| Film Details | 03 - Origins of Feminism - 27m 42s |
|---|---|
| Notes | |
| Age Rating | U (no particularly shocking footage) |
| Synopsis | More details on where Feminism came from and how it significantly pre-dates the 1960's. How radical Feminism attached itself to true Feminism such that they became one combined ideology. How women have been fooled by Feminism and how it has been used to steadily dismantle family. • Leaders of the women's movement • Making the personal, political • Feminism use of Domestic Violence to generate income • Women in the Second World War • The EOC (now called EHRC) |
| Interviewees | Stephen Fitzgerald, National Organiser of the Mankind Initiative Men’s Charity. Angry Harry, Psychologist and Men’s Rights activist, angryharry.com. Simon, Psychologist and Writer. Erin Pizzey, Author and Domestic Violence expert. Opened the world’s first domestic violence shelter in London and is a patron of the Mankind Initiative Men’s Charity. Author of the book “Prone to Violence”. Michele Elliot, Director of Kidscape, a children’s charity, and author of the book “Female Sexual Abuse of Children”. All interviews recorded in 2004 |
In the event of any issue with playback, this film can also be found here.
There is no “true, good” feminism. There’s only man-hating feminism always: that’s the spirit of it. If it doesn’t express misandry that’s because it is being strategic (aka first-wave feminism).
Absolutely 100%, this nails it precisely on the head.
In fact, feminisms origins go back much further than the second world war but in this country that is when it began in earnest. At least, it is if we ignore the activities of that other branch of feminism the suffragettes.
Thanks for this, George. I know that Feminism can be traced back to other periods but I put my mark in the sand at WW2 because I think that it was then that government and business really saw the potential of it.
bullshit. Big government saw the potential in feminism in the early days of prohibition: play up the concern for women’s safety from from men, and you can push any prohibitive law.
Well, let’s examine the tactic in and of itself. If you really want to pin the origin, simply look at Karl Marx, who invariably was influenced by what occurred during the French Revolution.
After the storming of the Bastille (largely aided by the guards), you had revolutionary leaders blame everything bad in society not just on the king and his court, but the bourgeoisie – the non-Noble middle class who appeared to flaunt their wealth despite their origins as peasant stock. Marx realized that hate is a powerful weapon.
It’s the reason Marx referred to religion as the opiate of the masses, because Judeo-Christian teachings tell you not to hate, but to love your enemy, because hatred consumes you.
Hate is easier than Love to evoke. When someone wrongs you, it is hard to love them. But you don’t even need facts to evoke hatred. You can use lies.
Hitler and the Nazi Party did the very same thing when they rose to power. They evoked an ancestral antipathy for Jews and anyone “non-Aryan.” This was particularly persuasive in the wake of the First World War. We have enemies in our midst, they said, Germans who are not loyal. They blamed the Jews for their loss and their beleaguered plight. Thus, in 12 years Germany went from being a third world country following the Depression to being a Superpower to being a third world country again through a devastating Second World War.
In order to inspire Hate, you have to tell your target audience they’ve been wronged. They’ve been duped. They’ve been undermined. All their work betrayed by subversion. It doesn’t hurt even to dehumanize the object of your Hate a bit, as the Nazis did with Jews and with the Feminists today with Men.
It was World War II that showed industrialists and government what having women filling the labor market could potentially do. And what was the harm of lying to women to get them angry enough to work? After all, a little short term gain, something to line pockets for everyone (women too), and we’ll all be long dead before it has any real consequences.
What is now called “second-wave feminism” is actually the first wave. It is a part of the women’s movement which began with the suffragettes. The term “first-wave feminism” was coined retroactively by the feminists of the 1960s and 70s. Women’s suffrage is arguably the biggest mistake of the modern republic. In my honest opinion, the vast majority of women, even more so than men, are not fit to be political leaders.
Can you honestly not see the advantage of having an independent income and not being totally dependent on another person?
What does having an independent income have to do with Feminism? Or are you irredeemably backwards in believing that mythical female independence is anything to do with what Feminism is about?
Question:
Suppose, it’s true, that whatever “power” or “rights” men take for themselves, we take from women, right? What’s wrong with that?
I mean, all things considered, shouldn’t men have such power if what they end up doing with it, as history shows, that men protect women, that men provide women with a place to have children and raise a family?
To my knowledge, feminism which evolved from the women’s movement, did began with the suffragettes. One can possibly go back a bit further further finding historical influences that inspired the suffragettes from (among others) John Stuart Mill and his lover/wife who was a strong influence on Mill. She was in turn heavily influenced by the Utilitarian Church.
In America, it is my conjecture that some or much of the decision to give women the right to vote was not so much from a sense for fair play by politicians as it was a strategic move to increase the push to find greater political support for liberal progressive values.
The basis of feminism is sexual hypocrisy. Some fathers who have daughters want to rise their daughters up like boys in their way without femininity. This is the most powerful fact which is causing the problem. These fathers are super hypocrites.
I see a parallelisms today with all the ecology/environmental bullshit we are bombarded with.
They want us consumers to take the blame (and afford the cost) on climate change and the destruction of the environment to increase the business’ profit without changing the production system, wich is the real root of the problem.
They know people would do anything if you tell them it is to “save our planet”. Still when they sit down and talk about making businesses pay to force a real change (like in Kioto)they always say “well let’s sit down again in 20 years and we will see”
The reasons feminism spread so far and so wide were multicausal.
1920s:
1) The rise of Edward Bernays, mass media and modern marketing techniques allowed ideas to be sold to a target audience and
on a massive scale.
Example, Bernays’ “torches of freedom” marketing campaign targeted at women was one of the first successful “slavery packaged as emancipation” victories and was a predecessor of things to come.
1960s:
2) Elites wanted to double the tax base by getting women to work.
3) Similarly elites wanted to double consumer base as was accomplished in Bernays’ “torches of freedom” marketing campaign.
4) Elites wanted to get children into school early and have complete power to indoctrinate them, free of any family
interference.
Elites began pursuing their goals using Bernays’ techniques to market the “slavery packaged as emancipation” message.
5) The target audience, women, have since the dawn of history, been easy to deceive and manipulate. The first bible story is
about a woman, Eve, being deceived and manipulated, and with her deception and manipulation, mankind was expelled from
paradise.
6) A nation of uncharitable men lacking any sort of brotherhood, had no qualms about parroting and enforcing the feminist line if they thought it suited them. Similarly, the men had no qualms about having sex with or marrying another man’s wife, once again, if they thought it suited them.
We find here another Biblical example: The story of David (alpha male) committing adultery with Bathsheba (female) who was
married to Uriah (beta male), and the grievous consequences: David’s son from the adulterous episode with Bathsheba died a few days after birth.
Conclusion: Economic greed and lust for power by elites were the motivation for feminism; naive women and uncharitable and
divided men were the fertile ground that allowed feminism to grow. Bernays’ marketing techniques and mass media were used to package and deliver the poison apple (feminism) to women.
The result: a nation of destroyed families, bastard children, homeless and lost men, and untold misery and suffering.
Now that the family is destroyed, we have been expelled from the second paradise (family) into yet another level of hell and
misery.
Feminism did not start in the 40s. Good grief.
If the film maker really wanted to talk about how feminism got serious, he should reference the 19th century. Plenty of historical books to choose from.
17:56 Typo – Should be ‘Tails she loses.’
Don’t want to be pedeantic – it is just I love your work so much that I care about such things.
Thanks, but it was not a typo.