To accept feminism is to accept a lie. And to overlook the differences between men and women is a mistake for any society because the differences are genetic in nature, forming two different biological creatures that exist not only in mankind, but in other living organisms too. Sex is a fundamental work of Nature; and to disregard the inherent characteristics of both sexes is not only abnormal, but incompatible with a bearable state of human living as well.

Feminists oftentimes perpetrate the hoax that gender is a "social construct," meaning that traditional gender roles have developed over time due to nurture, not nature. Certainly, nurture does play some role in the human existence. But according to the feminist claim a woman must have a uterus simply because of the way she was raised by society. Such a claim is absurd because all of the scientific evidence clearly shows that (1) males and females are different from birth; and (2) gender equality simply does not exist. And so to support feminism also requires one to fight against unchangeable truth. Attempting to destroy the inborn qualities of the sexes by giving to each the same functions, the same rights, and the same obligations is, to quote Tocqueville, "a preposterous medley of the works of nature." The results of disregarding the inherent characteristics of both sexes we can all see around us here in present-day America.

Is chivalry dead?

Although feminist ideology might possibly be found in a few instances and in early form during antiquity, feminism as we know it is a recent development in human living. The 1792 publication of Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Woman is generally considered the founding document of feminism in Europe, just as the 1848 publication of the Communist Manifesto is regarded as the founding document of communism. Here in America, the founding of feminism is usually considered to have taken place at the now famous "women's rights convention" in Seneca Falls, New York, which was attended by both women and men. Strangely enough, the Seneca Falls convention was held the same year that communism was established, 1848.

The Seneca Falls convention launched the feminist movement when it demanded that a long-held and well-proven social ideal, chivalry, be replaced by an abstract and unobtainable goal, equality. Despite the eventual success of the feminist movement, chivalry has not been without its advocates over the years. In 1873, the U.S. Supreme Court was presented with the case Bradwell v. Illinois in which it was to decide whether the state of Illinois, under the federal constitution, could maintain an all-male legal profession. It was in this case that Justice Joseph P. Bradley wrote his famous defense of chivalry:

Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life....The harmony, not to say identity, of interests and views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband....The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother."

It seems to me that Justice Bradley's statement is based on common sense and an appreciation of the importance of the family unit to an orderly society. But the feminists have, in their own selfish and greedy way, chosen a radical political agenda over their own families. So now, day care centers have become holding tanks for the unloved, and (public) schools killing fields; all of this because an abstract utopian ideal is considered more important than an orderly and stable society. Thus, in the end, feminism becomes nothing more than a threat to human civilization. Such human chaos is what we should expect from a society that chooses equality over chivalry as its overriding social principle.

Communism & feminism: a comparison

Feminism interestingly enough oftentimes resembles other 20th-century egalitarian ideas such as multiculturalism, an ideology which also refuses to recognize the undeniable existence of innate human differences. But more than anything else I think feminism resembles communism.

Communism is the ideology that teaches that the whole of human history is nothing more than the story of class oppression, one class oppressing another. And although there are variations within this political ideology, all communists are united in destroying class distinctions. The great enemy of communists is what they call "classism;" likewise the great enemy of feminists is what they call "sexism." All distinctions between the sexes are considered inherently wrong. Moreover, feminists view sex distinctions as the product of sex oppression, one sex in society oppressing another. So we come to see that feminism and communism are simply two different verses of the same song. One is focused on class, the other on gender. But fundamentally they are the exact same thing.

Understanding the nexus between feminism and communism, one should not be surprised to find that the two co-founders of communism, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, were both feminists. Engels wrote that, "The first class opposition that appears in history coincides with the development of the antagonism between man and woman ... and the first class oppression coincides with that of the female sex by the male." Engels furthermore calls for the "liberation of the wife." Marx likewise wrote that, "The modern family contains in germ not only slavery ... but also serfdom ... It contains in miniature all the contradictions which later extend throughout society and its state."

No less than fifty years ago, communism was sweeping the world by storm; people feared western Europe would be overtaken, and most of the rest of the world already had been. It was taught in one form or another in the schools of virtually every country on the planet. But now, communism has been discovered to be the fraud that it really is, and all sensible people discount it. The same has not yet happened with feminism, but eventually it will because feminism is just as socially destructive as communism, and equally unobtainable.

The feminist attack on the family and society

The family is a miniature society, and therefore it is always a good idea for an individual to study it if he is to study society as a whole.

The traditional family is based upon gender discrimination (in addition to racial and age discrimination). This fact is even largely true today. Gender discrimination exists because the man wants to marry a woman, and not another man. The woman wants to marry a man and refuses to even consider other women as potential marriage partners. Thus, 99.9% of marriages today do not even incorporate equal opportunity, the most basic form of social equality. Additionally, very few people will even consider marrying someone outside of their own race. And age discrimination has always been a part of the family unit; with the woman (for whatever reason) usually wanting an older husband, and the children having different responsibilities than the parents. All of this remains true today in the overwhelming majority of families despite the gains of the feminist movement. The feminists realize this, but they still don't like the traditional family one bit; they have always been out to radically alter it, along with the rest of society. And this agenda remains very much a part of feminism today.

Fortunately for the feminists, democracy has a tendency to promote feminism. To understand why, simply implement democracy into the family. Instead of a hierarchical relationship of father-mother-children, with commands from above and obedience from below, everyone has a voice in the family's government. Patriarchy is the idea that men should rule. Democracy is the idea that everyone should rule. So in the democratic family, the son is equal to the father and so is the mother. And it's the exact same thing for the democratic society; women get the right to vote and so do 18-year olds. Everyone must be treated the same in a democracy. As time goes on, things only get worse.

Now let's look at the concepts of monarchy and aristocracy. Rather than rejecting them, such ideas accept distinctions within society and the principle of authority. Thus, implementing these ideologies into the family, the father's right to rule is not questioned, nor is the mother's right to rule over the children questioned. Without authority, there will be anarchy and disorder; there must be government to maintain the stability of the society, be it the family or the macro-society. Tyranny and despotism are not the objectives; the mother is not to oppress the children, nor is the father to oppress either. Hierarchy and distinctions in the family and in society are there for the maintenance of law and order, and thus the benefit of all.

After observing American society in the summer of 1831, the famous French traveler Alexis de Tocqueville predicted America would see a feminist movement. He also claimed that it would be impossible to achieve a patriarchal society without also achieving patriarchal families, and vice versa. I think he is correct. An egalitarian society does tend to produce egalitarian families.

There are occasionally a few groups that can be found in this country who advocate patriarchy in the family, but no group will dare suggest it for the family and society. That's where those groups and I differ. I advocate patriarchy for the family and society. And ultimately I believe I have to because Tocqueville was right: Americans will get patriarchy in both the family and society, or they will get it in neither.

In order to reverse feminist gains in this country it is important to keep track of what the rulers of America advocate in regards to feminism. If one uses feminism as a sort of "litmus test," what he finds is not very encouraging. The Democratic and Republican Parties -- who together have a virtual monopoly on political power -- are both thoroughly feminist. Additionally, the media, religion, academia, and the military have all accepted feminist principles to one degree or another. Even so-called "conservatives" who are active in mainstream society have accepted feminist principles to a large extent. Despite the success of feminism this century, all societies change; and so the future does hold out some hope. I encourage all opposed to feminism to become more organized and more informed; and then work to make their families and their society better places in which to live.