The Myth that Women Were Not Allowed to Hold Office or Court Prior to The Feminist Movement

If women were 100% not allowed to hold office at all prior to the feminist movement by the evil patriarchy as feminists claim, then how were women allowed to be Queens? Why is an entire era called The Victorian Era?

 A declaration from a case in 1808 stated that women were allowed to hold most offices in the UK including Queen of course, and this was long before the feminist movement.





And yet here feminists are claiming that women wouldn't have that right without them.

Granted, life for both women and men was often no picnic back then, and there was plenty of discrimination against both sexes, but the fact remains, you are being lied to about women not being allowed to be public officials or hold court.

The first female mayor in the United States was Susanna M. Salter in 1887 which was at least 70 years before anything called the feminist movement existed. There is no record of her having to fight to be mayor.

Women in Colonial America were the first to Own Printing Presses.

  Unlike the humongous myths you have heard or been told by feminists, when it comes to women having basic rights as men did; like having the right to education and running businesses, during the colonial days of the US, women were pioneering in journalism and advertisements.

In"Encyclopedia of Women in American History", we discover that the first person to even own a printing press was a woman named Elizabeth Glover of Cambridge MA, in 1638, and 25 women who ran newspapers and presses, plus other additional 26 cases; including where a woman opened up her own firm with her own money. Do these women sound oppressed to you?  

When we read further down, we also find out that a woman named Mary Katherine Goddard was chosen to be the first one to even print out the first copy of the Declaration of Independence, and that publications respected both male and female audiences; even not wanting to offend women who would read those articles. Sounds like typical chauvinism in action to me:

                                              

These just helps demonstrate some of the massive lies your government, teachers and the mainstream media have told you regarding women's level of freedom in early America.

Women of all Classes could Vote in England before Women's Suffrage

   Another important piece of information that we are being lied about and letting the feminist movement get away with, is the historical revisionism they commit when they claim women were just properties of men and could not vote before women's suffrage. We posted in this blog how that was a lie in the U.S, and now that is also a lie in England.


Women of all classes and social status voted 75 years prior to the Parliamentary franchise to officially give women the vote. Those include women who were property owners and owned businesses as well, but we were told women weren't allowed to do that?
Here's The Telegraph's report on it:

"A new document has surfaced which shows British women, of all classes, voting in 1843, some 75 years before they received the parliamentary franchise in 1918. History professor, Sarah Richardson, explains what this discovery means and how it was possible.

The document in question was a poll book for the election to the local office of Assistant Overseer of the Poor, in the parish of St Chad’s, Lichfield in 1843. I was tipped off about its existence by a friend, Philip Salmon of the History of Parliament. It was a schedule of voters, their addresses, the rates they paid and how they voted. But as I looked down the list of names, some immediately jumped off the page: Elizabeth Shorthouse, Hannah Holiman, Phoebe Skelton, Ann Mallett… In all, there were thirty women playing an active role in the election.

Although I knew that in theory women retained the right to vote for some local officials in the nineteenth century, I had never seen any evidence of them doing so in practice. This lack of evidence had led me, and many other historians, to assume that voting was entirely a male prerogative before the twentieth century.

The record was compiled because the solicitors were the agents for the Conservative party in Lichfield. The town was a highly marginal constituency in this period, so the party clearly wanted to keep tabs on the political temperature between parliamentary elections. The solicitor would have compiled the poll book from the ballot papers returned by the voters.

In the period before the secret ballot, everyone was entitled to know how people voted. It was unusual to have an election for an Assistant Overseer. This was a powerful post responsible for collecting poor rates and deciding how they were allocated. But the overseers were usually appointed to avoid the expense of an election. All heads of households, paying rates were entitled to vote. This was a very wide franchise, and one that included single and widowed women.

 

My assumption was that the women would be of genteel status. But as I checked their names against the 1841 census return, I was surprised to see the diversity of the group of voters. There were a few women of independent means, owning property and land. There were also women, probably widows, who had inherited their husbands’ businesses. So, for example, the wealthiest female elector on the roll was Grace Brown, a butcher, who managed a large household including several servants.

Due to the high rates that she paid, Grace was entitled to four votes in the election, which she cast in favour of the Conservative candidate. But I was amazed to see many women on the list who were far lower down the social scale including the laundress, Caroline Edge, the servant, Sarah Payne and even paupers, including Sarah Batkin of Stowe Street.

The poll book is all that remains of an unremarkable local parish election in a comfortable Midlands market town in the mid nineteenth century. Yet, it has prompted a need to re-write the history books by providing the first substantial proof that women were able to vote long before they received the parliamentary or municipal franchise"

National Organization for Women's Direct ties to Marxism and their Anti-Family Agenda.

   This particular article was written by pioneering feminist man-hater Mallory Millet and in it she comes clean about how her sister Kate Millet stated that her and the largest feminist group, The National Organization for Women were hell-bent on destroying the family. Quote from Front Page Magazine :

"It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a "consciousness-raising-group," a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China.

We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:

They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women...

“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?" she demanded.
"By destroying the American family!" they answered.
"How do we destroy the family?" she came back.
"By destroying the American Patriarch," they cried exuberantly...

Katie said, "Come to New York. We're making revolution! Some of us are starting the National Organization of Women and you can be part of it...

The only way to do this was "to invade every American institution. Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’": The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system."

If anyone needed more proof of the ties of Marxism and feminism, here it is folks! And they had some common goals. Wonder why your political, educational, media, entertainment, academic, military establishments are all basically sold out no more! We have solid proof of a conspiracy.

American Women's Femininity has Dramatically Decreased Since the 70's

  Feminist psychologists proudly bragged about the fact that American women's femininity has decreased since the beginning of the height of the feminist movement's power during the 70's.

They carried out a study where they measured male and female typical gender attitudes and levels of androgyny, and found that men have pretty much remained in the same roles while women have become more androgynous and masculine.

The study already starts by feminists patting each other on the back and describing their findings:

 

Despite admitting that women in the U.S have become less and less feminine, these feminists are still contradicting themselves by saying that just because women are becoming more masculine, that doesn't mean they are abandoning femininity but
are "re-defining" what it means to be feminine by using a term called "bodily property" that is based on "willpower, discipline and social standing", which ironically are traditional male attitudes. 

Source: Masculine and Feminine Traits on the Bem Sex-Role Inventory, 1993–2012: a Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis

Yet when we look at more objective and empirical evidences based on hard science, traditional femininity is rooted in evolutionary sexual selection and parenting styles that creates an optimal environment for the propagation of the human race:

 "Psychological evidence suggests that sex differences in morphology have been modified by sexual selection so as to attract mates (intersexual selection) or intimidate rivals (intrasexual selection).

Women compete with each other for high quality husbands by advertising reproductive value in terms of the distribution of fat reserves and by exaggerating morphological indicators of youthfulness such as a small nose and small feet and pale, hairless skin.

Men's physical appearance tends to communicate social dominance, which has the combined effects of intimidating reproductive rivals and attracting mates. In addition to their attractiveness and intimidatory effects, human secondary sexual characters also provide cues to hormonal status and phenotypic quality consistent with the good genes model of sexual selection (which includes parasite resistance).

Low waist-hip ratio is sexually attractive in women and indicates a high estrogen/testosterone ratio (which favors reproductive function). Facial attractiveness provides honest cues to health and mate value. The permanently enlarged female breast appears to have evolved under the influence of both the good genes and the runaway selection mechanisms."

 Source: The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology

Source: The functional neuroanatomy of maternal love: mother's response to infant's attachment behaviors

Women Prison Workers are Majory of those who Lust after Criminals

    A new study by the University of Montreal reveals the fact that female prison workers who should know better than to get involved with criminals, are the majority of the ones who lust after inmates, while male workers are in the minority.

Not only female prison guards were the ones getting involved with criminals but clinicians, including criminologists, psychologists, and nurses; and women comprise 70% of those romantically involved with criminals compared to 30% of men.

Quote from the Daily Mail:

"The official term for lusting after people with a criminal record is known as hybristophilia and has been studied by Dr Philippe Bensimon at the University of Montreal.

In a study published in the journal Déliquance, justice et autres questions de société, the researcher focused on more than 300 cases of the phenomenon in the US and European media over a ten-year period, from 2005 to 2015.

For all of the instances, the prison workers were dismissed from their roles and some even from their professions entirely.

The study found women were more affected than men, with over 70 per cent of cases of sexual misconduct in US correctional system involving female staff, despite them making up less than half of the prison workforce.

According to Dr Bensimon, this skewed proportion may be due to the roles in which women typically work, which could lead to emotional bonds forming between staff and inmates.

'This is possibly explained by the fact that women occupy mainly professional positions,' he said.

'For example, in Canada, many correctional facilities for men are mostly made up of women clinicians, including criminologists, psychologists, and nurses.' "

International Data Suggests Women are half to Blame for Partner Violence

   A study carried out by Murray A. Straus from the University of New Hampshire titled "Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations" revealed that women were responsible for half of the perpetrated partner violence in The group studied.

 The study further questions the lie that it is mostly men being violent and domineering in relationships, and female dominance is more closely correlated to partner violence than male; also that abuse programs need to end their female biased services whereas men are vastly ignored or treated as the abusers themselves:

  

 It is further revealed that female-only violence is more frequent than male-only; and that the types of injuries committed by both genders are almost the same, unlike most feminists claim:

     The author was bold enough to reveal how even in the so-called patriarchal nations, these results are to be found. Another pretty eye opening admission from this study is that the author heavily criticized the government for refusing to fund programs for male victims and how the feminist movement holds a monopoly on gendered programs and is to blame for the bias that ignores half of the perpetrators based on the "Duluth" model of domestic violence:

     More important details can be found in the part where the study shows that female dominance is more correlated to partner violence than male dominance, and that male chivalry may be responsible for males not retaliating as much:

     One last detail that puts to rest another famous feminist lie, is that this study also reveals that severe injuries are almost as likely to be female-perpetrated in cases of more serious violence; 85% male compared to 74% female, female-only severe assaults being higher than male-only: