logo for the website of Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | RSS button | Share


Fathers for Life Site-Search

2013 04 15: Symantec (makers and distributors of Norton Antivirus) and O2 now filter/block the website of Fathers for Life and *BOTH* of its affiliated blogs. Click for details.


 
 Site Map (very large file)
 Table of Contents
 Activism
 Children—Our most valued assets?
 Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
 Child Support
 Civil Rights & Social Issues
 Families
 Family Law
 Destruction of Families
 Fatherhood
 Fatherlessness
 Divorce Issues
 Domestic Violence
 Feminism
 Gay Issues
 Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
 Health
 Help Lines for Men
 History
 Humour
 Law, Justice and The Judiciary
 Mail to F4L
 Men's Issues
 Suicide
 The Politics of "Sex"
 Our Most Popular Pages
 Email List
 Links
 References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

Be notified of
page updates
it's private
powered by
ChangeDetection

BADGE
 of
RECOGNITION

censored-stamp

Yes, the website for Fathers for Life and its affiliated blog are being slandered and censored. (Click for Details)

If you are a fathers-rights or pro-family activist, then it is quite likely that your website or blog is being, slandered and censored, too. (Click to check that out)

Back to:

Advice to Men
 
 

Feminist family politics and their roots in communist ideology


It is clear from the Communist Manifesto that the plan is to do away with traditional families.  The sad situation is that although, ostensibly, communism never made any advances in the western developed nations, its ideology is very much alive and in the process of being implemented through modern liberalism in the form of socialism and feminism.

The primary objective of communism has always been the systematic destruction of the traditional nuclear family, so that out of the social disorder that results from that it will be possible to attempt the construction of a socialist, totalitarian regime.  The easiest method by which to achieve the destruction of the traditional nuclear family is to remove its weakest link, the father, if need be, through murder.

From the website of the The Soviet Story:

The film tells the story of the Soviet regime and how the Soviet Union helped Nazi Germany instigate the Holocaust.

“The Soviet Story” is a story of an Allied power which helped the Nazis to fight Jews and which slaughtered its own people on an industrial scale. Assisted by the West, this power triumphed on May 9th, 1945. Its crimes were made taboo, and the complete story of Europe’s most murderous regime has never been told. Until now…

DVDs of the documentary can be purchased through Amazon.com, but the documentary is also accessible free-of-charge on-line.

See a review of the documentary on the soviet holocaust or democide, the definition of democide being the extermination of a people by its government. It is estimated that during the height of the Stalinist purges, men comprised 98 percent of the 8-million people that were being exterminated in just two years, 1937 and 1938.

How do the gender agenda promoted by the UN or local national family-policies promoted  with relentless vigour and pressure from non-governmental interest groups differ in any way from what Friedrich Engels and other communists promoted one-and-a-half centuries ago?

The following are quotes from the works of various communists as shown in Socialism, Feminism and Suffragism (1915), by Benjamin V. Hubbard.

With the transformation of the means of production into collective property the monogamous family ceases to be the economic unit of society. The private household changes to a social industry. The care and education of children becomes a public matter. Society cares equally well for all children, legal or illegal. This removes the care about the consequences which now forms the essential social factor-moral and economic-hindering a girl to surrender unconditionally to the beloved man. Will not this be sufficient cause for a gradual rise of a more unconventional intercourse of the sexes and a more lenient public opinion regarding virgin honor and female shame? And finally, did we not see that in the modern world monogamy and prostitution, though antitheses, are inseparable and poles of the same social condition? Can prostitution disappear without engulfing at the same time monogamy? 

Here a new element becomes active, an element which at best existed only in the germ at the time when monogamy developed; individual sex love.

Friedrich Engels, The Origin of the Family, (pp. 91-92)
[quoted in Socialism, Feminism and Suffragism, p. 85]

From the point of view of this Socialist materialism, the monogamous family, the present economic unit of society, c[e]ases to be a divine institution, and becomes the historical product of certain definite economic conditions. It is the form of the family peculiar to a society based on private property in the means of production, and the production of commodities for sale. It is not crystallized and permanent, but, like all other institutions, fluid and subject to change.
     With the change in its economic basis, the code of sexual morality and the monogamous family are sure to be modified; but in the judgment of such Socialists as Friedrich Engels and August Bebel, we shall probably remain monogamous, but monogamy will cease to be compulsorily permanent. 

—Socialism, Positive and Negative," page 98. 
[quoted in Socialism, Feminism and Suffragism, pp. 85 - 86]

B. V. Hubbard comments:

As stated above, if Socialism should arrive in vogue, there is no doubt what the monogamist family would cease to exist, and that there would be greater freedom and promiscuity between the sexes. 

The comparisons in the above text will not be relished by people who have a moral standard. The teaching of immorality by wholesale, should be made criminal and punished by law, more severely than the practicing of immorality by retail. 

[Socialism, Feminism and Suffragism, p. 86]

And the monogamic family, so far from being a divinely instituted union of souls, is seen to be the product of a series of material and, in the last analysis, of the most sordid motives.

(The Origin of the Family, p. 7)
[Socialism, Feminism and Suffragism, p. 86]. 

Marriage itself remained, as before, the legally recognized form, the official cloak of prostitution, and, moreover, was supplemented by rich crops of adultery.

Socialism Utopian and Scientific," page 56
[Socialism, Feminism and Suffragism, p. 86].

Many who regard sexual morality from the point of view of evolutionism have never inquired whether monogamy-and an increasingly perfect monogamy-is really the best means of human development. These evolutionists united with the champions of Christian idealism in condemnation of the immorality of the present day, which declares itself in sexual matters in the form of free connection outside of matrimony; of an increase of divorce among those married: of disinclination for parentage, and of the claim of unmarried women to the right of motherhood. Other evolutionists think that all this is the earliest announcement of the awakening which will assign to love its full importance, not only for the perpetuation, but for the progress of the race. With the will of active, effective life, they attack the current standard of morality and the rights of the family. The object of the conflict is not itself new; what is new is only the boldness, fostered, consciously or unconsciously, by the evolutionary idea, of thus asserting the rights of love against.... 

—Ellen Key, "Love and Marriage," page 54. 
 [Socialism, Feminism and Suffragism, pp. 86 - 87]

Here there is no solution except the freedom of woman-which means, of course, the freedom of the masses of the people, men and women, and the ceasing altogether of economic slavery. There is no solution which will not include the redemption of the terms free women and free love[*] to their true and rightful significance. Let every woman whose heart bleeds for the sufferings of her sex, hasten to declare herself and to constitute herself, as far as she possibly can, a free woman. Let her accept the term with all the odium that belongs to it; let her insist on her right to speak, dress, think, act, and above all, to use her sex as she deems best; let her face the scorn and the ridicule; let her lose her own life is she likes; assured that only so can come deliverance, and that only when the free woman is honored will the prostitute cease to exist. And let every man who really would respect his counterpart, entreat her also to act so; let him never, by word or deed, tempt her to grant as a bargain what can only be precious as a gift.

—Edward Carpenter, Love's Coming-of-Age, pp. 62-63. 
[Socialism, Feminism and Suffragism, p. 87]

There isn't much more anyone can say.  Already in 1915 it was quite clear where the course of the implementation of socialism and feminism would take us.  Now that almost a century has gone by, it should be that much clearer to society that feminism is not much other than communism in disguise.

The destruction of the family is almost complete now, notwithstanding the few remnants of family traditions that still exist here and there.  More than ever before, liberalists, feminists and socialists pursue the agenda of communism, without anyone putting up much resistance. 

With the best of intentions by anyone engaging in holy matrimony, marriage is no longer an enforceable contract.  Add no-fault divorce and equivalent marriage rights for people afflicted with Same-Sex Attachment Disorder, and along with traditional marriage all social conventionalities that became rules for all to live by over the millenniae will simply vanish.

Marriage is a fragile institution.  When it came into existence thousands of years ago, it spawned civilization, history itself.  What took thousands of years to evolve and took much nurturing is now almost gone. 

In a society in which the rights of any individual are stressed, where the duties and obligations of individuals are being abolished, and where the family is seen as an anachronism that must be done away with as quickly as possible, any organization that can establish itself as the governing body will have absolute power over all individuals.  That's when universal standards for law, order and social conventionalities vanish and capriciousness rules.  Under such conditions it is inevitable that a totalitarian system emerges to replace democracy, just as in Soviet Russia.  No matter where it is and what we call it, a totalitarian system that emerges under such conditions will be virtually identical to any other communist totalitarian system. 

People will make the greatest imaginable sacrifices for their families, but will almost with absolute certainty expect the government to pay for whatever ails them when they have no families any longer to be part of or to care for.  Just as in the USSR and in any other communist nation, our communist regime will eventually cause the total collapse of all social order and of the economy.

When all order is gone all that remains is total chaos.  And on that thought, let's not forget that Gaea worship is a large part of many factions of feminism and environmentalism alike.  It is important to remember that Gaea was the daughter of Chaos.

Already in 1915 Benjamin V. Hubbard identified exactly the same conditions that brought about the beginnings of modern feminism as those that were at work since then to make the implementation of the Communist Manifesto a reality. 

The social revolution that began in the 1960s and with the credit for which second-wave-feminism adorns itself is nothing new.  It is the final stage of a social revolution that is a continuation of a trend made possible through the chivalry by "men" of the Victorian age (politicians, judges, lawyers, writers and journalists) who did their best to give women — in the name of liberating them from male oppression — more and more privileges at the expense of common men.  In that fashion The Fraud of Feminism (1913, by Belfort Bax) has been at work already for hundreds of years  to bring about The Legal Subjection of Men (1908, by Belfort Bax).

_____________
Note: The Internet Archive does not always produce results for those two preceding links. However, the two pieces by Belfort Bax can be found and accessed in other locations on the Net. You can use, for example, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism and http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Legal_Subjection_of_Men

In WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, Warren Farrell explains that men and women are equally powerless but that men and boys are being indoctrinated to admire women and to follow career paths that enable men to give women what women want.  For example:

What Are Boys Good For?

What does a teenage girl learn to give to a boy? Let's look at a thirteen-page spread in Teen-the Christmas 1984 issue. Approx­imately seventy presents are mentioned, with an average price of about thirty dollars (over two thousand dollars' [close to US$5,000 in 2007 dollars — F4L] worth of presents). Only one is for a male-pajamas for a baby boy. As with Ms., no presents for boyfriends.
    There are several teenage boys shown in the pictures. One admires a girl while she admires herself in the mirror; another is towing a girl's brand-new car. The same use of men as in Self.
   
Is the girl in the Teen spread helping the boy who has attached her car to a tow truck? No. She drapes herself over the tow truck. And how does she learn to handle a stressful situation? The caption explains: "If a stressful situation causes complexion concerns, keep skin under control with Noxzema Acne 12. And pass the time in an easy-to-wear wardrobe!"
    All twelve days of Christmas run the same pattern: "Keep tabs on your weight," "File your nails ... ," "Massage your hands," "Massage your feet," "Turn heads in your direction by keeping lips lusciously lubricated .... " What does he get? Nothing is mentioned but her beauty. What lessons does he learn? Admire and rescue. [Emphasis by F4L] In Teen. In Ms. In Self.
   
Do teenage boys' magazines show a girl towing his brand-new car, while he drapes himself over her tow truck and worries about his acne? Hardly.
    In men's magazines there are only a few gifts for men to buy women. Remember the principle of the De Beers transfer. She chooses the diamond and chooses among the men her beauty power can attract to buy it. Which is why his ads are for how to become successful enough to buy whatever she chooses; hers are to become beautiful enough to be able to make the choice of both the gift and the man to buy the gift. Men's magazines do not feature many gifts for women because men are expected to do the buying after consulting the women, not the magazine, and to concentrate their energies on making the money.

WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, By Warren Farrell, p 34-35

Once they become men (or perhaps even sooner), men (or boys) begin to catch on.  For example:

Why is changing a light bulb always a guy's job? Because women have more important things to do - like making men feel useful and important by giving them things to do, like changing light bulbs.

How many divorced men does it take to change a light bulb? None. They never get the house anyway.

Edmonton Journal,
2007 08 28, p. B2, Venting
(more at edmontonjournal.com Online Extras - Venting)

It will take quite some time yet, however, before a majority of society gets Warren Farrell's message expressed in the following.

One of the fascinating parts about men is our tendency to subject ourselves to war, physical abuse, and psychological abuse and call it "power." The ability to be totally out of control while continuing to view ourselves as the ones with the power can have certain advantages to a woman. As expressed in this poem:

One-Night Stand

He bought me drinks all evening
   in response to just a wink
Then accepted my invitation to
   repair my kitchen sink
Then I brought him into beddy-bye
   to get a little sex
Then couldn't help but smile
   when he called it conquest!

WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, By Warren Farrell, p. 289

That story, translated into a joke that is far more ironic than it is funny, goes like this:

An Irishman an Englishman and a Scotsman were sitting in a bar in Sydney. The view was fantastic, the beer excellent, and the food exceptional. "But" said the Scotsman, "I still prefer the pubs back home. Why, in Glasgow there's a little bar called McTavish's. Now the landlord there goes out of his way for the locals so much that when you buy 4 drinks he will buy the 5th drink for you."

"Well," said the Englishman "at my local, the Red Lion, the barman there will buy you your 3rd drink after you buy the first 2."

"Ahhh that's nothin'," said the Irishman, "Back home in Dublin there's Ryan's Bar. Now the moment you set foot in the place they'll buy you a drink, then another, all the drinks you like. Then when you've had enough drink they'll take you upstairs and see that you get laid. All on the house."

The Englishman and Scotsman immediately pour scorn on the Irishman's claims. He swears every word is true.

"Well," said the Englishman, "Did this actually happen to you?" 

"Not myself personally, no" said the Irishman, "but it did happen to my sister."

found at angryharry.com

Men's problem is that women's "powerlessness" has been amply addressed throughout the history of evolution, intensively so since the advent of radical feminism [*], but that men's powerlessness received little or no attention. Instead, men curry women's favors by giving women gifts, even the gift of men's lives.
   While in the past men were enticed to live up to the social duties imposed upon them with promises that they would be paid back for that through society paying them appreciation, honour and respect, today — thanks to decades of feminist slandering of men, intended to "increase" the social value of women — men are being vilified for being men, and not much else matters.

* If the term "radical feminism" (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist-feminism) is somewhat new to you, you need to expand your knowledge.  After all, radical feminism, the currently controlling faction of feminism, governs just about everything that is happening in your life.  See,

Carey Roberts column

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work is an exposé on Marxism and the roots of radical feminism.

Carey Roberts' best-known work, his exposé on Marxism and the Roots of Radical Feminism, is not necessarily easy to find, but this link will help with that. (Some of the URLs for the article series appear to keep changing.  For that reason the identified link leads to an Internet search for the series.  The first or second link in the return list will most likely lead you to the series.)

Although Benjamin V. Hubbard and Belfort Bax were contemporaries and shared virtually identical views regarding feminism, Benjamin V. Hubbard did not mention Belfort Bax in his book.  That omission is understandable.  Benjamin V. Hubbard and Belfort Bax moved in different social circles, with Belfort Bax being then a socialist of a political persuasion that Benjamin V. Hubbard castigated and hated with a passion.

One would expect to be able to find some of the writings of both amongst the more than ten million books contained in the USA Library of Congress, but that is not the case, and for good reasons.  Along with all other social institutions, libraries have become feminist domains.  Although Benjamin V, Hubbard's book is available at the USA Library of Congress, it is introduced as an example of Victorian-age misogyny.  Belfort Bax's writings are absent from the listings of the Library of Congress, although Belfort Bax's writings deal more comprehensively with feminism.  Benjamin Hubbard saw feminism as a product of the women rights movement and feminists as women.  Belfort Bax saw feminism as a political movement that could not have made headway without the active support by feminist men (politicians, judges, lawyers, writers and journalists).
    Censorship is very much alive in the so-called "free" West.  In a feminist-dominated and -controlled library it would not have done to make available the writings of Belfort Bax that prove Benjamin V. Hubbard right and the feminists wrong.  Although both writers were seen as misogynists by many of their contemporaries, both writers hated only feminists and the injustices and social devastations brought about by feminism.  Beyond identifying the biological differences between men and women, they did not hate women. 

_______________
* Free love, as the early Communists called it, is today called sexual freedom.  See:

See also:

That page contains an excerpt from Aaron Burr's e-mail discussion forum.   In it he states that "communism is feminism" and backs up that claim with many quotes and references from communist-feminist writers and sociologists who expressed their views throughout radical feminism's rise to power.


__________________
Posted 2000 06 10
Updates:
2000 06 12 (Provided link to Socialism, Feminism and Suffragism)
2001 02 02 (format changes)
2001 07 26 (added reference to Free Love)
2002 12 22 (format changes)
2006 03 04 (added link to Feminism for Male College Students)
2006 07 29 (added references to Belfort Bax's The Fraud of Feminism and The Legal Subjugation of Men)
2007 07 29 (added entry for WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE)