The Anti-Feminists Knew

The anti-feminists knew and they were right.

It is so important to read history and old books to realize that many of our ancestors were far wiser and more insightful than we even might already think they were. Here are a few of my reflections on an anti-suffragette book I have been reading recently.

On Feminist Mental Load

Why do so many women report record levels of burnout?

There used to be a wider community of women to share the domestic load together.

“There is, among others, this fundamental difference between the business life of men and women. For men who pursue occupations outside the home, there are women to manage that home. For women who pursue occupations outside the home, there are, not men, but other women, to manage the home. The final domestic care of the world must come upon women. The final attention to social life must come upon women. In behalf of the women who are constrained, or who choose, to sacrifice their share in this part of the world's necessary work, some other women must do double duty. That this rule has seeming exceptions does not make it less the universal rule.”

Helen Kendrick Johnson, 1894, Woman and the Republic

I have heard countless young mothers say that staying at home feels isolating, and many go back to work just to avoid this feeling. Many also lament how their mums, sisters or friends are working so it is harder to share the load.

Isn’t it fascinating that this 19th century woman Helen Johnson, predicted this would be exactly one of the problems women faced because of the advent of feminism?

Our instinct today is to mock feminists who complain about “mental load”, but they are giving voice to a deeper problem: the community of women has been severely broken, and it makes life harder. Women are expected to do way, way more in modern society in most households, and it burns them and their relationships out in massive numbers.

The solution? The complete unwinding of feminism.

On Equal Pay

They once knew how to attract more men into teaching:

“In New York I heard Superintendent Jasper, I think it was, say: "I am in favor of equal pay for equal work, for the two sexes; but we cannot give it here. We can get twice as many good women teachers as men teachers, and when we need men we must pay at a higher rate."”

Helen Kendrick Johnson, 1894

Considering the state of education in Australia, and the fact that schools are crying out for more male teachers, old solutions should be considered.

Especially considering that in today’s climate, a man takes a far greater risk being in a school environment than a woman. By that I am referring to the potential for false accusations and the like.

He also is far less likely to leave or go part time to have children. And he is far more likely to have to support dependents.

Hence, higher pay is reasonable, would attract more men and make a big difference to the state of modern education in schools.

Of course, modern ideology precludes sensible solutions like this. But this would be a smart solution.

On Chivalry

What happened to chivalry?

You hear that asked a lot. What happened was feminism. By upsetting the natural order between women and men it made chivalry not only old fashioned, but unsuitable. Remember chivalry was created in hierarchical Christian societies to honour the hierarchy and ensure it was protective of the weaker individuals in society. But it also required that those weaker individuals provided respect back on up the chain of the hierarchy. Feminism is the chief opponent of such a society:

“Before the Committee of the Constitutional Convention, Mrs. Ecob, of Albany, said: "You speak of chivalry. We scorn the word! What has your chivalry done for the weaker sex? Women are the unpaid laborers of the world—outcasts in government." Mrs. Hood, of Brooklyn, on the same occasion said: "Who dares insult our American manhood by declaring that men will be less courteous to mother, wife, and sister, because they are political equals? Woman's equality in the industrial world has to-day produced a nobler, better chivalry than was ever conceived by the knights of old."

Helen Kendrick Johnson, 1894

Mrs Ecob obviously never worked in a mixed factory and saw how men and women speak to each other in that environment. Those who predicted that making men and women both into worker drones were absolutely correct that such an arrangement would destroy chivalry.

Chivalry makes sense when women are more likely to be dependent on a man. It means every man expects other men to treat women with high honour, as she is another man’s honoured treasure. But in our society she is your competitor, she uses her sexuality against you and other men, she would just as soon see you fired for a joke or a comment as talk to you, and she rules the HR departments of the world and government bureaucracies in such a way that your rights and freedoms are squashed more and more. In this world chivalry is insane.

Of course, many women would cry out, “Not all women are like that.” To which I say, of course, I understand that. Every many understands that. But he also does not necessarily have the time or the inclination to work out which woman is which kind. Men and women are now forced to be competitors and this simply erodes the conditions in which chivalry can be fostered. Chivalry requires both hierarchy and that the hierarchy be honoured and treasured.

And the original opponents of feminism saw this.

They were incredibly insightful.

I have been finding Woman and the Republic an insightful read. Some of the specific information is out of date, for instance statistics about who works in which fields and information like that is largely out of date. But the sentiment of the book which calls into question the entire legitimacy of the feminist movement is spot on.

We had wise ancestors who predicted the insanity we face today. If only they had been listened. In some ways Helen Kendrick Johnson is a bit like Cassandra, and we all know how that ended up.