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)

 
 
 
 

Working on the Railroad — in the Victorian Age

Women's work is never done — Men's work is all around us but never acknowledged by feminists.
Have things changed since the Victorian Age?


....continued from previous screen

Feminists Don't Want to Know

Lou Owen relates in the following message what happened when he quoted some of the information in the original version of the article in the preceding pages to a discussion list.  It shows that the truth and common sense are not wanted in feminist circles.  

Subject:      Censorship
Date:          Sat, 30 May 1998 08:50:16 -0400
From:         "Lou Owen" <lowen@up.net>

There is something sickly authoritarian about some of the Feminist forums in the Net. I was reading a femo forum in ISCABBS (bbs.isca.uiowa.edu) where the topic was 72 Cents on the dollar that is one of the sacred cows of femo theory. I pointed out that some difficult, dirty and dangerous jobs pay more, and I included excerpts from the recent Mention post on the Canadian Railroads. This challenge to the femo theory of pay equity earned me a Kick out from that discussion forum.


The following is my reply to Lou Owen:

The extent of the misconceptions about the Victorian age that were created by modern feminists may be gleaned to some extent from the following picture that was published in "Book of the British Countryside" (page528).

A tradesman delivering goods with a yoke near Broadway, Worcestershire, at the turn of the century (around 1900)
A tradesman delivering goods with a yoke
near Broadway, Worcestershire,
at the turn of the century
[1900].

At the resolution provided by this copy of the picture in this document, the detail is insufficient to show that the woman, who may be either one of the tradesman's customers or his wife seeing him off on his daily rounds, is wearing polished dress shoes and has no fallen arches.  The man, on the other hand, is wearing worn shoes that are not polished, and he quite obviously has fallen arches.  Although he is wearing a smile and the woman is not, he must have found his delivery route to be tiring and painful.

Carrying the load under his yoke is certainly not an exercise that elevates him to the status of oppressor and an imposing figure in the "patriarchy."  Why was he smiling and the woman wasn't?

Perhaps he has a golden heart, and the woman, as seems to be the case with your abusive radical sisters, hasn't.
===<end of reply>==

I expanded on the idea of "men as beasts of burden" (consider for example that there are no female hod carriers, no female rickshaw drivers, even today few female truck drivers, taxi drivers and airplane pilots).  Men, and no-one else, always made the goods move that were needed in any thriving economy.  Where they didn't, the societies remained in the stone age (or in the trees, if you want).

Just to mentioned one more item of many that fall into the same category.  During the 20th century more than 100,000 men (and virtually no women) died in mining accidents.

Much is made of the fact that women are now an active part of the Armed Forces in a few countries of the world.  However, in Canada — after about 20 years of actively promoting gender equality in the Canadian Armed Forces — no more than 10% of 67,000 Armed Forces members are women,* and of those only about 150 serve in combat positions.  In the U.S.A., women who are members of the Armed Forces are prohibited by law from serving in positions that will bring them into direct contact with the enemy.  In other words, women may not go into the trenches.  Men (and women) will never let them to that.

* Since then, by 2002, the Canadian Armed Force personnel shrank to about 50,000, which is about the size of the New York City police force.  When the tour of duty of the first Armed Forces complement that got sent to Afghanistan came to an end, not enough men could be found to produce the 800 men required to replace them.

Women are exempt from registration for the military service in the U.S.A., and in Canada it will be a cold day in Hell when women will be subjected to the military conscription.  It is the same in every country in the world.

Women are still very much considered to be the weaker sex in need of protection and deserving of being provided for by men.  The extent to which that degree of protection escalated during the 20th century is evident in the fact that in the developed nations the greater average life expectancy of women over men increased from about one year at the end of World War I to seven years now.

No, it will be a long time before women are fully equal to men.  And isn't that the way it should be?  Why can't we give men just a little bit of appreciation for what they do, don't they deserve it?  Only a self-centered, selfish woman would think they don't.  Does that make her a better human — better than men — whom we should put on a pedestal?

If what men do is so despicable that we have to vilify them over it, why in the world is it that feminists want so much to be as they think men are?

Walter Schneider

Mon, 25 May 1998 11:07:30 -0700,
Major update 2001 07 18

Back to first page and index


For other views of the circumstances that affected the position of the sexes and the esteem in which they were held, see:

The Wife at His Side, by Karin Jäckel, The Beginnings of the Women's Movement, and

The Great Train Robbery (it happened in 1855), by Michael Crichton

The Industrial Revolution and the Plight of Men

___________
Updates:
2000 01 12
2001 02 10 (format changes)
2001 07 14 (added introduction)
2001 07 17 (broke up page into seven pages)
2001 07 22 (added link to The Industrial Revolution and the Plight of Men)
2002 10 13 (minor corrections)