “genuinely sorry for her”.

He had left the school before the allegations were made against him in December 2014, and doesn’t believe the girl – who he had never taught – had a grudge against him.

In an interview last month with the Mail on Sunday, Mr Harris said he was “unemployed, living in a bedsit and will soon be on housing benefit. I am toxic.”

———————————————————————————————————————————–

Women against feminism UK: Luckily, this innocent man has been found not guilty.

However, it is still tragic. This innocent man should be able to claim against schools insurance for loss of career, or sue parents of schoolgirl.  The schoogril should be jailed for few years. Yet another case that shows the prosecuted should be granted the same privacy right as victims – until they are found guilty. That would at least be some justice and help towards starting a new life. There are disappointed women who will not be satisfied until all and any relationships or communications between men and women can be defined as rape by the man. These women are supported by feminsits who think being all right unjustly accusing innocent men for the last 30 years.

Scandinavian feminists prostitutes of Islam don hijabs in Iran.

muppetsgoing

Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden’s “feminist” government Isabella Lövin  recently attacked U.S. President Donald J. Trump for having men in his top team. However, when her colleagues visited Iran they refused to take a stand against legally enforced female subjugation.

There were 11 women on the trip led by Prime Minister Stefan Lofven this weekend, according to Expressen, and they were all photographed in headscarves “almost all of the time”, apart from at events in the Swedish Embassy.

Yes, people. The “powerful” feminists from Sweden are wearing  veils  (a symbol of the oppression of women in Iran, and it is not only customary, but legislated oppression of women) by a Muslim government

It is illegal for women to go out in public without wearing headscarves in Iran, where thousands of undercover agents and “morality police” patrol the streets to check for violations. Women found to have their hair or bodies inadequately covered can be publicly admonished, fined, or even arrested.

Feminist woman lies in a feminist TV programme that she passed British special forces selection

Image result for Azi Ahmed

This is Azi Ahmed, a Muslim feminist. She first popped up on the national press (feminist TV programme Loose Women, feminist newspapers) seeking  publicity for her book and future career as a public motivational speaker.She is also trying to be a politician promoting the feminist and Islamic agenda. See below

img_2909

Why is she famous? (Ok, not not so famous)

She reported that she along with “several other women” were hand picked to attempt SAS (British special forces) selection. The SAS is the world’s finest elite force.

Her words: “I was one of the first women to learn how to fight behind enemy lines. I trained with the SAS between 1999 and 2002, at a time when the idea of women on the frontline was total fantasy.”

But there something missing in her story: THE SAS DON’T ACCEPT WOMEN.

The SAS was founded in 1941 during the II World War to fight National Socialism and Fascism using Unconventional Warfare. The unit undertakes a number of roles including covert reconnaissance, counter-terrorism, direct action and hostage rescue. From the approximately 200 candidates, most will drop out within the first few days, and by the end about 20 will remain. Sometimes less people pass the selection.

There was a rule: women were not allowed to join the SAS. Why? Because in 1941 men wanted to protect women. Some units do accepet women and some don’t accept women. They have the right to do it. Security is a serious business and should not be affected by political correctness.

As a good feminist, Azi Ahmed blamed the “sexist”society and the British Army playing the victim card.

“A week before I was due to receive my ‘sandy beret’ – the trademark of the SAS uniform – the experiment to allow women in the SAS was canned. The Army simply wasn’t ready for women.
I was angry. I’d put myself through the toughest mental, emotional and physical challenges known to man” 

That’s how feminism works and you have probably learnt it: Men protect women, men are sexist. Men don’t protect women, men are sexist. Whatever men do, men are sexist.

This is how social justice warrior and feminists think: don’t use violence but they want to do it and normally in the worst way possible (see the leftist attack against #MiloYiannopoulos  in the USA). Feminist women want to have masculine characteristics in a simple case of penis envy but also want to emasculate men. All in the name of equality.

Feminist want to change society with crazy ideas (read it here). Now they are targeting our security and the British Army.

As if it were not enough, this disgusting feminist played the good Muslim woman card and blamed society and the British Army for intolerance against Muslims. Seriously? A person who does not believe in Western values but live in the UK, a person who blames the UK but does not talk about countries in countries in The Middle East were women are second-class citizens.

This feminist is an insult to anyone who has ever served. She should be ashamed of herself

Feminists want equality but if treated equally, complain about equality. Feminists want privileges.Whatever you find a feminist complainig about something, you see destruction of good ideas and lack of commonsense.

This obsession for equality is an old left wing mantra were enough is never enough. Left wing regimes killed millions for equality. Feminism, as a left wing movement support these regimes.

So in a nut shell…..

Azi Ahmed is a Muslim feminist. She is a liar. She needs exposing on a national level. She is disrespectful human being to all those who served. Her book is a fabrication.

This is an example of how a feminist goes too far about promoting the feminist agenda. Put her on trial in a court of law and see if she tells the same story.

Who said that? Suffragists, Ku Klux Klan or feminazis?

breaking-news-miley-cyrus-denounces-donald-trump-for-his-crude-5078881

Some say 1st wave feminism was the “good feminism”. Individualist, not collectivist. Not totalitarian, not hateful. Abolitionist. It only wanted freedom, equality, dignity for all. But then, later came the so-called feminazis.

So, this is going to be the easiest quiz on the internet. 

Below there are just 7 quotes. Which of them are from a) suffragists, b) KKK members, and which are from c) modern times radical feminists/feminazis? The answers will follow.

Ready? Suffragists, KKK or feminazis? Go!

1. Alien illiterates rule our cities today; the saloon is their palace, and the toddy stick their scepter. The colored race multiplies like the locusts of Egypt.

2. Better whiskey and more of it’ is the rallying cry of great, dark-faced mobs.

3. The safety of [white] women, of childhood, of the home is menaced in a thousand localities.

4. I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ask for the ballot for the Negro and not for the woman.

5. Mr. Douglass talks about the wrongs of the Negro; but with all the outrages that he to-day suffers, he would not exchange his sex and take the place of Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

6. We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men

7. What will we and our daughters suffer if these degraded black men are allowed to have the rights that would make them even worse than our Saxon fathers?

Ready or not, the answers are coming next.

Answers

1st, 2nd and 3rd: Suffragist Frances Elizabeth Caroline Willard, 1839 – 1898. President of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, founder of the National Council of Women.

Alien illiterates rule our cities today; the saloon is their palace, and the toddy stick their scepter. The colored race multiplies like the locusts of Egypt.

Better whiskey and more of it’ is the rallying cry of great, dark-faced mobs.

The safety of women, of childhood, of the home is menaced in a thousand localities.

 

 

4th and 5th: Suffragist Susan Brownell Anthony, 1820-1906. Member of the Anti-Slavery Society, president of the American Woman Suffrage Association.

I will cut off this right arm of mine before I will ask for the ballot for the Negro and not for the woman.

Mr. Douglass talks about the wrongs of the Negro; but with all the outrages that he today suffers, he would not exchange his sex and take the place of Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

Suffragists already used the rhetorical tactic of presenting the situation of white women as not only equivalent, but even worse than that of the black slave. That was, on its face, an absurdity. But it’s easy to exploit with rhetoric the positive sexism toward women, bringing much greater empathy towards the white woman then the black man. And Anthony was an abolitionist, but… the problem is in that “but”, right?

Speaking of the feminist’s rhetoric, should Mr. Douglass exchange his sex as any way to prove his points about “the wrongs of the negro”? And isn’t it interesting Anthony’s attempt to exclude Douglass being born in slavery with the word today? If today he is not a slave but an important national personality, what would he be so upset about, uh? Well… maybe he was concerned with the status of all black people and their future in the US?

Just a reminder of who that Mr. Douglass was, especially for non-Americans:

The Right has no sex, the Truth has no color.” (Frederick Douglass)

Certainly admirable words of a black people’s rights activist, not at all like the New Left, Post Modern, SJW’s who drive our hands to our faces today.

Frederick Douglass (1818–1895) escaped his life as a slave in Maryland after 2 failed attempts. It was then hard to believe that someone with his background could be such a brilliant orator, writer, and statesman. He became close friend of personalities such as Abraham Lincoln. He, however, died seeing black people having advanced very little in the civil equality he so passionately fought for.

This is the man who, according to fallacious pioneer feminist icon Susan B. Anthony, “would not exchange his sex” with her friend, Lady Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

Douglass was also friends with Stanton – but then, the proposal for the constitutional amend giving blacks the suffrage before white women came. That was when “suffragist” leaders showed their true colors for the historical record.

Quotes 6 and 7: Suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton, 1815-1902. Who was another abolitionist suffragist who nevertheless “recognized the facts” about “the beastly negro men”.

We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men.

What will we and our daughters suffer if these degraded black men are allowed to have the rights that would make them even worse than our Saxon fathers?

So, suffragists “only wanted and believed in equality”? You don’t say! With “Infinitely superior to men” and White supremacy! Bitch, please.

Don’t be mislead by my sarcastic humor. This is ugly, and it is going to get worse.

Eager to see what blend of supremacist “drops of wisdom” I’ve got under my sleeve for you to sort out in Part 2?

Well, I have a surprise: Part 2 is right below too. Why not?

Come back later, or see it all right away.

Quiz: Suffragists, Ku Klux Klan or Feminazis? Part 2

1. White supremacy will be strengthened, not weakened, by women’s suffrage.

2. The white men, reinforced by the educated white women, could ‘snow under’ the Negro vote in every State, and the white race would maintain its supremacy without corrupting or intimidating the Negroes.

3. I do not want to see a negro man walk to the polls and vote on who should handle my tax money, while I myself cannot vote at all…When there is not enough religion in the pulpit to organize a crusade against sin; nor justice in the court house to promptly punish crime; nor manhood enough in the nation to put a sheltering arm about innocence and virtue—if it needs lynching to protect woman’s dearest possession from the ravening human beasts—then I say lynch, a thousand times a week if necessary.

4.The enfranchisement of women would insure immediate and durable white supremacy, honestly attained; for, upon unquestionable authority, it is stated that “in every Southern State but one, there are more educated women than all the illiterate voters, white and black, native and foreign, combined.” As you probably know, of all the women in the South who can read and write, ten out of every eleven are white. When it comes to the proportion of property between the races, that of the white outweighs that of the black immeasurably. The South is slow to grasp the great fact that the enfranchisement of women would settle the race question in politics.

5. You have put the ballot in the hands of your black men, thus making them political superiors of white women. Never before in the history of the world have men made former slaves the political masters of their former mistresses!

6. I’d rather be a rebel than a slave.

7. Henceforth women are to be dictators. … The time has come to make this world muddle men have created and strive to turn it into an ordered, peaceful, happy abiding place for humanity.

The answers are below.

1st: Suffragist Carrie Chapman Catt, 1859-1947. Teacher, journalist, founder of the League of Women Voters.

White supremacy will be strengthened, not weakened, by women’s suffrage.

Outstanding , Mrs. Catt! Who would not be convinced by this argument for women’s suffrage?

 

2: Suffragist Laura Clay, 1849-1940. Founder and president of the first suffragists’ group in Kentucky, the Kentucky Equal Rights Association. Active member of the Democratic Party, she was an important local, state and national leadership. First woman to be indicated as a candidate to president of the United States.

The white men, reinforced by the educated white women, could ‘snow under’ the Negro vote in every State, and the white race would maintain its supremacy without corrupting or intimidating the Negroes.

 

 

 

The 3rd is from Suffragist Rebecca Ann Latimer Felton, 1835-1930. Teacher, writer, prison reformist, first woman senator in the USA. Also, white supremacist and slave owner.

“I do not want to see a negro man walk to the polls and vote on who should handle my tax money, while I myself cannot vote at all…When there is not enough religion in the pulpit to organize a crusade against sin; nor justice in the court house to promptly punish crime; nor manhood enough in the nation to put a sheltering arm about innocence and virtue—-if it needs lynching to protect woman’s dearest possession from the ravening human beasts—-then I say lynch, a thousand times a week if necessary.

Yes, she was using the “where are the true men” routine. And yes, she was implying that white men lynching blacks, as she wanted them to, was what it meant “to be a man.”

4th: Suffragist Belle Kearney, 1863-1939. Speaker, writer, member of the Temperance Movement, teacher, State Senator in Mississipi.

The enfranchisement of women would insure immediate and durable white supremacy, honestly attained; for, upon unquestionable authority, it is stated that “in every Southern State but one, there are more educated women than all the illiterate voters, white and black, native and foreign, combined.” As you probably know, of all the women in the South who can read and write, ten out of every eleven are white. When it comes to the proportion of property between the races, that of the white outweighs that of the black immeasurably. The South is slow to grasp the great fact that the enfranchisement of women would settle the race question in politics. [see full speech in multiple sources].

By the way, within all the racism in this excerpt, did you notice, the parts where she speaks about how white women were “deprived of education” (yes, that is irony) in the racist, sexist, chivalrous “Patriarchal” southern states? I did. And if you are not so feminist, you are not that surprised by how the “Patriarchy” used to work.

5th: Suffragist Anna Howard Shaw, 1847-1919. Doctor, Methodist minister, president of the National Woman Suffrage Association.

You have put the ballot in the hands of your black men, thus making them political superiors of white women. Never before in the history of the world have men made former slaves the political masters of their former mistresses!

 

6th: English Suffragists, played by Carey Mulligan, Meryl Streep, Anne Marie Duff and Romola Garai, in the movie Suffragettes2015:

The phrase, stamped in promo t-shirts above, has an actual historical origin. It’s from Emmeline Pankhurst in 1913, when she said:

I know that women, once convinced that they are doing what is right, that their rebellion is just, will go on, no matter what the difficulties, no matter what the dangers, so long as there is a woman alive to hold up the flag of rebellion. I would rather be a rebel than a slave. I would rather die than submit; and that is the spirit that animates this movement…..I mean to be a voter in the land that gave me birth or they shall kill me, and my challenge to the Government is: kill me or give me my freedom: I shall force you to make that choice.

To add some perspective adjustment here: have you ever seen a slave, kept in submission, receive special treatment when committing crimes and then demand that their Masters die and/or kill, to be maimed or to dismember others, for the slave’s sake, because that is the least their “owners can” do? Well, there you have it. She would never, possibly, “rather be a rebel then a slave”, because she was not a slave; She was a Madam.

Not without reason people speak of something called white feminism. And if you didn’t know what that is, here you have the synthesis of the arrogance, the shameless, extremely egoistic, false self-attribution of others’ true oppression, by the elitist white feminist. And you also know something else of importance: when it began. “White (racist) feminism”, just like “elitist” feminism, “man-hatred” feminism – even though there were exceptions to confirm the rule – is the original feminism, it’s core and soul.

And don’t forget, Emmeline, among other infamous facts about her, did not fight for the poorer women to have the vote (see 5th paragraph in this article and reference), and most certainly not for slaves.

7th. Suffragist Alva Belmont. Socialite, multimillionaire and president of the National Woman’s Party.

Henceforth women are to be dictators. … The time has come to make this world muddle men have created and strive to turn it into an ordered, peaceful, happy abiding place for humanity.

Belmont’s full text shows her sophistry, something like this: 1) There are dictators in the world; 2) And awful things as well; 3) Dictators, as politicial leaders in general, are almost always men; 4) Therefore, the world is this way because of men; 5) Men have always “oppressed women”; 6) Enough of men concentrating power in their hands; 7) And how will we make this world marvellous? 8) With women dictators, of course!!!

It is the same essentialist and collectivist reasoning of any racist totalitarian, only applied to all men, instead of to ethnicity. It is presented raw, not as sophisticated – deceitful, misleading, dishonest, faulty, spurious, distorted – and backed by a myriad of pseudo-scientific feminist literature as we have today – but it is the very same reasoning of so many feminists today: power “in the hands of of men” (in the hands of one, or 0,8%, is already in the hands “of men”) is oppression; the more power in the hands of women, it doesn’t matter what kind of women, or how much power that means… is equality, it’s the smashing of “The Patriarchy”, the end of oppression; it is the best for the world! Or, in that one world, it is empowerment!

Conclusions

Among other self-evidences,

  • 1st wave feminists did not want, believe or stand for, “just equality, freedom and dignity for all”.
  • The feminist leaders of the 1st wave were from socially and financially privileged backgrounds, and in more than one opportunity turned their back on people who were suffering, who they deceived posing as champions for those people. They did it for sheer self-interest and disdain for others.
  • Even abolitionist feminist leaders showed themselves to be hardcore hateful racists facing the possibility of black men coming to have the suffrage before them did.
  • As women, these “suffragists” believed in female supremacy; as white women, they believed in white supremacy; with the same hatefulness and intolerance of any hate movement. Therefore,
  • “Suffragists” does not describe what 1st wave feminist was. To call them just “suffragists” is as misleading as describing Saddam Hussein and Bashar al-Assad as merely political leaders coming from minority groups and full of love for their countries.
  • They were far from being a peaceful movement.

Those who might think all that racist and sexist hate are only cherry-picked examples don’t know, or did not really pay attention, to the history of the first world congress on “women’s rights” in Seneca Falls, organized by the feminists of the time. Furthermore, these are not only some random 1st wave feminists; they are not even only prominent feminists (presidents, founders of women’s associations, high society personalities, senators); they are the most prominent. Cornerstones of the feminist movement, symbols and promoted role models such as Susan B. Anthony, Frances E. Willard, Elizabeth Cady Stanton e Emmeline Pankhurst.

The idea of the presentation as a quiz came from this post by cafe.com.

And before someone complains: as racism and sexism are already a wide scope, eugenicist 1st wavers like Emily Murphy, Victoria Woodhull, (first woman candidate to president of the USA), Mary Stopes and the most commented, Margaret Sanger, were not included and appear in other articles (like this one).

In other articles, I intend to speak in depth how 1st wave feminism created an unprecedented form of parental alienation for fathers, their connections with suicides, mass murders (yes, I mean it) and how the now so polemic “gender ideology” – which many believe emerged with the 2nd wave, with the neomarxism (New Left/Frankfurt School/cultural marxism) and/or Simone de Beauvoir (World War 2) – was actually born in the 1st wave.

If you know what I (and others) know about feminism’s 1st wave of  (“that good feminism”?), you will never see it the same way again.