Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of biological fathers in children's lives: a large and serious social problem
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us|
Fathers for Life Site-Search
Site Map (very large file)
Table of Contents
Children—Our most valued assets?
Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
Civil Rights & Social Issues
Destruction of Families
Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
Help Lines for Men
Law, Justice and The Judiciary
Mail to F4L
The Politics of "Sex"
Our Most Popular Pages
References - Bibliography
You are visitor
since June 19, 2001
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.
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).
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:
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
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 given 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.
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 The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage, The Atlantic Monthly, July 1926
(See also a more exhaustive history of the evolution and destructive social impact of Soviet divorce laws)
Feminism and Society — As seen through feminists' eyes (and as seen through the eyes of others who still use common sense)
Why is Communism worse than Capitalism?
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.
Table of Contents for feminism and related issues
Feminism For Male College Students — A Short Guide to the Truth, by Angry Harry (Off-Site)
Posted 2000 06 10
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)
Disclaimer | copyright 1998-2008 all rights reserved by Walter Schneider | Copyright information | Contact