Meet the New Feminism – Same as the Old Feminism

We must then make up our minds in accepting Women’s Rights to surrender our Bibles, and have an atheistic Government. And especially must we expect to have, presiding over every home and rearing every group of future citizens, that most abhorrent of all phenomena, an infidel woman; for of course that sex, having received the precious boon of their enfranchisement only by means of the overthrow of the Bible, must be foremost in trampling upon this their old oppressor and enemy. Its restoration to authority is necessarily their “re-enslavement,” to speak the language of their party.

This suggests a third consequence, which some of the advocates of the movement even already are bold enough to foreshadow. “Women’s Rights” mean the abolition of all permanent marriage ties. We are told that Mrs. Cady Stanton avowed this result, proclaiming it at the invitation of the Young Men’s Christian Association of New York. She holds that woman’s bondage is not truly dissolved until the marriage bond is annulled. She is thoroughly consistent.

R.L. Dabney, Women’s Rights Women, 1872

Perhaps one of the strongest, most enduring misconceptions ever to come down the pike regarding the infamous 19th Amendment – of “female emancipation” and its predictable disastrous aftermath – is the idea that the original “suffragettes” were “conservative” in their overall world and life view, and had altogether, or at least mostly, pure intentions and motives in mind when a few of them first organized to meet in Seneca Falls, New York, July 19-20, 1848. A modern iteration of the point may readily be found in the following exchange between two (silly) American women who count themselves among the leadership ranks of today’s “conservative women” and who came together to discuss the topic as such on a post-2020 election Heritage Foundation-sponsored podcast ironically named Problematic Women. To wit (beginning @ 11:09):

Problematic Host: I know, I’m … such a nerd; I … love the House Freedom Caucus, and,… I just can’t wait for the day where… – We do conversations with conservatives at the Daily Signal and with the Heritage Foundation, and that’s where the … House Freedom Caucus comes into a press conference – …and I just can’t wait till the day I show up and it’s … half women, half men, and women are represented there; it’s just going to be such a, uh, I dunno, a proud lady moment for me.

Problematic Guest: A “proud lady moment,” I mean, that’s an awesome way to think about it, right! Conservative women are … resolute, and it seems like we’ve finally come to the other side of the, y’know, the very harsh and extreme feminist movement of the last thirty years, and we’re ready to reclaim the original type of feminism that started in Seneca Falls and take it back for conservative women, and be what it’s really supposed to be about, which is providing opportunity, umm, and advancement for all women, not just a specific type of women, and I think that’s why so many people are so excited about Justice Barrett, about these thirteen new [female] House members, …

As may be gleaned from my opening paragraph above, what I’m most concerned with and aim to address in this and possible future essays on the topic is what the guest in the above exchange referred to as “the original type of feminism that started in Seneca Falls.” The silliness of the two of them otherwise (e.g., the “proud lady moment” remark that ultimately became the title of the episode in question – go figure, etc.) notwithstanding. It will come as no surprise to ID readers that I’m in full agreement with Dr. Dabney when, in 1872, he declared the movement he dubbed Women’s Rights Women to have been infused with, and a natural product of, (Northern) radicalism from its very inception.

Below the fold is one man’s attempt to explode the false notion that “first-wave feminism,” or, its “original type” (to borrow from our Problematic Woman above-quoted) was anything but a radical movement from the get-go; that to embrace and to “reclaim” and reassert its (apparent) slightly less “harsh and extreme” manifestation for our day and age is to, in a very best of possible outcomes scenario, leave the seeds of feminist fanaticism in the fertile soil of emancipated, “independent” current-day womanhood, to grow to maturity and produce precisely the same “harsh and extreme” fruit it has been producing for the last thirty years one hundred and fifty years at a later date. And that’s in a very best-case scenario, if you catch my drift; the far greater likelihood is that it won’t need much time at all to regroup and reorganize as a more radical version than what it is at this moment in time, even if “conservative women” manage to “retake” it for a time and a season.

In many (most, actually) ways, in point of fact, the early suffragists were as “harsh and extreme” and fanatical as their modern spiritual sisters ever thought of being, which I shall demonstrate by way of citing their own words and actions below. Let’s get to it.


Cover pages of The Progressive Woman Magazine, April, 1913 White Slave edition

It should be stated at the outset that, although infused with radicalism from its earliest days, as above-stated, it nevertheless took time for the full fruition of the feminist movement’s true and underlying nature to come to bear and to manifest itself in full ugly relief. This is just and simply the natural order of things; it’s nature taking her course in her “own sweet time.” By way of analogy, when I write that the federal principle was destroyed by the Yankees in 1861, readers should know it is not my intention therein, or thereby, to imply that remnants of the federal principle altogether disappeared from American governance at that very instant, or even within the first few years or decades afterward; it is in the nature of such things that they … take time, sometimes many decades, to come to full fruition. But come to full fruition they most assuredly will, given enough time. This is what the original opponents of suffrage such as Dr. Dabney were warning about; it is what many of us have warned about regarding homosexual “marriage” and that sort of thing. Which, by the way, could never have happened in the so called “United States” without female suffrage.

Similarly, and to cite a climatological example, we all know that the longest day of the year (Summer Solstice) in the northern hemisphere comes late in the third week of June. Year-in, year-out, without fail. By direct contrast, the shortest day of the year in the same hemisphere comes precisely six months later – late in the third week of December. However, both the hottest and the coldest days and weeks of the year come in the months of August and February respectively, fully two months after or following the longest (most heat) and shortest (least heat) days of the year. Why the delay? I trust that with a little pointed reflection upon the matter this intelligent readership will come to the correct answer, both individually and collectively.

The point in any case is that the radicalism inherent to feminism as such took time to come to full fruition and to manifest itself in full relief as we know it today. In other words, the Gloria Steinems of modern feminism are not perversions of the “original type;” they are in fact the very epitome and full manifestations of the original type. And this shall ever be the case, so long as the disease of feminism infects the minds of modern “Women’s Rights Women.”

Atlanta Constitution, December 10, 1916

The screenshots of the items you see above and below-posted could certainly be multiplied many times over; I could literally “pluck” from any part of the (massive) selection “at random” to show the same spirit of liberated (or, soon to be liberated) female radicalism at work. And this, several years before the infamous 19th Amendment was debated and ratified in Congress. Indeed, I challenge you, dear reader, to put the preceding assertion to the test. Download and read (selected at random, if you like) e.g. the articles in The Progressive Woman magazine above-depicted. Certainly do not take my word for it; read it for yourself. What you will find is that the only real difference between the rhetoric of “first-wave” feminism vs. the feminist rhetoric of our times, is that the pre-1920 suffragists (publicly) kept their language relatively clean and respectable-sounding; whereas today, well, I mean…

OK “Senator” holding hand-made sign of respectable feminist Oklahoma Woman on State Capitol steps protesting our law limiting “a woman’s right to choose.”

(My recollection is that the image immediately above is from 2012, but I could be wrong about the exact date. It was on the front page of the Tulsa World newspaper on the date in question.)

Mindful of my original promise to demonstrate my point about the early suffragettes, “by way of citing their own words and actions,” allow me to close this article out by honoring that commitment with a few of the quotes of feminist leaders of the era:

Page I of IV of The Dark and Dangerous Side of Woman Suffrage

I do not expect I have changed any minds one way or the other as to the subject of this article. Religious fervor for a thing is powerful, and is very often the source of madness of one sort or another, “borne of a refusal to be wrong.” Indeed, I have an elder preacher-cousin who once told me, while discussing differing interpretations of a point of doctrine that, “I am so convinced that I am right about this, that if Jesus himself came down this very moment and told me I was wrong, I could not accept it.” I trust I needn’t explain how shocking it was to me to hear those words come out of his mouth. Suffice to say that saying I was “taken aback” by it is a huge understatement.

Whatever the case may be with individual readers regarding the subject of this article, I originally asked the question of a commenter in this thread, of whether or not she is [mentally and spiritually] prepared to accept that, contrary to popular opinion in certain “conservative” circles, first-wave feminism was made of the stuff of, and “blazed a trail” for, the “harsh and extreme” feminism we are all subjected to today, if I could show it to her “in their own words and acts.” Rest assured, dear reader, that I have barely exposed the tip of the proverbial iceberg above in honoring that commitment. And that is really the question, when you boil it all down – are you mentally and spiritually prepared to accept those facts for what they truly are and what they expose, as opposed to what you would like them to be and to expose? That is a question each individual has to answer for himself or herself, of course.

But now, what will be the character of the children reared under such a domestic organization as this? … when the mother shall have found another sphere than her home for her energies; when she shall have exchanged the sweet charities of domestic love and sympathy for the fierce passions of the hustings; when families shall be disrupted at the caprice of either party, and the children scattered as foundlings from their hearthstone.—it requires no wisdom to see that a race of sons will be reared nearer akin to devils than to men.

R.L. Dabney, Women’s Rights Women

Next up: The feminist movement’s Card Index blackmail system that forced the “federal” Suffrage Amendment – forerunner to J. Edgar Hoover’s more well-known system, and of modern “doxxing” and “cancel culture.”

Catch y’all on the flipside.

13 comments

    1. German Confederate:

      You’re not doing me any favors in my groveling appeals declaring that “I’m really really really really NOT a NAZI, y’all! Really I’m not!” Ha, ha.

      There is some sort of … twisted irony(?) in the fact that, under Nazism, my wife would have been honored and awarded a gold medallion for wedding herself to one man for life, and being the mother and primary educator of eight children; whereas, under matriarchal WeiMurikan government, she receives only condemnation for her contribution thereby to “overpopulation” and “clmate change.”

      “That’s right, Ice … Woman; we are dangerous!”

      1. Irony perhaps, but I wouldn’t say it’s twisted. “As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he” and ideas have consequences. I find pertinent what Belgian Volunteer Fernand Kaisergruber said at the close of his memoir:

        “We had wanted to preserve Europe from communism. … All of them [the countries of the West] at that time rejoiced in the partition of Germany and applauded the accords, as they then later applauded the collapse of those same accords and of their former ally! Did they really, then, need 45 or even 50 years to see clearly? … They should have, at the very least, rehabilitated our thesis! Apropos, have you noticed, as I have, and is it not curious that the more events have proven us right, the more difficulty our detractors have in proving that we were wrong?” p. 320.

        Fernand Kaisergruber, ‘We Will Not Go to Tuapse’, trans. Frederick P. Steinhardt, ed. Kenneth W. Estes

        America’s greatest general in the war, George S. Patton, saw the truth of this at the time, started speaking out, and the U.S. State Department arranged a fatal ‘accident’ for him. Still, there are those who mock any mention of conspiracy.

        1. Ah!; great quote again, sir. Keep ’em coming!

          I have to disagree with you on one fundamental point, however. The great American WWII general you refer to above was named, George C. Scott, not George S. Patton. (little “All in the Family” humor for you there. Ha, ha.)

  1. Disjointed thoughts. I don’t have time for anything more.

    1. I hope you’re not doing this just for me. This was long in the works, correct? Because I’ve realized thinking this over today that you can’t convince me this way. This essay proves that the earliest feminists had some nut jobs among them, but what else is new? Almost any group big enough to leave a mark in history included some nut jobs.

    2. I think, but I’m not sure, that Susan B. Anthony was the early feminist who is usually quoted as a prime example of pro-life thinking in first wave feminists.

    3. I tried following the link you gave earlier and it took me to some google thingee. I don’t use google thingees.

    4. I don’t have time to do the research that would be required to properly debate you on this. I found this essay very interesting and I would be interested to see more. However, it might be more of more practical use to just say why you personally here and now today are opposed to women voting. What’s the actual principle involved? All I’ve ever seen are arguments that women’s suffrage hurt the family. Perhaps, but it seems to me that industrialization and usury are far more likely suspects. That and just unbelief. I do think, for example, that the man is the head of the family. However, and it’s a big HOWEVER, woman as his helper needs to be smart and capable, because sometimes stuff happens and she ends up being the breadwinner (disabled husband) or the head (widowhood).

    Just quick thoughts. I’m still trying to figure you gentlemen out. If, for instance, the USA collapsed tomorrow, and somehow you bunch were put in charge of Dixie, what would that look like? I’ve been reading here for months and I have no clue what you’d actually do — other than not allow me to vote!

    Anyway, I found this quite interesting and would like to see more.

    1. Jane,

      You write: “it might be more of more practical use to just say why you personally here and now today are opposed to women voting. What’s the actual principle involved?”

      I won’t presume to speak for Mr. Morris, who is the author of this post, but my own short answer would be: ‘because it runs counter to God’s ordained hierarchy for the order of things.’ As Americans, we’ve been indoctrinated to think in a certain way (contra Rom. 12:2) that is invariably at odds with the idea of hierarchy. Our knee-jerk response to any ‘exclusion’ is to object that the most holy doctrine of EQUALITY has been violated, and it’s NOT FAIR!

      Alexis De Tocqueville wrote: “Our fathers did not yet know the word individualism, which we have coined for our particular requirements, because in their time there was in fact no individual who did not belong to some group and who could therefore regard himself as an isolated unit.” ‘L’Ancien Regime’, p. 148f.

      Lammenais goes even further to say that “individualism, which destroys the very idea of obedience and duty,” is “the inevitable conclusion of every doctrine which excludes Christianity.” ‘Des Progres de la Revolution’, p. 26.

      Our culture has excluded Christianity, and our thinking as a result is always bound up with individual rights, as opposed to the real freedom to be found in assuming the duties imposed by God.

      I like your observations about industrialization and usury, and completely agree that a woman needs to be smart and capable. It’s our Marxist detractors who insinuate that our aim is to make a woman our drudge. God intended that we should complement one another as partners, and they would make it combative and competitive.

      1. When I first read this, my initial thought was (truly) that this reply sounds very much like what (name redacted, but our eldest son) would say. Indeed, I was in a conversation concerning this very article only yesterday with our DiL in which she wrote, “I like what [name redacted, but our eldest son aforementioned] said about this; he said” X,Y,Z. The X,Y,Z our DiL wrote closely conforms to what German Confederate wrote above.

    2. Jane, please forgive me for just getting around to investigating this, but, you wrote:

      3. I tried following the link you gave earlier and it took me to some google thingee. I don’t use google thingees.

      Can you be more specific about this problem? I looked into it with regard to the links in this article, but found nothing of the sort. Is the actual link in a previous article of mine?

      Thanks,

      -TM

  2. Jane, I’m writing this reply via email, so, if it appears kind of “weird-looking” at the site, think nothing of it. It’s just that something or other has gone wrong with my connection.

    First, I want to sincerely thank you for pointing out the “Google Thingy.” Much as I strive to prevent it, once in a while something like that will get past me. Seems like, in this case, it got past our editors too. So, there ya go – human ineptitude at its finest and by its finest. Ha, ha.

    Second, you can’t possibly have meant what you wrote when you wrote that (paraphrase) ‘I’ve been reading here for months, and all I’ve gotten for my efforts is that I can’t vote in a Free Dixie.’

    The reason I say you can’t possibly have meant that is as I shall explain.

    My fellow contributors & I write articles and essay-length stuff about a large variety of topics. Think in terms, e.g., of my article a while back dealing with the question of “National or Federal?” What do you suppose that article was intended to convey – that you won’t, as a woman, be able to vote in a Free Dixie? If that is all you’ve taken from it, then you’ve almost totally missed the point.

    You’ve correctly concluded that you wouldn’t be allowed a vote in a Free Dixie, but, neither would I (and a lot of other men), most likely. Moreover, there wouldn’t be any forced public schooling or “federal oversight” of so called “education” in a Free Dixie; the form of government would either be (1) a Monarchy, involving the principle of subsidiarity; and/or, (2) a federal (truly federal) Representative Republic of Southern States that would take no interest, in its national capacity, in State & Local matters. I can’t get over myself enough personally not to favor (2), but, anyway. Immigration would be a State and local matter, and so on and so forth. What I’m getting about is that you’re honing in on the Female Suffrage thing, while ignoring everything else. And the “everything else” is far more important in the grand scheme than the suffrage thing.

    I’ll try to get to some of your other concerns in a follow-up comment.

    Thank you very much for the comments! Much appreciated, madam!

Comments are closed.