Join Janice Fiamengo on a trip back to the mid-19th century, and Amy Louis traveling back in time to warn her high school classmates about the imminent arrival of The Squares. And more.
I largely agree with what Janice Fiamengo articulated. But there were a couple of items which for me raised questions.
Full voting rights were supposedly dependent upon an obligation to serve the nation in a military capacity. EH? There was no draft in the US till the Civil War, first employed in 1863 after not enough people volunteered for military service. Thus, 15 years after Seneca. This law BTW led to widespread rioting. Conscription in the US was put on ice after the Civil War till 1917, when the US entered WWI. So i have no idea where that assertion comes from.
Full voting rights were supposedly also the province of property owners. Well, true at the time of the US Constitution, but by 1848, most states eliminated property ownership as a requirement, though some states still levied poll taxes which disenfranchised those who couldn't afford to pay these taxes. So, not really true, but effectively access was controlled on the basis of social class.
For that matter, voting rights even today mean little, since (as designed by the writers of the Constitution), the super rich elite control all key institutions and thus possess real social power, while the state (as an institution, not talking about US states) has great limits upon its power, is and always has been the enforcement arm of the elites.
And regarding Sylvia Pankhurst claiming that men were sexually depraved louts who consorted with prostitutes and thus infected their wives with VD, i did a web search. This is the only item i found re Pankhurst and prostitution. Are you sure you tagged the right person?
It was Christabel Pankhurst, suffragette daughter of Emmeline, who wrote "The Great Scourge and How to End It" (1913), which is the book we were referring to in which mass male sexual evil is held solely responsible for the spread of venereal disease. It's quite a fascinating book.
I realize that conscription did not exist until after 1848, but it was certainly understood that in case of war, it would be men who would be called upon to risk their lives (through conscription if necessary), not women. Giving the vote to citizens who would never be called upon to defend the country in war, it was thought, introduced a falseness into the voting system.
I bow to your superior knowledge about property ownership and income qualifications, poll taxes, etc. in relation to the male franchise. My point was merely that it was not true in 1848 that all American male citizens had the right to vote merely because they were male, or that no female citizens did.
Thank you very much, Janice. I'd like to say again that i HIGHLY appreciate your blog and your work in general.
No bows needed. :-) None of us knows everything, advancing general understanding is and always has been a collective endeavor, never mind those who hate collective anything. LOL.
"It was Christabel Pankhurst, suffragette daughter of Emmeline, who wrote "The Great Scourge and How to End It" (1913), which is the book we were referring to in which mass male sexual evil is held solely responsible for the spread of venereal disease. It's quite a fascinating book."
A perfect example of what i said in the previous paragraph. I had no idea, had zero knowledge of this. I'm not sure if Sylvia's name got mentioned or if i was just hearing stuff, perhaps projecting a familiar name into a discussion which brought up a name similar to hers, as our minds are given to doing in situations of unfamiliarity that however does seem to include strands of the familiar. FWIW, from the Sylvia Pankhurst biography.
"Following encounters with women-led labour activism in the United States, she worked to organise working-class women in London's East End. This, together with her refusal in 1914 to enter into a wartime political truce with the government, caused her to break with the suffragette leadership of her mother and sister, Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst.
Regarding military obligations, hard for me to argue with the perspective you present in the last sentence of your paragraph on its own terms, since i fundamentally reject the very notion that the interests of ordinary people (in today's terms, the non-1%ers.) EVER coincide with "the national interest," identifying with the state (as an institution) which has legal jurisdiction over them. Such people have no homelands to defend against people like them, they merely have different bosses.
by the way -- the history of "infections" is the history of conflating them with morality, which has biblical roots -- if you follow my commandments, I will give you none of these diseases. So people then figure if someone gets sick, they "deserved" it. I will look for a copy of "The Great Scourge and How to End It." There must be a PDF or reproduction somewhere
btw the pro-sex/anti-sex statements of the 19c are a study of their own. the idea of "free love" has a home with feminists like Woodhull and others but it's never clear how this would work out in practice; and it was controversial in its time. Many of these activists made contradictory statements and advocated freedom for women and better morality for men. Fiamengo treats this topic several places.
One of my takeaways from this conversation was that the campaign around the 19th Amendment falsely seeded the idea that **voting is the only meaningful thing.**
Note that prior to women having the vote, there were many forms of organizational civic involvement that were taken seriously as voices in society, and women were considered an important lobby group. One fundamental lie in the Declaration was that there was NO representation, when in fact there was considerable structured input and involvement that we either do not have today, or it's wholly co-opted by lobbyists and PACs.
There was not, as you note, universal suffrage for men. But they make it seem like there was. That is another fundamental lie. And to this day there is NO structured input on lawmaking by men or women other than lobbyists and PACs.
I did not say it was Pankhurst by the way. The 80% and "unnatural acts with prostitutes" statement comes from the Lady Cristabell. There were a diversity of views but they center around notion that men's sexuality was reprehensible and unacceptable (and associated with drunkenness). You would need to go through a bunch of these early feminists to see the pattern, which follows clear through "First Wave" early 20c, through "male chauvinist pig" oriented "Second Wave" (women's lib), and right into the rape feminism and obsession with censoring "porn" of Dworkin et al.
For many hetero feminists of the more recent waves, a "sex positive" view meant that it was OK to fuck guys at night as long as we came back to men are pigs in class during the day. Many others take an approach that presumes a lesbian movement (Inga Muscio's "all cunts belong to all women") and the idea that "feminism is the theory and lesbianism is the practice" (a famous statement though I am not certain the author).
So there's an idea that the only legit sex is lesbian sex.
There is a sub-movement of women- and masturbation-focused sex (toy stores, in particular, with events like Masturbation Month; Betty Dodson founds this with her workshops and Eve's Garden to supply them). If you look closely you see that the subtext is the purity and boutique-quality of women's sexuality and the alleged seedy perversion or at least uselessness of (hetero) men's sexuality.
Few feminists ever meekly address the glaring fact of bisexuality, particularly male bisexuality (which is still to this day presumed to be a man passing as not-quite-gay). While Adrienne Rich has her "lesbian continuum" stolen from Kinsey, in her famous essay on the topic, she openly asks why anyone would ever want to seek affection from anyone but a woman. And I did not understand this as an anti-male bigotry until recently.
[Note: It's critical to understand that the sexuality issue gets lost in the sauce of preexisting ubiquitous "Christian" values, and also lost in the seeming contradictions from allegedly sex-positive (and more recent allegedly pro-sex-worker) feminists. They are still defined as fulfilling a prurient need in (allegedly more powerful) men, which inherently makes them victims, even if exceedingly well paid and otherwise cared for.]
Note that like many forbidden topics, accurate information is not generally available online. The standard narrative is locked down more so than 9/11; at least you can easily find competing views on the latter.
Fiamengo is the only one that I know pulling this information together and recovering lost history. As I mentioned in the discussion, I was given total disinfo by the guide at Seneca Falls (claiming that a woman in 1848 — at the time of the Seneca convention — did not even own her clothing if she divorced). The bald lie is that the Married Women's Property Protection Act was passed into law in April 1848 and the convention was in July.
This would all make a fantastic Ph.D. thesis investigation.
Excellent points about voting. As i've made clear, i see voting and the entire "representation" structure as a facade designed to disguise the real nature of the modern "democratic" state as a dictatorship run by and on behalf of the elite.
"I did not say it was Pankhurst by the way. The 80% and "unnatural acts with prostitutes" statement comes from the Lady Cristabell. "
Thanks for clarifying, the conversation got a bit confusing, Pankhurst's name was thrown in there, as i demonstrated this anti-male rhetoric was not something she trafficked in.
"You would need to go through a bunch of these early feminists to see the pattern, which follows clear through "First Wave" early 20c, through "male chauvinist pig" oriented "Second Wave" (women's lib), and right into the rape feminism and obsession with censoring "porn" of Dworkin et al. "
Check!
"Many others take an approach that presumes a lesbian movement (Inga Muscio's "all cunts belong to all women") and the idea that "feminism is the theory and lesbianism is the practice" (a famous statement though I am not certain the author).So there's an idea that the only legit sex is lesbian sex."
Check!
"f you look closely you see that the subtext is the purity and boutique-quality of women's sexuality and the alleged seedy perversion or at least uselessness of (hetero) men's sexuality. "
Dismaying, i thought Betty was over that.
Interesting to read your bisexual male perspective, few feminists address the perspectives of heterosexual males like me either.
"Note that like many forbidden topics, accurate information is not generally available online. The standard narrative is locked down more so than 9/11; at least you can easily find competing views on the latter. Fiamengo is the only one that I know pulling this information together and recovering lost history."
Indeed she is pursuing and building up a great and unique body of work, i highly appreciate it. And yes, an immense amount of the "info" presented at the Seneca Falls exhibit is total disinformation.
Wow the feminist propaganda runs strong in Amy. She wasn’t open to anything to what you suggested. Great juxtaposition with your interview with Janice.
Just starting to listen to this. Happy Full Moon! One of my astrology books takes on current transits, of the time, and speaks to the patternization of the science-art. My latest book, soon to be released, is a history of astrologers’ interpretations of astrology taught in their time. It’s really cool! 🙏🏼
I largely agree with what Janice Fiamengo articulated. But there were a couple of items which for me raised questions.
Full voting rights were supposedly dependent upon an obligation to serve the nation in a military capacity. EH? There was no draft in the US till the Civil War, first employed in 1863 after not enough people volunteered for military service. Thus, 15 years after Seneca. This law BTW led to widespread rioting. Conscription in the US was put on ice after the Civil War till 1917, when the US entered WWI. So i have no idea where that assertion comes from.
Full voting rights were supposedly also the province of property owners. Well, true at the time of the US Constitution, but by 1848, most states eliminated property ownership as a requirement, though some states still levied poll taxes which disenfranchised those who couldn't afford to pay these taxes. So, not really true, but effectively access was controlled on the basis of social class.
For that matter, voting rights even today mean little, since (as designed by the writers of the Constitution), the super rich elite control all key institutions and thus possess real social power, while the state (as an institution, not talking about US states) has great limits upon its power, is and always has been the enforcement arm of the elites.
And regarding Sylvia Pankhurst claiming that men were sexually depraved louts who consorted with prostitutes and thus infected their wives with VD, i did a web search. This is the only item i found re Pankhurst and prostitution. Are you sure you tagged the right person?
https://www.marxists.org/archive/pankhurst-sylvia/communism-tactics/ch01.htm
"Prostitution will become extinct; it is a commercial transaction, dependent upon the economic need of the prostitute and the customer’s power to pay.
Sexual union will no longer be based upon material conditions, but will be freely contracted on the basis of affection and mutual attraction."
Thank you for the questions and clarifications.
It was Christabel Pankhurst, suffragette daughter of Emmeline, who wrote "The Great Scourge and How to End It" (1913), which is the book we were referring to in which mass male sexual evil is held solely responsible for the spread of venereal disease. It's quite a fascinating book.
I realize that conscription did not exist until after 1848, but it was certainly understood that in case of war, it would be men who would be called upon to risk their lives (through conscription if necessary), not women. Giving the vote to citizens who would never be called upon to defend the country in war, it was thought, introduced a falseness into the voting system.
I bow to your superior knowledge about property ownership and income qualifications, poll taxes, etc. in relation to the male franchise. My point was merely that it was not true in 1848 that all American male citizens had the right to vote merely because they were male, or that no female citizens did.
Thank you very much, Janice. I'd like to say again that i HIGHLY appreciate your blog and your work in general.
No bows needed. :-) None of us knows everything, advancing general understanding is and always has been a collective endeavor, never mind those who hate collective anything. LOL.
"It was Christabel Pankhurst, suffragette daughter of Emmeline, who wrote "The Great Scourge and How to End It" (1913), which is the book we were referring to in which mass male sexual evil is held solely responsible for the spread of venereal disease. It's quite a fascinating book."
A perfect example of what i said in the previous paragraph. I had no idea, had zero knowledge of this. I'm not sure if Sylvia's name got mentioned or if i was just hearing stuff, perhaps projecting a familiar name into a discussion which brought up a name similar to hers, as our minds are given to doing in situations of unfamiliarity that however does seem to include strands of the familiar. FWIW, from the Sylvia Pankhurst biography.
"Following encounters with women-led labour activism in the United States, she worked to organise working-class women in London's East End. This, together with her refusal in 1914 to enter into a wartime political truce with the government, caused her to break with the suffragette leadership of her mother and sister, Emmeline and Christabel Pankhurst.
Regarding military obligations, hard for me to argue with the perspective you present in the last sentence of your paragraph on its own terms, since i fundamentally reject the very notion that the interests of ordinary people (in today's terms, the non-1%ers.) EVER coincide with "the national interest," identifying with the state (as an institution) which has legal jurisdiction over them. Such people have no homelands to defend against people like them, they merely have different bosses.
🙏🏼 💖
here ya go
https://wellcomecollection.org/works/sshusq9a/items?canvas=7
thank you Janice.
by the way -- the history of "infections" is the history of conflating them with morality, which has biblical roots -- if you follow my commandments, I will give you none of these diseases. So people then figure if someone gets sick, they "deserved" it. I will look for a copy of "The Great Scourge and How to End It." There must be a PDF or reproduction somewhere
btw the pro-sex/anti-sex statements of the 19c are a study of their own. the idea of "free love" has a home with feminists like Woodhull and others but it's never clear how this would work out in practice; and it was controversial in its time. Many of these activists made contradictory statements and advocated freedom for women and better morality for men. Fiamengo treats this topic several places.
One of my takeaways from this conversation was that the campaign around the 19th Amendment falsely seeded the idea that **voting is the only meaningful thing.**
Note that prior to women having the vote, there were many forms of organizational civic involvement that were taken seriously as voices in society, and women were considered an important lobby group. One fundamental lie in the Declaration was that there was NO representation, when in fact there was considerable structured input and involvement that we either do not have today, or it's wholly co-opted by lobbyists and PACs.
There was not, as you note, universal suffrage for men. But they make it seem like there was. That is another fundamental lie. And to this day there is NO structured input on lawmaking by men or women other than lobbyists and PACs.
I did not say it was Pankhurst by the way. The 80% and "unnatural acts with prostitutes" statement comes from the Lady Cristabell. There were a diversity of views but they center around notion that men's sexuality was reprehensible and unacceptable (and associated with drunkenness). You would need to go through a bunch of these early feminists to see the pattern, which follows clear through "First Wave" early 20c, through "male chauvinist pig" oriented "Second Wave" (women's lib), and right into the rape feminism and obsession with censoring "porn" of Dworkin et al.
For many hetero feminists of the more recent waves, a "sex positive" view meant that it was OK to fuck guys at night as long as we came back to men are pigs in class during the day. Many others take an approach that presumes a lesbian movement (Inga Muscio's "all cunts belong to all women") and the idea that "feminism is the theory and lesbianism is the practice" (a famous statement though I am not certain the author).
So there's an idea that the only legit sex is lesbian sex.
There is a sub-movement of women- and masturbation-focused sex (toy stores, in particular, with events like Masturbation Month; Betty Dodson founds this with her workshops and Eve's Garden to supply them). If you look closely you see that the subtext is the purity and boutique-quality of women's sexuality and the alleged seedy perversion or at least uselessness of (hetero) men's sexuality.
Few feminists ever meekly address the glaring fact of bisexuality, particularly male bisexuality (which is still to this day presumed to be a man passing as not-quite-gay). While Adrienne Rich has her "lesbian continuum" stolen from Kinsey, in her famous essay on the topic, she openly asks why anyone would ever want to seek affection from anyone but a woman. And I did not understand this as an anti-male bigotry until recently.
[Note: It's critical to understand that the sexuality issue gets lost in the sauce of preexisting ubiquitous "Christian" values, and also lost in the seeming contradictions from allegedly sex-positive (and more recent allegedly pro-sex-worker) feminists. They are still defined as fulfilling a prurient need in (allegedly more powerful) men, which inherently makes them victims, even if exceedingly well paid and otherwise cared for.]
Here is the Lady Cristabell segment of FF2.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9vgW3grglc
Note that like many forbidden topics, accurate information is not generally available online. The standard narrative is locked down more so than 9/11; at least you can easily find competing views on the latter.
Fiamengo is the only one that I know pulling this information together and recovering lost history. As I mentioned in the discussion, I was given total disinfo by the guide at Seneca Falls (claiming that a woman in 1848 — at the time of the Seneca convention — did not even own her clothing if she divorced). The bald lie is that the Married Women's Property Protection Act was passed into law in April 1848 and the convention was in July.
This would all make a fantastic Ph.D. thesis investigation.
Wow, a lot of stuff to hash out here.
Excellent points about voting. As i've made clear, i see voting and the entire "representation" structure as a facade designed to disguise the real nature of the modern "democratic" state as a dictatorship run by and on behalf of the elite.
"I did not say it was Pankhurst by the way. The 80% and "unnatural acts with prostitutes" statement comes from the Lady Cristabell. "
Thanks for clarifying, the conversation got a bit confusing, Pankhurst's name was thrown in there, as i demonstrated this anti-male rhetoric was not something she trafficked in.
"You would need to go through a bunch of these early feminists to see the pattern, which follows clear through "First Wave" early 20c, through "male chauvinist pig" oriented "Second Wave" (women's lib), and right into the rape feminism and obsession with censoring "porn" of Dworkin et al. "
Check!
"Many others take an approach that presumes a lesbian movement (Inga Muscio's "all cunts belong to all women") and the idea that "feminism is the theory and lesbianism is the practice" (a famous statement though I am not certain the author).So there's an idea that the only legit sex is lesbian sex."
Check!
"f you look closely you see that the subtext is the purity and boutique-quality of women's sexuality and the alleged seedy perversion or at least uselessness of (hetero) men's sexuality. "
Dismaying, i thought Betty was over that.
Interesting to read your bisexual male perspective, few feminists address the perspectives of heterosexual males like me either.
"Note that like many forbidden topics, accurate information is not generally available online. The standard narrative is locked down more so than 9/11; at least you can easily find competing views on the latter. Fiamengo is the only one that I know pulling this information together and recovering lost history."
Indeed she is pursuing and building up a great and unique body of work, i highly appreciate it. And yes, an immense amount of the "info" presented at the Seneca Falls exhibit is total disinformation.
Betty was complicated, but really, no friend to heterosexuality. Nor is Muscio. Nor others that I know...
VIA EMAIL FROM KRISTEN -- re the squares
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/15/opinion/ann-patchett-regret-email.html?unlocked_article_code=1.S04.DUR-.N5vVfKzs1vMY&smid=url-share
Wow the feminist propaganda runs strong in Amy. She wasn’t open to anything to what you suggested. Great juxtaposition with your interview with Janice.
Esp the biological “dog tendency” bit
Yeah, they were fantastic back-to-back interviews
The discussion with Amy was first and with Janice that happened about three days later
This one is essential.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O9vgW3grglc
Just starting to listen to this. Happy Full Moon! One of my astrology books takes on current transits, of the time, and speaks to the patternization of the science-art. My latest book, soon to be released, is a history of astrologers’ interpretations of astrology taught in their time. It’s really cool! 🙏🏼
please come on the program to talk about this Rachel
That is a great color for you.
my first time ever wearing it!
Most people can't wear that color you look vibrant