Gammal bok: The Fraud of Feminism
En antifeministisk bok från 1913 (!) som visar att även på den tiden, när feminister de facto hade påtagliga och legitima klagomål, som rösträtt och att kvinnor inte tillåts inom många yrken, var de inte ute efter någon riktig jämställdhet, i synnerhet inte vad gäller brott och straff.
Boken finns på nätet (copyrighten har gått ut): http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism. (Jag antar att de har moderniserat språket, för det är inga problem att läsa den.)
Det är en del i boken som inte åldrats särskilt väl, och en del som är misogynt i mina ögon, t.ex. diskussionen om hysteri. Men det är besvärande hur stora likheter det är med den nutida feminismens likgiltighet inför kvinnor som begår brott, eller dess bristande intellektuella hederlighet. Samtidigt som feministerna argumenterar för lika rättigheter, pressar de fram en alltmer priviligierad status i förhållande till lagen, där kvinnor får mycket mildare straff än män eller rent av blir frikända p.g.a. sitt kön. Även om de inte argumenterar att det skall vara så, blir det ändå resultatet av att feministerna i nästan alla lägen sympatiserar med kvinnan.
“Modern Feminism has two distinct sides to it: (1) an articulate political and economic side embracing demands for so-called rights; and (2) a sentimental side which insists in an accentuation of the privileges and immunities which have grown up, not articulately or as the result of definite demands, but as the consequence of sentimental pleading in particular cases. In this way, however, a public opinion became established, finding expression in a sex favouritism in the law and even still more in its administration, in favour of women as against men.“
“We have further pointed out that there is another side in Modern Feminism which in a vague way claims for women immunity from criminal law and special privileges on the ground of sex in civil law. The basis of this side of Feminism is a sentimentalism– i.e. an unequally distributed sentiment in favour of women, traditional and acquired. It is seldom even attempted to base this sentimental claim for women on argument at all. The utmost attempts in this direction amount to vague references to physical weakness, and to the claim for special consideration deriving from the old theory of the mental and moral weakness of the female sex, so strenuously combated as out of date, when the first side of Modern Feminism is being contended for. The more or less inchoate assumptions of the second or sentimental side of the modern ”Woman’s Movement” amounts practically, as already stated, to a claim for women to be allowed to commit crimes without incurring the penalties imposed by the law for similar crimes when committed by men. It should be noted that in practice the most strenuous advocates of the positive and articulate side of Feminism are also the sincerest upholders of the unsubstantial and inarticulate assumptions of the sentimental side of the same creed. This is noticeable whenever a woman is found guilty of a particularly atrocious crime. It is somewhat rare for women to be convicted of such crimes at all, since the influence of sentimental Feminism with judges and juries is sufficient to procure an acquittal, no matter how conclusive the evidence to the contrary. Even if women are found guilty it is usual for a virtually nominal sentence to be passed. Should, however, a woman by any chance be convicted of a heinous crime, such as murder or maiming, under specially aggravated circumstances, and a sentence be passed such as would be unanimously sanctioned by public opinion in the case of a man, then we find the whole Feminist world up in arms. The out- cry is led by self-styled upholders of equality between the sexes, the apostles of the positive side of Feminism, who bien entendu [of course] claim the eradication of sex boundaries in political and social life on the ground of women being of equal capacity with men, but who, when moral responsibility is in question, conveniently fall back on a sentiment, the only conceivable ground for which is to be found in the time-honoured theory of the mental and moral weakness of the female sex.”
Likhet inför lagen? Boken ger många exempel på hur lagen, både i dess bokstav och i dess tillämpning, diskriminerade mot män till förmån för kvinnor. T.ex: En fästmö strular med en annan man och slänger svavelsyra på sin fästman, när han då avbryter förlovningen så tilldöms han att betala £100 i skadestånd till henne!
”The following cases will serve as illustrative examples:–From The News of the World, 9th May 1909: A nurse in Belfast sued her lost swain for breach of promise. She obtained £100 damages although it was admitted by her counsel that she had thrown vitriol over the defendant, thereby injuring him, and the defendant had not prosecuted her! Also it was admitted that she had been ”carrying on” with another man. From The Morning Leader of 8th July 1905 I have taken the following extraordinary facts as to the varied punishment awarded in cases of vitriol- throwing: That of a woman who threw vitriol over a sergeant at Aldershot, and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment without hard labour while a man who threw it over a woman at Ports- mouth was tried and convicted at the Hants Assizes, on 7th July 1905, and sentenced by Mr Justice Bigham to twelve years’ penal servitude! As regards the first case it will be observed that, (notwithstanding a crime, which in the case of a man was described by the judge as ”cowardly and vile” and meriting twelve years’ penal servitude) the woman was rewarded by damages for £100, to be obtained from the very victim whom she had done her best to maim for life (besides being unfaithful to him) and who had generously abstained from prosecuting. ”
Sådan avsaknad av respekt reserverar domstolarna för män, kvinnor är inte offer för så absurda domslut. (Man kan ju idag i och för sig undra om det kan ha varit fråga om plötslig spädbarnsdöd, alltså om det var något vållande överhuvudtaget, men vid den tiden trodde man att sådana dödsfall berodde på att en vuxen legat på barnet, och domstolen ansåg i det här fallet att det var bevisat att det var kvinnan som gjort det).
“… a Feminist friend of mine who, challenged by me, sought (for long in vain) to find a case in the courts in which a man was unduly favoured at the expense of a woman. At last he succeeded in lighting upon the following from somewhere in Scotland: A man and woman who had been drinking went home to bed, and the woman caused the death of her baby by ”overlaying it.” Both the man and the woman were brought before the court on the charge of manslaughter, for causing the death, by culpable negligence, of the infant. In accordance with the evidence, the woman who had overlaid the baby was convicted and sentenced to six months’ imprisonment, and naturally the man, who had not done so, was released. Now, in the judgment of my Feminist friend, in other matters sane enough, the fact that the man who had not committed any offence was let off, while his female companion, who had, was punished, showed the bias of the court in favour of the man!! Surely this is a noteworthy illustration, glaring as it is, of how all judgment is completely overbalanced and destroyed in otherwise judicial minds–of how such minds are completely hypnotised by the adoption of the Feminist dogma. “