I appreciate the information, but I'm noticing a pattern in your writing, and that is a lack of sources, and if not that, it is a lack of ACCURATE sources that actually portray what you're writing. This is not an isolated incident based on my reading of your book and articles. For example, that last paragraph is a word-for-word quote from your book. The source you provided in your book does NOT have ANY of the numbers you cited. I understand that you're relatively new to writing, and I'm an author too (I've authored many books, including "Feminism: Castrating America"), which means I understand that you don't always get everything right when you're new to writing, but I'm having a harder and harder time taking you seriously the more I read from you, and it seems that your other fans here are just eating it up without asking for source information, which is also very concerning. Until a lot of these things get fixed, I definitely cannot recommend your book to others.
Hey! I have a question about the Massachusetts 1895 referendum! I looked it up, and this characterization seems rather misleading. Sure, 22,000+ voted yes out of 575,000+ eligible voters, but that leads people to believe that most of the women who voted were against suffrage, which isn't true. 95% of the women who voted on the referendum voted that suffrage should be granted to women. So I'm pretty confused on why 550,000+ women didn't vote at all on this issue, but it seems to be skipping a step to say that this is proof of the unpopularity of the suffragists. Is there more evidence that feminism and suffrage was far and away unpopular amongst women?
Great article. I enjoy learning about the things no taught to us because it really demonstrates the degree to which our history has been misrepresented for the sake of political control and profiteering.
The decrease in number of children being born is probably iin itself a good thing, not a bad one. In this day and age the less of a population the better for the environment.
Also giving women the right to vote doesn't mean that they would have to participate in government or politics. Majority of women voters don't. So it's an erroneous conclusion to conclude that it would prevent women from attending to their families if needed.
The prejudiced notion against women voting is based on the belief that women are emotionally biased as opposed to being level headed and will vote based on their emotions and not their intellect.
In other words women don't have the same mental capacity for logical thought as men.
You baked a few presuppositions into this comment that are incorrect. Less children being born is not inherently good. You likely believe this as a result of 200 years of Malthusian propaganda. Even the UN, which has traditionally been in favor of Depopulation, now admits that we are teetering on the verge of population collapse, which could have catastrophic consequences, such as mass starvation, the breakdown of supply chains, and infrastructure failure. The idea that humans are bad for the planet is false, and comes not from science, but from gnostic and pagan beliefs. Within the next few years, almost half of all American women of childbearing age will be single and childless. This is unprecedented in human history and could be potentially species ending. The birth rate in South Korea is 0.78. If this were happening in any other species, it would be recognized as a trend toward extinction of that species, which scientists would likely label as endangered. Investigate population momentum and population collapse for more on this. The second incorrect presumption you made was that most women don’t participate in voting and politics. Women are now the largest voting block in the United States, voting in higher numbers than men, and they overwhelmingly vote in favor of things like government surveillance, nanny state, welfare, UBI, and other socialist policies. Their maternal instincts become weaponized in politics. It’s not that they are incapable of being rational. It’s that they are biologically programmed to favor safety (which in the political sense is usually an illusion used to sell more government control and centralization), and be risk averse. Women voting in and of itself is not inherently prohibitive of motherhood and marriage, but immediately following suffrage, all of the trends and policies, which we now take for granted, as normal did usher in the end of marriage, as an institution and the family. See my recent Substack article “Are Patriarchs Perpetrators or Protectors?” For more on this. Thanks for reading!
My comment about women voters was that just because they vote doesn't mean they participate in politics or become politically active.
Again majority of women voters like men voters don't actually participate in politics.
Which is what I meant.
Also regarding your comment on women voters I can only guess that you don't trust yourself to vote.
After all you might just vote for that which we don't want.
As for the issue of overpopulation it's the scientists who have been raising concerns about it . Not the gnostic or pagan religions at all. Not that anyone would take them seriously anyway.
The ones who have been warning us about this have been mainly ecologists, environmentalists (like Rachel Carlson and even oceanographer Jacque Costeau).
More people means more land needed for development. More housing and more agriculture to feed a growing population.
This means more destruction of wildlife habitats to make more room for more humans.
This coincides with the increase of endangered species and extinctions which have been increasing since the beginning of the 20th century.
Also coinciding with the population doubling or tripling several times during that period.
More people will mean also more air/water pollution which is also evident.
I've watched your interview on Jerm Warfare twice. I am in a college course (you should immediately hear that I am in an indoctrination camp for the New World Order). I have an assignment to review the movie, "Iron Jawed Angels."
The movie is a one sided depiction of the women's sufferage movement in the US. There is absolutely no indication that there were any funders who were not average women who desperately wanted free from the patriarchy. Of course most of my professors are outspoken about their support for more government in every corner of our lives and of course we must have UBI, which is described as free money that just pays our bills at the standard of living that we now hold, with no strings attached.
My assignment is to praise the advantages of "macro" social work, where governmental changes save the day over mezzo social work efforts that cannot do the heavy lifting of macro work.
Assignment - "In the film, the methods of the National Women’s Party (NWP) and the National American Women’s Suffrage Association (NAWSA) are contrasted. What does the film suggest about big (macro) change versus incremental (mezzo or micro) change? When might one type of change be better than the other?
2-3 pages, double spaced, no references."
Do you have any suggestions about smaller local changes that may have done more to help women who were not protected by their fathers, husbands, and brothers? I'm looking for a practical argument against stepping into the macro solution trap, where lobbiests change the structure of society to meet their corporate goals. I don't know enough about the time period or structure of the family and community to think like an anti-sufferagist who did not have the protection of the men in her world.
Thanks to Carmell for catching an error in this post which I have corrected :)
So good. Thank you for this article and can’t wait to read the next one!
I appreciate the information, but I'm noticing a pattern in your writing, and that is a lack of sources, and if not that, it is a lack of ACCURATE sources that actually portray what you're writing. This is not an isolated incident based on my reading of your book and articles. For example, that last paragraph is a word-for-word quote from your book. The source you provided in your book does NOT have ANY of the numbers you cited. I understand that you're relatively new to writing, and I'm an author too (I've authored many books, including "Feminism: Castrating America"), which means I understand that you don't always get everything right when you're new to writing, but I'm having a harder and harder time taking you seriously the more I read from you, and it seems that your other fans here are just eating it up without asking for source information, which is also very concerning. Until a lot of these things get fixed, I definitely cannot recommend your book to others.
Hey! I have a question about the Massachusetts 1895 referendum! I looked it up, and this characterization seems rather misleading. Sure, 22,000+ voted yes out of 575,000+ eligible voters, but that leads people to believe that most of the women who voted were against suffrage, which isn't true. 95% of the women who voted on the referendum voted that suffrage should be granted to women. So I'm pretty confused on why 550,000+ women didn't vote at all on this issue, but it seems to be skipping a step to say that this is proof of the unpopularity of the suffragists. Is there more evidence that feminism and suffrage was far and away unpopular amongst women?
Great article. I enjoy learning about the things no taught to us because it really demonstrates the degree to which our history has been misrepresented for the sake of political control and profiteering.
The decrease in number of children being born is probably iin itself a good thing, not a bad one. In this day and age the less of a population the better for the environment.
Also giving women the right to vote doesn't mean that they would have to participate in government or politics. Majority of women voters don't. So it's an erroneous conclusion to conclude that it would prevent women from attending to their families if needed.
The prejudiced notion against women voting is based on the belief that women are emotionally biased as opposed to being level headed and will vote based on their emotions and not their intellect.
In other words women don't have the same mental capacity for logical thought as men.
Which I find questionable.
You baked a few presuppositions into this comment that are incorrect. Less children being born is not inherently good. You likely believe this as a result of 200 years of Malthusian propaganda. Even the UN, which has traditionally been in favor of Depopulation, now admits that we are teetering on the verge of population collapse, which could have catastrophic consequences, such as mass starvation, the breakdown of supply chains, and infrastructure failure. The idea that humans are bad for the planet is false, and comes not from science, but from gnostic and pagan beliefs. Within the next few years, almost half of all American women of childbearing age will be single and childless. This is unprecedented in human history and could be potentially species ending. The birth rate in South Korea is 0.78. If this were happening in any other species, it would be recognized as a trend toward extinction of that species, which scientists would likely label as endangered. Investigate population momentum and population collapse for more on this. The second incorrect presumption you made was that most women don’t participate in voting and politics. Women are now the largest voting block in the United States, voting in higher numbers than men, and they overwhelmingly vote in favor of things like government surveillance, nanny state, welfare, UBI, and other socialist policies. Their maternal instincts become weaponized in politics. It’s not that they are incapable of being rational. It’s that they are biologically programmed to favor safety (which in the political sense is usually an illusion used to sell more government control and centralization), and be risk averse. Women voting in and of itself is not inherently prohibitive of motherhood and marriage, but immediately following suffrage, all of the trends and policies, which we now take for granted, as normal did usher in the end of marriage, as an institution and the family. See my recent Substack article “Are Patriarchs Perpetrators or Protectors?” For more on this. Thanks for reading!
My comment about women voters was that just because they vote doesn't mean they participate in politics or become politically active.
Again majority of women voters like men voters don't actually participate in politics.
Which is what I meant.
Also regarding your comment on women voters I can only guess that you don't trust yourself to vote.
After all you might just vote for that which we don't want.
As for the issue of overpopulation it's the scientists who have been raising concerns about it . Not the gnostic or pagan religions at all. Not that anyone would take them seriously anyway.
The ones who have been warning us about this have been mainly ecologists, environmentalists (like Rachel Carlson and even oceanographer Jacque Costeau).
More people means more land needed for development. More housing and more agriculture to feed a growing population.
This means more destruction of wildlife habitats to make more room for more humans.
This coincides with the increase of endangered species and extinctions which have been increasing since the beginning of the 20th century.
Also coinciding with the population doubling or tripling several times during that period.
More people will mean also more air/water pollution which is also evident.
This is a worldwide problem.
This is not too hard to see.
Hi Rachel,
I've watched your interview on Jerm Warfare twice. I am in a college course (you should immediately hear that I am in an indoctrination camp for the New World Order). I have an assignment to review the movie, "Iron Jawed Angels."
The movie is a one sided depiction of the women's sufferage movement in the US. There is absolutely no indication that there were any funders who were not average women who desperately wanted free from the patriarchy. Of course most of my professors are outspoken about their support for more government in every corner of our lives and of course we must have UBI, which is described as free money that just pays our bills at the standard of living that we now hold, with no strings attached.
My assignment is to praise the advantages of "macro" social work, where governmental changes save the day over mezzo social work efforts that cannot do the heavy lifting of macro work.
Assignment - "In the film, the methods of the National Women’s Party (NWP) and the National American Women’s Suffrage Association (NAWSA) are contrasted. What does the film suggest about big (macro) change versus incremental (mezzo or micro) change? When might one type of change be better than the other?
2-3 pages, double spaced, no references."
Do you have any suggestions about smaller local changes that may have done more to help women who were not protected by their fathers, husbands, and brothers? I'm looking for a practical argument against stepping into the macro solution trap, where lobbiests change the structure of society to meet their corporate goals. I don't know enough about the time period or structure of the family and community to think like an anti-sufferagist who did not have the protection of the men in her world.
So pleased to come across your work, just purchased the book today, cant wait!