What do you think?
The Fraud of Feminism
The Fraud of Feminism
102 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1913
About the author
E. Belfort Bax
21 booksErnest Belfort Bax was an English barrister, journalist, rights advocate, socialist, and historian.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews
January 18, 2022
This is one of the seminal books on gender equality that exposes the feminist movement as a supremacy movement for white women (especially White Anglo Saxon Protestant Women).
Bax was an English barrister who saw through the sham of feminism that was developing at the time he wrote the book (1913).
At the time, and prior to the Civil War in the US, feminism had begun as a communist/marxist movement trying to justify aggression towards men in our culture based upon fictitious "oppression" of women. What Bax points out, quite eloquently and truthfully, is that if there was any oppression of genders in Western culture, it was oppression of men and exploitation of men in the courts, war and the workplace (as well as in many other institutions).
The feminist movement in England, like the Ku Klux Klan in the United States, had the support of English and Sottish men who, culturally, have a blind obsession with placing women on pedestals. This relegates men to a status as a subhuman species, perpetually lusting for sex with women, and therefore justifying the cultural, governmental and social exploitation and cruelty towards men that so saturates our modern institutions.
Britain's global atrocities required feminism in order to justify sending millions of men to their death in wars and the toxic workplaces of the industrial revolution in Britain and across the continent. As Bax points out, a study of history shows that the most aggressive cultures are the cultures that place women on pedestals, and, which consider men "disposable" in the service of women.
A wonderful compliment to this brilliant work by Bax is a book written by a brilliant woman author, Esther Villar, about sixty years after Bax published "The Fraud of Feminism." Villar's groundbreaking book "The Manipulated Man" (1971) The Manipulated Man adds new dimensions to Bax's astute insights as she exposes how the modern 20th century has abused mass media, government and industry to exploit men and foster women's supremacy.
Bax was an English barrister who saw through the sham of feminism that was developing at the time he wrote the book (1913).
At the time, and prior to the Civil War in the US, feminism had begun as a communist/marxist movement trying to justify aggression towards men in our culture based upon fictitious "oppression" of women. What Bax points out, quite eloquently and truthfully, is that if there was any oppression of genders in Western culture, it was oppression of men and exploitation of men in the courts, war and the workplace (as well as in many other institutions).
The feminist movement in England, like the Ku Klux Klan in the United States, had the support of English and Sottish men who, culturally, have a blind obsession with placing women on pedestals. This relegates men to a status as a subhuman species, perpetually lusting for sex with women, and therefore justifying the cultural, governmental and social exploitation and cruelty towards men that so saturates our modern institutions.
Britain's global atrocities required feminism in order to justify sending millions of men to their death in wars and the toxic workplaces of the industrial revolution in Britain and across the continent. As Bax points out, a study of history shows that the most aggressive cultures are the cultures that place women on pedestals, and, which consider men "disposable" in the service of women.
A wonderful compliment to this brilliant work by Bax is a book written by a brilliant woman author, Esther Villar, about sixty years after Bax published "The Fraud of Feminism." Villar's groundbreaking book "The Manipulated Man" (1971) The Manipulated Man adds new dimensions to Bax's astute insights as she exposes how the modern 20th century has abused mass media, government and industry to exploit men and foster women's supremacy.
July 30, 2017
Far more timeless, classic than most books marketed as such, a prescient gem I ensure all women-relations of mine read and wholeheartedly agree with before we take our involvement anywhere beyond a nod of recognition. One could consider writing an updated response, though one with the functioning mental faculties to do so what have no trace of the mass psychosis of feminism in his life to speak of, thereby having already severed hypothetical ties with the profane.
June 13, 2019
Bax does a good job pointing how men are disadvantaged in criminal and divorce law, as well as in practice in the courts. Much of what he says about public sentiment when it comes to female criminals still applies today. He also does a good job identifying inconsistencies in feminism (ex. how what he calls sentimental and political feminism allow feminists to claim they are seeking equality while demanding special treatment).
However, this book does not age well mostly due to outdated science cited to suggest women are mentally unfit to vote (or engage with politics at all). Although some of that was interesting just to find out what some of the contemporary ideas were when it came to differences between the sexes. Scientists and evolutionary psychologists today still debate about the issue of women's mate choices allowing the conditions to arise where men are stronger than them. I also expected Bax (a socialist) to raise the issue of the bourgeois nature of the feminist movement of the time and their disfavor of working class men being given the vote (I haven't read all his work so perhaps this issue is raised elsewhere).
However, this book does not age well mostly due to outdated science cited to suggest women are mentally unfit to vote (or engage with politics at all). Although some of that was interesting just to find out what some of the contemporary ideas were when it came to differences between the sexes. Scientists and evolutionary psychologists today still debate about the issue of women's mate choices allowing the conditions to arise where men are stronger than them. I also expected Bax (a socialist) to raise the issue of the bourgeois nature of the feminist movement of the time and their disfavor of working class men being given the vote (I haven't read all his work so perhaps this issue is raised elsewhere).
September 5, 2019
Gobsmacked, sad that so little has change since 1820.
October 7, 2022
This book was apparently published in 1913. Bax talks about two strains of feminism: one he names sentimental feminism and another which, is focused on politics, he does not name until later. He points out early on that men and women were treated equally before the law courts prior to the beginning of the 19th century. By the end of the 19th century the treatment of women was dramatically better than that of men for similar crimes and the divorce laws had been re-written in the favor of women.
He then goes into a long description of what passed for hysteria back then, giving multiple long quotes from various psychologists. It is what you would expect for the time. But I wonder why what troubled women exhibited when examined was attributed to all women, including those who had never manifested such symptoms. Had he pointed out that men have great tempers and commit more crime than women do that would have been a counterargument. He would’ve had to address that. Besides, this whole section is basically an argument from authority.
Men and women are emotional(irrational) in different ways and in different proportions. Either they both get the vote or neither. Or maybe there should be a stability test for both sexes?
Chapter 3 focuses on the ways in which the law has been rewritten in favor of women vis-à-vis criminal behavior on their part of all sorts.
Chapter 4 discusses how sentimental feminists clamor and protest for leniency on the part of any female charged with any crime and how political feminists back them up. The punishments for men are always meted out as they were sentenced.
He spends a great deal of time discussing how divorce law had changed in women’s favor. He takes up the claim by feminists that only housewives are unpaid. He points out that men never get out from the burden of paying for their wives whether they are incompetent or unfaithful or lazy or uncooperative.
The rest of the book is more of the same. The writing style is awful. The sentences are overlong and overcomplicated but then again, he was a barrister.
I give it two stars because it does make a legitimate claim that all men and women should be punished similarly for similar crimes: what is sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose. Otherwise, it would get zero or 1.
He then goes into a long description of what passed for hysteria back then, giving multiple long quotes from various psychologists. It is what you would expect for the time. But I wonder why what troubled women exhibited when examined was attributed to all women, including those who had never manifested such symptoms. Had he pointed out that men have great tempers and commit more crime than women do that would have been a counterargument. He would’ve had to address that. Besides, this whole section is basically an argument from authority.
Men and women are emotional(irrational) in different ways and in different proportions. Either they both get the vote or neither. Or maybe there should be a stability test for both sexes?
Chapter 3 focuses on the ways in which the law has been rewritten in favor of women vis-à-vis criminal behavior on their part of all sorts.
Chapter 4 discusses how sentimental feminists clamor and protest for leniency on the part of any female charged with any crime and how political feminists back them up. The punishments for men are always meted out as they were sentenced.
He spends a great deal of time discussing how divorce law had changed in women’s favor. He takes up the claim by feminists that only housewives are unpaid. He points out that men never get out from the burden of paying for their wives whether they are incompetent or unfaithful or lazy or uncooperative.
The rest of the book is more of the same. The writing style is awful. The sentences are overlong and overcomplicated but then again, he was a barrister.
I give it two stars because it does make a legitimate claim that all men and women should be punished similarly for similar crimes: what is sauce for the gander is sauce for the goose. Otherwise, it would get zero or 1.
March 19, 2023
Arguing from the assumption that women are inherently inferior, Bax concludes that attempts to legislate rights for women are an attack on men's rights. Indeed, Bax's position is that legal rights are the province of men and that men's rights should be expanded. It should be noted that Bax's long crusade against women's rights from the 1880s to this polemic in 1913, occurred amidst the relatively tame movement to allow women to vote in elections and inherit property. Bax, of course, was against these requests, claiming that such laws would discriminate against men.
Bax's book is valuable in that it demonstrates that the reactionism spewed by the likes of Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, and the INCEL movement are not a reflection of recent events but of an ancient bigotry against women. As Bax's book shows, the very idea of women having rights is a threat to insecure men.
Bax's book is valuable in that it demonstrates that the reactionism spewed by the likes of Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, and the INCEL movement are not a reflection of recent events but of an ancient bigotry against women. As Bax's book shows, the very idea of women having rights is a threat to insecure men.
April 10, 2021
Divagaciones de un señoro de principios del siglo XX. Puede ser útil para entender muchos argumentos de la extrema derecha actual, por no decir que es un calco. El resumen son argumentos unga unga y que pone verdes a las sufragistas, alegando que el feminismo es el mayor enemigo del socialismo. Todo ok. Quién se anime a leerlo que esté preparado para una buena dosis de mierda y de dolor de cabeza.
August 3, 2022
Puntaje: 2.5
Los 2 puntos y medio se deben a que el autor fue uno de los pioneros en escribir sobre estos temas (de hecho, es considerado por muchos como el padre del "masculinismo").
Generalmente, los masculinistas con los que me cruzo y debato, suelen tener un nivel de argumentación mucho más sofisticado que el de Bax. Sin embargo, es entendible por el contexto histórico en el que escribió el libro: falta de acceso rápido a un gran volumen de información y ausencia de otros autores (todavía no habían nacido) que aportaron mejores argumentos a estos temas.
Además, eso no quita que no me haya cuestionado algunas cosas sobre la historia social que creía verdaderas hasta el momento (fruto de las "enseñanzas" que nos transmiten las instituciones "educativas" y los medios de "comunicación").
Entonces... ¿Por qué no le doy más puntos?
Por 2 razones:
1️⃣ En un momento, sostiene que las mujeres son inferiores intelectualmente (salvo en las facultades mentales relacionadas con la procreación y la lactancia). Si bien no tiene mucho que ver con el tema central del libro, se equivoca fuertemente al pensar eso.
2️⃣ Presenta pocas evidencias: Si bien en algunos momentos cita leyes británicas sexistas (favorables a las mujeres en detrimento de los varones), en muchos otros casos se limita a denunciar injusticias legales sin citar ninguna ley.
Ejemplos:
✓ Salvo en el caso del homicidio, si una mujer cometía un delito, su esposo debía responder ante la Justicia (al revés no pasaba).
✓ Los hombres no podían divorciarse ni separarse legalmente de sus esposas, mientras que ellas sí (acudiendo al tribunal de policía más cercano), sin contar que, por más que ellas iniciaran el divorcio, ellos deberían financiar todo el proceso y mantenerlas económicamente de por vida. Esto al revés tampoco pasaba (por más que ella fuera rica y él un discapacitado que necesitase asistencia/manutención).
✓ Una mujer podía difamar y denunciar a su marido. La justicia tomaba la denuncia como verdadera hasta que se demostrara lo contrario. Y por más que el esposo lograse demostrar su inocencia y la falsedad de la denuncia, la mujer no era castigada por la ley.
✓ Si una mujer estaba casada pero tenía un hijo extramatrimonial (con otro hombre) y lo mataba, el marido era considerado automáticamente cómplice del homicidio, por más que no hubiera tenido nada que ver con el delito.
Creo que nunca citó leyes que avalaran ninguna de esas situaciones. De ser reales, sería alarmante que esto no se supiera públicamente (estaría totalmente invisibilizado). Pero es imposible comprobarlo a través del libro. Uno, como lector, se ve obligado a confiar en su buena fe, o, en su defecto, a embarcarse en una ardua investigación sobre la historia legal de los países en cuestión (lo cual es muy tedioso).
*Vale la pena aclarar que Bax avisa, al principio del libro, que no lo escribió siguiendo un esquema científico, sino que su finalidad era refutar los "dogmas feministas" más populares de la época.
Los 2 puntos y medio se deben a que el autor fue uno de los pioneros en escribir sobre estos temas (de hecho, es considerado por muchos como el padre del "masculinismo").
Generalmente, los masculinistas con los que me cruzo y debato, suelen tener un nivel de argumentación mucho más sofisticado que el de Bax. Sin embargo, es entendible por el contexto histórico en el que escribió el libro: falta de acceso rápido a un gran volumen de información y ausencia de otros autores (todavía no habían nacido) que aportaron mejores argumentos a estos temas.
Además, eso no quita que no me haya cuestionado algunas cosas sobre la historia social que creía verdaderas hasta el momento (fruto de las "enseñanzas" que nos transmiten las instituciones "educativas" y los medios de "comunicación").
Entonces... ¿Por qué no le doy más puntos?
Por 2 razones:
1️⃣ En un momento, sostiene que las mujeres son inferiores intelectualmente (salvo en las facultades mentales relacionadas con la procreación y la lactancia). Si bien no tiene mucho que ver con el tema central del libro, se equivoca fuertemente al pensar eso.
2️⃣ Presenta pocas evidencias: Si bien en algunos momentos cita leyes británicas sexistas (favorables a las mujeres en detrimento de los varones), en muchos otros casos se limita a denunciar injusticias legales sin citar ninguna ley.
Ejemplos:
✓ Salvo en el caso del homicidio, si una mujer cometía un delito, su esposo debía responder ante la Justicia (al revés no pasaba).
✓ Los hombres no podían divorciarse ni separarse legalmente de sus esposas, mientras que ellas sí (acudiendo al tribunal de policía más cercano), sin contar que, por más que ellas iniciaran el divorcio, ellos deberían financiar todo el proceso y mantenerlas económicamente de por vida. Esto al revés tampoco pasaba (por más que ella fuera rica y él un discapacitado que necesitase asistencia/manutención).
✓ Una mujer podía difamar y denunciar a su marido. La justicia tomaba la denuncia como verdadera hasta que se demostrara lo contrario. Y por más que el esposo lograse demostrar su inocencia y la falsedad de la denuncia, la mujer no era castigada por la ley.
✓ Si una mujer estaba casada pero tenía un hijo extramatrimonial (con otro hombre) y lo mataba, el marido era considerado automáticamente cómplice del homicidio, por más que no hubiera tenido nada que ver con el delito.
Creo que nunca citó leyes que avalaran ninguna de esas situaciones. De ser reales, sería alarmante que esto no se supiera públicamente (estaría totalmente invisibilizado). Pero es imposible comprobarlo a través del libro. Uno, como lector, se ve obligado a confiar en su buena fe, o, en su defecto, a embarcarse en una ardua investigación sobre la historia legal de los países en cuestión (lo cual es muy tedioso).
*Vale la pena aclarar que Bax avisa, al principio del libro, que no lo escribió siguiendo un esquema científico, sino que su finalidad era refutar los "dogmas feministas" más populares de la época.
December 16, 2024
No apto para “manginas”.
Manifiesto clave para todo “volcel” que se precie.
Es curioso cómo esta crítica proviene de un autor socialista mientras que el feminismo fue promovido por liberales como Stuart “Mangina” Mill (a quien contesta Belfort Bax). A los socialistas como Belfort les preocupaba más la “desigualdad” de las clases sociales que las ínfulas políticas de las señoras de la burguesía.
Los problemas de este libro, en esencia, nos siguen golpeando como en la Inglaterra de 1900.
—
La traducción es espantosa. Yo lo hubiera traducido mejor.
Manifiesto clave para todo “volcel” que se precie.
Es curioso cómo esta crítica proviene de un autor socialista mientras que el feminismo fue promovido por liberales como Stuart “Mangina” Mill (a quien contesta Belfort Bax). A los socialistas como Belfort les preocupaba más la “desigualdad” de las clases sociales que las ínfulas políticas de las señoras de la burguesía.
Los problemas de este libro, en esencia, nos siguen golpeando como en la Inglaterra de 1900.
—
La traducción es espantosa. Yo lo hubiera traducido mejor.
January 27, 2024
alltho not as good as The Legal Subjection of Men "because of some the nonesesnes that i ended up disagreeing with and the fact the book didn't have as many objective showing of laws" its still a good read for these who wanna learn some more laws and opinions from the time.
February 27, 2018
This would of aged a lot better if he would of just stuck to the sociological insights without adding in the crank medical/biological theories e.g. "...it is not an uncommon thing for surgeons at the present time to remove the ovaries in obstinate cases of hysteria", "...on the principle of the development of the individual being a shorthand reproduction of the evolution of the species, or, to express it in scientific phraseology, of ontogeny being the abbreviated recapitulation of the stages presented by philogeny", etc, etc.
Displaying 1 - 11 of 11 reviews