Meta-Review: Susan B. Anthony - Racist, Manipulator? Who's Lying to You About Early Feminism?

MensNewsDaily.com ^ | 21AUG03 | Art Lemasters

[djreece]

Well, the lovely site you linked for us no longer appears to have the Lott/Kenny article up.

[familyop]

That's funny. The admin. there let me download it just
fine. It's a good report, BTW.

[4CJ]

IIRC, she was also anti-abortion. One would have to wonder why the founders, with all their wisdom that gave us such a magnificent plan of government, would not have granted women the right of suffrage. Was it because the vast majority women were not educated as were the men?

[Mamzelle]

The early feminists were worlds apart from our modern versions. And I'm sure that modern fems would chuckle at this attempt to portray some very conservative early suffragettes as freaks and frauds and fanatics--since the moderns have long since abandoned the morality of these predessors. Ironic...

Aug 26--anniversary of when we got the vote.

[Ff--150]

Ruh-roh!! Flame suit on...:>)

[djreece]

The problem with the link above appears to be the period included at the end of the URL.

An alternate link for those who would rather not give a racist, misogynist, anti-semitic, white supremacist website hits is here:
http://www.patriotist.com/files/lottwmn.zip

Never fear, the editor of this site still has major problems with "wimmin," but he doesn't appear to extend that to all other groups not like him as the other website does.

[ferdburful]

I just checked, and it's still there, downloading without a hiccup. Try typing the URL in manually, maybe that will work better for you.

[ferdburful]

With all due respect, I think you may be missing a major point here, which is that we have to hold everyone, from BOTH sides of the cultural debate, accountable according to the same standards.

Those who, in years past, argued the anti-feminist position have been roundly pilloried by modern day inquisitors seeking to discredit them by applying present day sensibilities to their actions and beliefs, without regard for the centuries old context. That has been, and remains, one of the chief tactics of the defenders of feminism, and indeed, of socialism in general. It seems only fair to me to hold feminists of years past to the same modern-day standards to which their erstwhile opponents are being held.

It's very easy to cry and wail about the debate being somehow intellectually dishonest, but the only dishonesty in the larger national debate so far has been exhibited by feminists who would assert a double standard in evaluating the integrity of the various historical figures involved. It seems to me that familyop is attempting to rectify that disparity, and hold feminists to a single, common standard with their opponents.

That is, to me, a refreshing change.

[ferdburful]

Thanks for the alternate link. The one I posted was the first one that hit my search engine. It used to be posted on the UChicago site, but I could no longer find it there. Probably generating too much heat from the academic left....

[familyop]

"Try typing the URL in manually, maybe that will work better for you."

Oh, and don't forget the part about the incantation to the
goddess, tapping left foot three times on a male, etc.

;-)

[djreece]

It seems only fair to me to hold feminists of years past to the same modern-day standards to which their erstwhile opponents are being held.

Which opponents are you referring to? What type of attacks are you talking about from the "defenders of feminism"?

I guess I am coming from a whole different viewpoint than you and some others on this thread. I don't keep up with the apparent ongoing war in academia regarding the suffragists.

I grew up with the idea that the Susan B. Anthony and other feminists were the same as modern-day feminists. Among other things, I was disgusted by the Susan B. Anthony dollar being issued because of my prejudice against them. In recent years, I happened to come across some information that showed they were of an entirely different character than the feminists of the '60s and beyond. Fascinated, I read up on the history of the era. I am chagrined by my earlier ignorance, and in my mind the modern-day feminists have dishonored the memory of the suffragists by portraying themselves as sharing the same philosophy.

For what they accomplished in the social climate of their times, the suffragists have my deepest admiration and respect. They were a different breed entirely from today's feminists.

I love history, not feminism. I don't see how twisting the facts and quotes in a different direction to fit one's agenda serves the truth.

[familyop]

"twisting the facts and quotes"

One cannot twist facts and quotes like those made by the
early feminists. The witches really said those things.
Feminists have been hiding those things for over 100
years. Now that people are beginning to exose those
facts, feminists are going nuts. No amount of loose
rhetoric will cover the many nasty things said and done
by early feminists. Feminism hasn't changed since its
beginning. Jezebel keeps popping up here and there to
sound her sirens and draw corrupt, philandering men
(like the fruitcake William Garrison) to her aid to
destroy the family.

Who's Lying to You About Early Feminism?
Susan B. Anthony: Racist Manipulator
http://mensnewsdaily.com/archive/l/lemasters/lemasters082103.htm

Ha...funny. I popped a beer when news came that the
nasty Democrat Wellstone croaked. It's too bad that so
many men haven't had real fathers who were real men.

[viaveritasvita]

We have been invited [by the Father]
Through the Son
To believe the unbelievable
Receive the inconceivable...

Steven Curtis Chapman

[viaveritasvita]

What's up with all these leftie feminist defenders posting here!?? Gag me! I'm with you, kiddo.

[djreece]

Obviously, we disagree. But to get back to the title, and purported point of the article, which is supposedly to expose the buried "dark side" of Susan B. Anthony, nothing is here that is not well-known in the historical record for anyone who has done any reading about the women's suffrage movement. It is just that here the information is presented in a very inflammatory way and taken out of context.

I can take quotes from Lincoln and paint him as a racist. I can take quotes from Jefferson and paint him as an anti-Christian heretic. To do so would be a disservice to the truth and to the great good these men accomplished.

I just don't see what all the hyperventilating is about. You sound like the male equivalent of a shrill feminazi.

[Alia]

I'm reading through this thread; it is patently obvious that FamilyOp is discussing in terms of the article; you are discussing something else altogether.

Just so I can muddy this discourse further:
An issue that is not in that excellently researched article by Familyop? And yours does not address either -- the ISSUE was property rights.

At that time in history property rights and voting rights were tied. Also, at that time "british" law still had "head of household" as the man; and America had brought in English law as opposed to Germanic law principles. There were actually sound reasons for this having NADA to do with "sexism".

The point is, and I do agree with FamilyOp on this -- generation upon generation of Americans have been lied to by feminists and the machinery concerning passages of both the 15th and 19th amendments.

And yours:

The point of the review is that (if) some early feminists were racist or used racist/sexists strategy ... or strategically allied themselves to certain groups to gain political clout, that this is supposedly discredits them. Well, if it does, it discredits every politician and politic activist from the beginning of time.**

The problem is your assumptive word "supposedly". If it is a fact, in your opinion, or in FamilyOps' -- "supposedly" is neither here nor there.

Furthermore, it's not "politics" -- it is not the nature of politics to be inherently corrupt. As learned Lord Ashton points out, paraphrased -- if you are corrupt before you rise to power, you will be a corrupt leader (and vice versa).


Personally, the issues concerning the 19th, IMHO, could have been resolved on a state by state basis through altering the "property" ownings issue.

Yours:
___ The Founders sold blacks down the river and appeased the slave-holding South in order to get them to join the Union. It's called politics. That's how the game is played.

___ Many of our Founders OWNED blacks as slaves. If we're going to discredit the ideals and views of racists, we'd be making a long list of ideals that have no merit .... including the ones our coutry was founded upon

And many women are murdering their children, and have been doing so for many years -- but's it's got a handy legitimacy to it -- called Supreme Court.


...Alia

[Alia]

LOL!!! I loved your angry retort. You know why? It's a canard-shot.

Men did not call all the shots. To assert this is to claim something that in all of history has never happened.

What men do for women, or for their favor, is the greatest untold story in US history.

Women found all kinds of ways to "vote". Like, um, no nookie tonight. Clean your own *()^ laundry. Saltpeter in the stew....

Women have never been as helpless and dependent in the US as they are in these current times, IMHO.

...Alia

[Corin Stormhands]

Yeah, whatever.

[Alia]

It is my opinion that those who fall hardest for victimist lines also fall hardest for falsehoods.

However, We do Agree on something -- George Bush 2004! :)

...Alia

[familyop]

"Would you have us go back to the day where women couldn't vote?"

No...too much romanticism and the misery it brings just
before that time. I would have us go forward to a day
when married people can laugh at third parties who try
to drive wedges between them and words like "gender"
are again sensibly applied only to plants and languages.
...a day when evil, leftist witches no longer blame men
in general more than women in general for abortions
in general without having scorn heaped upon them heavily.

And as for the older argument, "Would you have women go
back to being barefoot and pregnant all the time?" ...

Well, although rhythm, abstinence, at times, and children
are good things,...

My answer to that one is "No, I would not send them all
to a place where they would use corn cob pipes, have
diets chiefly of squirrel meat or marry their cousins,
either."