One Man's Kingdom

"Better to live in a desert than with a quarrelsome and ill-tempered wife." -- Proverbs 21:19

Click Pic for "The Amaxon Women (The Science of Why Males Exist)"

QUOTE: “The abandonment of men in contemporary society is so comprehensive that a man who has lost a wife or lover not only suffers from the loss of that deep personal connection, but from a fairly comprehensive rejection by society in general. First you lose your wife, then your kids, and then even your own family turns against you in many cases (this is a lot more common than most people realize. American men’s own mothers very often blame them and side with the ex in what is usually a futile effort to maintain contact with grandchildren). 
The thrashing you get from the police and courts is just gratuitous abuse; 

in many cases guys are simply numb to additional pain by that time.”
.

***

.
I would argue that the sudden and total collapsing of love, as it is presented to men, is evidence of its illusion.

Children are raised on it, women can expect it their whole lives in a watered down sense, but men lose all right to it as they come of age. Unfortunately, in the West, no-one ever tells them that this is their heritage as men. They have to learn it the hard way, or go mad refusing to learn it at all.

Other cultures, particularly those closer to nature,

had rites of passage for young men. The rite usually involved sending the stripling out in the wild, on his own. He would be exposed to danger, expected to survive on his own, and could expect no assistance. It was a symbolic, and real, exercise to let him know that he was no longer the dependent he once was. Young women were never subjected to the same. They belonged to the community, no matter their age, their fertility or their ability.

It is a feature of all men who go wild at women and take it out on innocents, as well as their former intimates, that they are still sold on the love illusion – they are men that fervently believe they deserve a place in the bosom of society. The trick is maintained for its utility in deceiving men into social contracts that are counter to their own interests.
.

It’s the same the world over. Every deal won by trickery has a higher harvest of woe than that done with all cards on the table and intentions plainly stated.

(Read More Here)

The Want of Men Was Their Ruin

Click for "The Suffragettes vs The Patriarchy"

If men really were as misogynist as women claim, none of this would have ever happened. We would've just put them over our knee and given them a righteous paddling until we got our damn sammiches made exactly like we wanted 'em.

It's the very fact that women have so much social power over men that's the problem - and that's why I, like Weininger, have to say it's ultimately men's fault this happened.
  


"Where my exposition is anti-feminine, and that is nearly everywhere, men themselves will 

receive it with little heartiness or conviction; their sexual egoism makes them prefer to see woman as they would like to have her, as they would like her to be.

I need not say that I am prepared for the answer women will have to the judgment I have passed on their sex. My investigation, indeed, turns against man in the end, and although in a deeper sense than the advocates of women's rights could anticipate, assigns to man the heaviest and most real blame. ..."
 -- Otto Weininger, Sex and Character, Author's Preface

Men have blinders on when it comes to women in much the same way mothers have blinders on them with children. Women naturally see their children as perfect little angels and men see women in the same way. Our civilization has been trying to take the female sex off that pedastal for the last 3,300 years, (back when Moses was thought to have written the Pentateuch), and it's been a struggle to do so the whole way.

(Read More Here)

The Liberation of Men

.
To the woman he said, "I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you."


To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' "Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life. It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return." -- Genesis 3:16-19

Click Pic for "Love is for Suckers... Blood Suckers!"

.



And so it has been ever since, until feminism convinced women to unwittingly take on men's curse as their own.

And what's a man to do about it, after all? Despite corporate and feminist attempts at designing various ways for emasculated males to take on the pains of child-birth, there can never be a true understanding for males of what it is like to give birth. This is women's curse, and it is their curse alone to bear, for it is impossible for men to share equally with her in it - even if men were so stupid to want to.

(Read More Here)

Work With the World, Don't Fight Against It

.
Something I think men will have to come to terms with is that when the pendulum inevitably swings back, what actual benefit do men think this will have for them? Will it bring that fabled equality everyone is seeking? Will everyone join hands and sing kumbaya and live happily ever after? Will the planets align and Heaven on Earth make itself apparent to man and woman alike?

Not likely.

For example, it is easy to point out that when feminists cry of the abuses of women in places like Afghanistan, if you look at the men they are treated even worse. And, if you look at the “abuses” women endured in the past centuries, you will find that in every situation, men had even worse abuses to endure. It is a feature of human nature. It's just like no matter at what place, or in what time, children are always treated better than adults – it’s just the way humanity works.

So, after Feminism subsides, how will things change? Do you really think it will be any different? Women will still be treated better than men. They have been since the dawn of time, and they will be until closing time.

(Read More Here)

Following the Masculine Principle is the "Right Way"

.
"Totalitarianism, however, does not so much promise an age of faith as an age of schizophrenia. A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud. Such a society, no matter how long it persists, can never afford to become either tolerant or intellectually stable...

Totalitarianism demands, in fact, the continuous alteration of the past, and in the long run probably demands a disbelief in the very existence of objective truth." -- George Orwell 
.
It's hard to say, really, what one should "do" about all of this falseness that's crept into our society. The family unit is obviously being altered. Everybody seems to have an idea of how to make it "work" better - by further deconstructing it. We've got a 50% Divorce Rate, Shared-Parenting, Gay Marriage, 5-Parent Families, unsustainable birth-rates, and over half of children now go to bed without their biological father in the house. I think marriage has been fixed enough, don't you?

(Read More Here)

The Family Plot: The Future (Civil Unions & Shared Parenting)

.

The argument often used against Same Sex Marriage is that it should not be called “marriage” but rather a “civil union” – call it ANYTHING you want, just don’t call it marriage!

But advocates for Same Sex Marriage simply refuse to rename it, despite such “civil unions” not really differing from marriage in anything but name.

Have you ever asked yourself “why”?

A quick perusing of the following quotes ought to give a hint to the answer:

“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. …In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality.” -- Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”, in William Rubenstein, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405.

"A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p.161

"It [gay marriage] is also a chance to wholly transform the definition of family in American culture. It is the final tool with which to dismantle all sodomy statutes, get education about homosexuality and AIDS into public schools, and, in short, usher in a sea of change in how society views and treats us." -- Michelangelo Signorile, "I do, I do, I do, I do, I do," OUT Magazine, May 1996, p.30

"[E]nlarging the concept to embrace same-sex couples would necessarily transform it into something new....Extending the right to marry to gay people -- that is, abolishing the traditional gender requirements of marriage -- can be one of the means, perhaps the principal one, through which the institution divests itself of the sexist trappings of the past." -- Tom Stoddard, quoted in Roberta Achtenberg, et al, "Approaching 2000: Meeting the Challenges to San Francisco's Families," The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Family Policy, City and County of San Francisco, June 13, 1990, p.1.

Click Pic for "Peer Reviewed Research: The Holy Grail of Truth?"

There is an element in the Gay Community that fully intends to transform the current parameters of marriage and create something completely new. This is classical Cultural Marxism and is the reason why Gay Rights Activists and feminists have joined each other at the urinal of eternal victimization, despite the obvious contradiction of each group’s fundamental premise – that being feminists' entire raison d'être is based upon “Gender is a Social Construct,” (therefore women are discriminated against because they are treated differently while being born fundamentally the same), whereas Gay Rights Activists argue that they are born gay (refuting gender is a social construct) and therefore they are victimized because they are born that way. These arguments are mutually contradictory at the most fundamental level, and the two groups ought to be enemies… and yet, they obviously aren’t. The reason is that the radical wings of both factions have the same fundamental goal: they both wish to alter the family unit into something completely new.

(Read More Here)

The Family Plot: The Present (No-Fault Divorce & Hypergamy)

.

R.I.P. Marriage 1.0 (Click Pic for "The Suffragettes versus The Patriarcy")

Often we identify the introduction of No-Fault Divorce laws in the 1970’s as the beginning of the divorce epidemic. As I pointed out in The Suffragettes versus The Patriarchy, this is not entirely accurate. The divorce craze actually began back in the 1860’s and 1870’s when the Suffragettes undermined father-custody with the Tender Year’s Doctrine and mother-custody became the norm. This voided one of the core tenets of marriage in the first place - which was bringing men into the reproduction process in a meaningful way so that their higher provisioning abilities could be utilized for the greater good of both families and society.

It’s not like No-Fault Divorce had no impact on divorce rates – it certainly did! But it more or less streamlined a process that had been well under way for over a century.

Contrary to popular belief, obtaining a divorce before the 1970’s was not that difficult. Marilyn Monroe divorced three times between 1942 and 1961 while Elizabeth Taylor had four divorces under her belt and was working on her fifth when No-Fault Divorce became law. Before No-Fault Divorce was introduced there were just a few more hoops to jump through, in an effort to “find fault.” Of course, with “fault” divorce, it extends that one must prove that an actual “fault” had occurred. There were many things which constituted “fault,” including adultery, alcoholism, insanity, abandonment, and a host of others. But the most pernicious to the institution was the fault called “cruelty.”

(Read More Here)

The Family Plot: The Past (Their Oppressors Are Children)

.

Sometimes I have to laugh at mankind's arrogance, to be sitting here on this tiny planet, in our not so significant solar system, in one of an infinite number of galaxies... that we dare to even argue about the nature of the universe and what is True or not.


It makes me think of being born on some tropical island out in the Pacific, then declaring the whole world is made of coconuts, sand and water.

How on earth could someone in that situation even conceive of the Grand Canyon or Mount Everest? We are in the same situation - so long as we are stuck way out here on good old planet earth, we too cannot possibly even conceive of all the workings, patterns, systems and forces that are at play in the "greater scope of things."

(Read More Here)

Useful Idiots Play Checkers, Marxists Play Chess

.
A mistake I think many "conspiracy theorists" make is trying to account for every single event as being some sort of manipulation. It doesn't really have to be as complex as that - there are really only certain pivotal arguments that need to be won, so that the general direction will turn. For example, giving women the vote, due to their more security-based psychology (as opposed to men's individualistic psychology) pretty much guaranteed that government would turn socialist and begin to grow. This has been explored by John Lott and Lawrence Kenny's study titled, "Did Women's Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?"

In the same way, if parental authority is undermined by "children's rights," I can pretty much guarantee that there will be untold havoc created in people's families. Making the hierarchy upside down naturally causes problems. The private cannot lead the general. The employee cannot lead the employer. The child cannot lead the parent. Take any of these situations and reverse the hierarchy, and it's pretty easy to see how they will naturally canabalize themselves until they are utterly destroyed. Some arguments are more important than others - because they can set off a chain reaction of further arguments in the future.

(Read More Here)

Cultural Pillars and Critical Theory

.
"All the other large and small nationalities and peoples are destined to perish before long in the revolutionary world storm… these residual fragments of peoples always become fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution and remain so until their complete extirpation or loss of their national character… [A general war will] wipe out all these petty hidebound nations, down to their very names. The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward." -- Friedrich Engels, "The Magyar Struggle," Neue Rhenische Zeitung, January 13, 1849
.
Immediately after Russia's October Revolution of 1917, Lenin withdrew from fighting in World War One, although the formal end of Russia's involvement wasn't until the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in March 1918.  The Great War in Europe had all been predicted by Marx and Engels decades earlier and it appeared things were going exactly as they should. The next event that should have happened was for the common-man (the workers) to throw off their chains and unite under a new, global system of Communist Utopia. 

Of course, it never happened. This was a pivotal and confusing moment in the world of Marxism. Obviously, since the global revolution didn't appear as predicted, Marx and Engels had gotten something wrong. It is from here that "Marxism" goes from being strictly an economic theory and into the realm of cultural theory.

(Read More Here)

It's Not Marxism Because...

.
"A world where men and women would be equal is easy to visualize, for that precisely is what the Soviet Revolution promised." - Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York, Random House, 1952), p.806
.

One of the most common arguments I see made against the notion that feminism and Marxism are one in the same goes something like this:

"Feminism and Marxism aren't related because Stalin's policy of xyz was certainly not feminist!" (or Mao's, or Pol Pot's or Gorbachev - take your pick).

Another common argument goes like this:

"Russian women aren't raving feminists like American women, therefore, Marxism and feminism aren't related."

Well, all these things may be true, but, one must also realize that Marxism is kinda like Christianity in that while it has a large over-riding ideology, there are many different denominations with varying beliefs. Lenin's interpretation of Marxism was one such type, called Leninism, and when Stalin took over he interpreted Marxism in a different way - over-riding some of Lenin's beliefs - and thus becoming "Stalinism." Mao as well interpreted Marxism differently from Stalin, and this became known as "Maoism." So, just as it is false to say that Protestants aren't Christians because they don't have a Pope and never go to confession, so is it false to say that Marxism and feminism are unrelated because of reason XYZ during Boris Yeltsin' s vodka soaked tenure at the helm.

Mostly when people such as myself assert that Marxism and feminism are one in the same, it has a lot to do with the philosophies behind Marxism, such as the oppressor vs. victim class, the use of the Marxist dialectic to manipulate the population, the "end-goal" of Marxism & feminism being remarkably similar, and most of all it comes from Engels' own words (Marx made a few references to liberating women, but Engels really got into it).

(Read More Here)

The Powers That Be

.
Is "someone" or some "thing" behind all of this monkeying around with our culture?

It's natural to seek someone to point a finger at, to try to explain how this could have happened to us. There are many different opinions and there are certainly enough pivotal events in history which are shrouded in mystery or lost knowledge to fuel many a conspiracy theory.

I can see two reactions amongst my readers as I say this. The first is going, "Well thank, goodness! I was wondering if he had the balls to bring that subject up." 

The Cervelati (33rd Order of the Salami)

"Et Tu, Brute?" My other reader's eyes roll back in their heads as they begin supress their gag reflex, "Oh no! Here comes the talk about the Illuminati and the Protocols of the Elders Zion. Or wait, maybe this guy believes it's the Rothschild's... and he's going to link both Hitler and Marx to the banking elites and the Bilderberg Group... or perhaps he'll tell us about the Masons, the Skull and Bones and the sex-party initiations at the Bohemian Grove."

Well, not really - although I would like to briefly address some of these ideas to illustrate where my general position is on the matter and how it actually helped me understand the concepts of "truth" found within these pages.

(Read More Here)

Feminizing the Decline (Hypergamy and Birthrates)

“Remember this: The strongest sign of the decay of a nation is the feminization of men and the masculinization of women. It is notable that in Communist nations women are exhorted, and compelled, to do what has traditionally been men’s work. American women, some of them, feel triumphant that they have broken down the ‘barricades’ between the work of the sexes. I hope they will still feel triumphant when some commissar forces a shovel or an axe into their soft hands and compels them to pound and cut forests and dig ditches. I hope they will be ‘happy’ when a husband deserts them and they must support their children and themselves alone. (After all, if a woman must be ‘free’ she shouldn’t object to men being free too, should she?) I hope they will feel ‘fulfilled’ when they are given no more courtesies due to their sex and no kindnesses, but are kicked aside on the subway buses by men, and jostled out of the way by men on busy sidewalks and elevators…. I hope, when they look in their mirrors, that they will be pleased to see exhausted, embittered faces, and that they will be consoled by their paychecks.” ~ Taylor Caldwell, 1970

(Read More Here)

The Fraud of Modern Marriage (Women as Chattel)

[Do you believe women have the right] to divorce?

Answer:

Ah… I suspect this question is based on the tired old feminist refrain, “Women were owned as chattel!”
.
I think in order for this question to be properly answered, one must first examine the concept that marriage is an economic contract based on property rights.

You see, all throughout the animal kingdom, motherhood is a pretty common theme. It is positively everywhere! What is not common in the animal kingdom however, is fatherhood. Nope, not too many baby deer know who their fathers are. Fatherhood is a foreign concept in most of the animal kingdom.

Female mammals often find themselves living in a herd filled with many other females, all being bred by one dominant alpha male. The females congregate in herds because it is the only way they and their offspring can safely survive. Yes, herd living is true Communism where all is shared and they all get fat or starve together. Ever wonder why women tend to all think the same way and why they desire big, Socialist government over individualism and freedom? Ever wonder why women will stick up for another woman even when they know that woman is obviously in the wrong? It’s because of their allegiance to the herd. The herd comes first. Now you know.

(Read More Here)

Father Custody and the Legend of the Selkie

BRIFFAULT'S LAW
.
“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” -- Robert Briffault, The Mothers, I, 191
.
The Corollaries to Briffault's law:

1 - Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.

2 - Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit (see corollary 1)

3 - A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male (which is not bloody likely).
.

***

.
Some years ago, through the usual discourse of mindlessly arguing with people on the internet, I met a woman online who went by the handle of “Selkie.” I had no idea what a selkie was, so I typed it into Google and discovered an interesting legend that I believe is directly about human sexuality.

The mythological selkie is similar to a mermaid, except the selkie is a seal which can shed its skin and transform into a human being. The selkie can be either male or female, but most are female. Once they are in their human form, if their seal skin is taken and hidden from them, they are unable to turn back into a seal and thus cannot return to their home in the sea.

Click for "The Wife of Noble Character"

Now, as the legend goes, female selkies make great wives when in their human form and so men would hide the skins of selkies so they would stay with them - for if she found her skin she would right away put it back on, abandon her human husband and escape to the sea to seek out her male selkie lover/husband.

There is an interesting twist though, in that even after she abandons her human husband she will return from time to time to visit the children which she had while with him.

(Read More Here)

The Suffragettes versus The Truth

In an odd sort of way, I'm excited to tackle the next three points of Elizabeth Cady Stanton's Declaration of Sentiments, for this is the culminating moment of an underlying theme found throughout this book: The Truth, how it differs for men and women, and why it matters very much which one leads the other.

Click Pic to read The Declaration of Sentiments in full.

Points 13 to 15 of the Declaration are as follows: 

13 - He allows her in church, as well as State, but a subordinate position, claiming Apostolic authority for her exclusion from the ministry, and, with some exceptions, from any public participation in the affairs of the Church.

14 - He has created a false public sentiment by giving to the world a different code of morals for men and women, by which moral delinquencies which exclude women from society, are not only tolerated but deemed of little account in man.

15 - He has usurped the prerogative of Jehovah himself, claiming it as his right to assign for her a sphere of action, when that belongs to her conscience and her God.

***

"When the Cow Rides the Bull, 
Priest, Watch Your Skull!" 

"Women can sing to more than one tune. What good were the Perihermeneias, the Elenchi, divided into several branches, the Prior and Posterior Analytics, logic, or the mathematical sciences to Aristotle? For a woman surmounted all of these in mounting him and conquered the master of logic. She placed a bit and headstall on his head and he was dragged into solecism, barbastoma, and barbarism. The hussy used him as a horse and spurred him on like a female ass. She lifted her crotch far too high when she rode the male. The governor was governed and the roles of the sexes reversed, for she was active and he passive, willing to neigh under her. . . ." -- Woman over Wisdom, The Lamentations of Matheolus, 1295AD

***

First, let's be clear here. In case you haven't noticed, I am an unabashed sexist. I absolutely do not believe Gender is a Social Construct. I think there certainly were social constructs society once endorsed, but they were based upon our biological differences - and it was more or less correct to structure society as it once was because of them. Our civilization has endured for millenia - proof of its viability under defined gender roles - while in the past century we've been tripping over ourselves to commit cultural suicide. The Bible, whether you believe in God or not, is the "blueprint" for our civilization - it is the key to how our cultural and social mores developed. It has proven itself to be a "Book of Life" because the structure of the society it puts forth certainly endures, grows and succeeds.

(Read More Here)

The Suffragettes versus the Marketplace

Let's continue our examination of Elizabeth Cady Stanton's Declaration of Sentiments with points 9 to 12 done briefly, as these issues will be addressed with greater detail later in this chapter.

Click Pic to read "The Declaration of Sentiments"

9 - After depriving her of all rights as a married woman, if single and the owner of property, he has taxed her to support a government which recognizes her only when her property can be made profitable to it.

10 - He has monopolized nearly all the profitable employments, and from those she is permitted to follow, she receives but a scanty remuneration.

11 - He closes against her all the avenues to wealth and distinction, which he considers most honorable to himself. As a teacher of theology, medicine, or law, she is not known.

12 - He has denied her the facilities for obtaining a thorough education - all colleges being closed against her.
.

---

.
To show that I am not a horrible cretin of a misogynist, I'm going to grant Elizabeth Cady Stanton her point number nine. I wholeheartedly agree that a woman who owns property while single should be allowed a voice if she is being taxed upon the property. This was the basis for men having suffrage too, and indeed, this is how women slowly on began getting more access to the vote - especially since women who were widows owning substantial property holdings left behind by their husbands paid hefty taxes indeed. Most of society thought this reasonable as well, which is why women in such situations were soon allowed to vote by proxy - they could send a man in their stead to deliver their vote. (Women were sometimes given the vote in various states or municipalities long before 1919).  Back in those days, voting was quite often violent, with union leaders trying to intimidate voters and riots erupting at the polls. So, instead of sending these women into the dragon's lair, they arranged for such property-holding women to vote by proxy rather than in person.

Touché, Elizabeth Cady Stanton.

However, I'd like to remind her that Sparta fell because, according to Aristotle, its faulty inheritance laws resulted in women owning 2/5 of the land - so, there's what we think is fair, and there's what works. The two need balance. I suspect women not holding property outside of marriage, as addressed in point six, would suffice to keep this in check in our civilization because it would keep the number much smaller than that which Aristotle claimed as the cause of Sparta's plummeting birthrates. (How much of the population were widows and single women back in 1848? Not that much.)  Keep in mind this is a legal right, not an "unalienable" one, which has been established earlier. Legal rights are about making society "function."

(Read More Here)

The Suffragettes versus The Patriarchy

.

Click Pic to Read "The Declaration of Sentiments"

In the last section we examined points 1 to 3 of the Declaration of Sentiments and how the suffragette movement's demand for the "unalienable" (inalienable?) right to vote was against the concept of the Republic formed by America's Founding Fathers. America was never intended to be a democracy but adhered to principles which were the political embodiment of the masculine principle and the ordering of truth as put forth by John Locke.

As we carry on through the 16 sentiments made in this document, which is obviously based upon the United States' Declaration of Independence itself (since its preample is almost a word for word copy of it) we are presented with the 4th sentiment:

4 - Having deprived her of this first right as a citizen, the elective franchise, thereby leaving her without representation in the halls of legislation, he has oppressed her on all sides.

When I looked at this point, I struggled a bit whether to include it in the last section, which was about the nature of the State and the difference between inalienable rights and legal rights, or whether it should be included in this section - which will deal much more with the notion of "equality" in society. It belongs in both because we first must clarify what is exactly meant by this statement.

Although the first three points of the Declaration of Sentiments are in regard to the vote, and this is what Elizabeth Cady Stanton is referring to as the "first right of a citizen," it's already been shown that voting is not an inalienable right, but a legal one.

The phrase "a stopped clock is right twice a day" comes to mind here, because although she was wrong about the vote, she actually is right to say "the first right is equality" - and in fact, she is perfectly valid when, in the beginning of her drawing off the Declaration of Independence, she only makes the single alteration of inserting "and women" into it:

(Read More Here)

The Suffragettes versus The Republic

Feminism started as an organized movement in 1848 at the Seneca Falls Convention on Women's rights, which had an attendence of around 300 people. It was here that the Declaration of Sentiments put down the foundations of women's demands. It's principle author was Elizabeth Cady Stanton and it was signed by 100 people: 68 women and 32 men.

---

Despite being later known as the "suffragettes," at the time of the Declaration of Sentiment's signing, "the vote" was considered the most controversial of the sentiments, in-so-far as it even made some of the signers hesistant to endorse the document in its entirety.


I can see people's reactions already,, "Aha! Proof of the misogynist old days!"   
No, it wasn't really "misogyny" that was behind it - not entirely anyways. You have to keep in mind that this was 1848 and America's War for Independence had finished only 65 years earlier. It was about as fresh in the minds of the people as the Second World War is to us in the modern day. Many people's parents had lived through the American Revolution and their grandparents had fought in it. The people of that time were quite aware of the principles behind the Declaration of Independence and the nature of their rights under the framework of a Constitutional Republic.

(Read More Here)

Social Strategy: Why Men Shouldn't Argue With Women

.

Dominating Clock -- by Mathieu of Boulogne, 1295 A.D.

This female clock is really driving me mad, for her quarrelsome din doesn't stop for a moment. The tongue of a quarrelsome woman never tires of chiming in. She even drowns out the sound of the church bell. A nagging wife couldn't care less whether her words are wise or foolish, provided that the sound of her own voice can be heard. She simply pursues her own ends; there's not a grain of sense in what she says; in fact she finds it impossible to have a decent thought. She doesn't want her husband to be the boss and finds fault with everything he does. Rightly or wrongly, the husband has no choice: he has to put up with the situation and keep his mouth shut if he wants to remain in one piece. No man, however self disciplined or clear-sighted he may be, can protect himself adequately against this. A husband has to like what the wife likes, and disapprove of what she hates and criticize what she criticizes so that her opinions appear to be right. So anyone who wishes to immolate himself on the altar of marriage will have a lot to put up with. Fifteen times, both day and night, he will suffer without respite and he will be sorely tormented. Indeed, I believe that this torture is worse than the torments of hell, with its chains, fire, and iron.

Men and women are after different things when they “debate.
.
Men tend to, but not always, hold the truth to be the decider of the debate. (Manginas excepted – thus the name). The man who illustrates the truth the best, is generally considered the winner of a debate. Women, not so much. And don’t forget, women scoff at our “school yard rules.” Nothing seems sillier to a woman than the male “code.” When women fight/argue, there are no rules she adheres to. Women decide who “wins” a debate by who has been the snotty-mouthiest and by who emotionally manipulates the other into submission. The truth matters not a bit to women.

"If men are always more or less deceived on the subject of women, it is because that they forget that they and women do not speak altogether the same language, and that words have not the same weight or the same meaning for them, especially in questions of feeling. Whether from shyness or precaution or artifice, a woman never speaks out her whole thought, and moreover what she herself knows of it is but a part of what it really is. Complete frankness seems to be impossible to her, and complete self-knowledge seems to be forbidden her. If she is a sphinx to us, it is because she is a riddle of doubtful meaning even to herself. She has no need of perfidy, for she is mystery itself. A woman is something fugitive, irrational, indeterminable, illogical, and contradictory. A great deal of forbearance ought to be shown her, and a good deal of prudence exercised with regard to her, for she may bring about innumerable evils without knowing it, capable of all kinds of devotion, and of all kinds of treason, "monstre incompréhensible,'' raised to the second power, she is at once the delight and the terror of men." -- The Intimate Journal of Henri Amiel, Dec. 26, 1868

(Read More Here)