From the SpearheadFiles
Originally Published on May 25, 2011
I think it’s high time that we the sheeple that populate these fringes of teh Interwebz, offer a conciliatory gesture of peace towards the female gender. There’s been too much anger towards the fairer sex ’round these parts as of late, and it’s time we MAN UP and give some props to notable females in US History, many of whom deserve recognition for their lifetime achievements. For this article, I wish to focus on those women who were successful entrepreneurs, property owners and businesswomen in the 19th century.
One such noteworthy lady is the woman pictured at the top of this piece, Madam CJ Walker.
Like most Americans, Sarah suffered from scalp diseases and hair loses. She resolutely wanted to find a cure and started experimenting with home remedies. She found that that application of sulfur can heal most of the hair problems cure which led her to produce her own shampoo and hair ointments which soon after she began selling. She traveled to various states demonstrated he products and even attempted door to door sales. As her popularity grew she established her factory at Indianapolis in 1910 and also started Lelia College to train beauty therapists. She was loved and respected because of her philanthropic contributions for education, childcare, rehabilitation programs and her unflinching efforts to improve living conditions of black women. She gave speeches on political and economic problems at major occasions and she was widely appreciated for her opinions and stands.She breathed her last on May 25th 1919 due to complications from hypertension at an age of 52. Her daughter Lelia stepped into the shoes of her mother and became the proprietor of an million dollar empire that she had left behind. Madam CJ Walker Biography till date provides inspiration to millions of impoverished women striving to curve a respectable life for themselves.
A million dollar empire in 1919 was approximately $13 million in today’s Fiat Federal Reserve Notes. And not only was she a member of the oppressed womynz gender, but she was also an African-American to boot! According to oft repeated memes by today’s feminists, that’s impossible!
Or what about Margaret Borland?
Margaret married at age 19 and gave birth to a daughter a year later. Soon afterwards her husband died in a gun battle in the streets of Victoria. Margaret’s second husband succumbed to cholera in 1852, leaving her with two more young daughters to support. Within four years Margaret married the richest rancher in the county. She bore four more children and partnered in running the ranch until 1867, when a yellow fever epidemic spread along the Texas coast. Margaret ministered to her ailing family as best she could, but death relentlessly claimed her husband, four-year-old son, 15-year-old daughter, two daughters who had married the previous year, and an infant grandson.
Now sole owner of the ranch, Margaret capably managed operations and enlarged its holdings. In 1873 she drove her own herd up the Chisholm Trail, accompanied by several ranch hands, her three surviving children, and her six-year-old granddaughter. The group succeeded in reaching the booming cowtown of Wichita, Kansas, but Margaret fell ill with “trail fever” and died in a local boardinghouse before she could sell her cattle.
Margaret Borland’s life parallels the momentous social, political, and economic changes of 19th century Texas. She was earnest and resourceful until the end.
Now how did she get away with being the “…sole owner of the ranch,” and “capably managed operations and enlarged its holdings.” in the time before the suffrage movement and Patriarchal oppression?
What about Mary Ann Hall? (No picture available)
In 1840, a stagnant canal drained through the center of Washington, dividing the area where the Smithsonian Castle stands from the rest of the city. The area was called “The Island.” A few blocks to the east is where Mary Ann Hall settled, started a business, saved her money, and where she eventually built a large, three-story brick home. Mary Ann was just in her early twenties, and the neighborhood was–rough. Nearby neighborhoods were nicknamed “Louse Alley,” and even “Murderer’s Row.” While the census records show that most single women here listed their occupation as seamstress or laundress, Mary Ann’s occupation isn’t recorded anywhere. But all the physical evidence indicates she was an extremely successful businesswoman.
-----
District of Columbia court records show that at the time of her death, Mary Ann Hall was worth a grand total of $87,000, with no debts–that’s well over $2,000,000 in today’s dollars. The records also show a list of her belongings, which included Belgian carpets, oil paintings, an ice box, numerous pieces of red plush furniture, as well as an inordinate number of sheets, mattresses, blankets, feather pillows and comforters.
Hmmmm….so not only could own property, they could actually do so back in 1840 without ever being married, but simply through their own entrepreneurial efforts? You don’t say?
Here’s another notable woman from America’s oppressive Patriarchal past, Lydia Pinkham
Some would call her the Ann Landers or Dr. Ruth of the 1800s. In 1875, Lydia Estes Pinkham of Lynn, Massachusetts, converted her herbal home remedies into a big business by skillfully marketing her products toward women and educating them about health issues. Pinkham’s Vegetable Compound became one of the best-known patent medicines of the 19th century. Pinkham was deemed a crusader for women’s health in an age when women’s needs weren’t being met by the medical community. Cooper Laboratories bought the company in 1968, though pills and a liquid stamped with Pinkham’s name are still available at some drugstores.
How about another “impossible” woman from US history? Note Elizabeth Arden
She brought makeup from the stage to everyday life and slowly developed a global empire. Elizabeth Arden, born Florence Nightingale Graham in Woodbridge, Ontario, moved to New York at the age of 30 to pursue her dream of building a cosmetics corporation. There she began working with a chemist to create a beauty cream, something new for the cosmetics industry at that time. After traveling to Paris in 1912, Arden became the first person to introduce the concept of eye makeup to American women and offered the first makeovers in her 5th Avenue salon. Arden died in 1966, but her brand became as well-known across the U.S. as Singer sewing machines and Coca-Cola. At the end of its fiscal year in June 2007, the company reported $1.1 billion in net sales, up more than 18 percent from $955 million in 2006.
Now here we have five examples of notable women from the pages of American history, deserving of genuine acknowledgment for their achievements as business owners, property owners and entrepreneurs. Somehow, this actual history of such women is often ignored or glossed over when your average 21st century indoctrinated feminist-sheeple casually repeats the meme: “Women couldn’t own property!”
For example:
The History Behind the Equal Rights Amendment
The new Constitution’s promised rights were fully enjoyed only by certain white males. Women were treated according to social tradition and English common law and were denied most legal rights. In general they could not vote, own property, keep their own wages, or even have custody of their children.
Or here: “Years ago women couldn’t vote or own property.”
Or here. “For years, the social scene at Harvard mimicked the gender norms of an era where women couldn’t own property.”
Or here: “In 1848, women obeyed men everywhere, even in their own homes. Women couldn’t own property either.”
Or here: “In the past, American women did not have the same rights as men. They couldn’t own property. They couldn’t attend the same colleges. And they couldn’t vote.”
Or here: “I mean, sure, women couldn’t own property or vote or practice law or anything, but I bet they’d trade that for having doors held open for them regularly anytime!”
Or here: “For a long time, women couldn’t own property, have jobs, or participate in politics.”
Or here: “This week I am co-chairing an event for the American Civil Liberties Union in my hometown. It’s going to be a wondrous evening full of amazing art and talented people. The ACLU will always need funding to continue their work protecting all of our civil liberties. I don’t work in those trenches every day, but I am thankful for those that do. Every issue women face – every obstacle they overcome – was and is a civil liberties issue. It wasn’t very long ago that women couldn’t vote, that women couldn’t own property and that women had very little control over their bodies and its intended freedoms.”
Or here: “When women couldn’t own property, vote, or be in most professions, someone could have (and many did) made the case that simply allowing divorce for women in abusive marriages wouldn’t automatically make things all rosy for them.”
Or here: “until the 1920′s, women couldn’t VOTE, in most US states women couldn’t OWN PROPERTY, and often wasn’t even the one paid for her labor – no, her husband, father, brother, son, or other male was paid because women WERE NOT CONSIDERED PEOPLE.”
Or here: “Oh, and the older I get, the more I remind myself and respect how much old-school feminists have accomplished. To see young women utterly unable to understand that women couldn’t own property or vote or get credit cards or bank accounts in their own names is a beautiful thing.”
Or how about this Barne’s & Noble book review regarding Abigail Adams?: “In a time when women couldn’t own property or manage their own money, Abigail was accruing enormous wealth through speculation on government bonds.”
Or this statement: “Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop said: ‘Without the suffragists and suffragettes, we would still be stuck in an age when women couldn’t own property, they couldn’t hold public positions and they couldn’t vote.’”
Or here’s another example of the casual way the meme is regularly regurgitated: “Consider the country’s state at the Founding — only landowners could vote. Women couldn’t own property.“
Or how about while presenting a list of the top 10 richest Women in America in 2011: “There was a time in American history, that seems not that long ago, where women couldn’t own property or even vote. However, times have changed. Women have been elevated to a status where their names can make this list as well as the ten richest people in America.”
All the preceding quotations where taken from a quick google search of the phrase “Women couldn’t own property.” They represent statements from articles, blog posts, book reviews and anonymous commentary.
{At the time this piece was written for The Spearhead, all of the preceding links worked. Most still do, but several of them can't be found on the original site or at archive.org.}
Funny isn’t it, how the meme that “woman couldn’t own property” has become a widely accepted truth by most denizens of our Brave New World Order, and is expressed as a universally accepted statement of fact over teh interwebz?
I guess the Womynz Studies and liberal/progressive Professors in Universities across the land forgot to indoctrinate educate their students about all the wonderful success stories of notable women in American history who owned property, ran businesses and amassed personal wealth through their own ingenuity and hard work. I guess their stories contradict the feminist’s revision of history, so I'm sad to note that these ladies will never get there just due in today’s brainwashing facilities institutions of higher learning.
How ironic is it that it takes a hateful, bitter misogynist here at this infamous outpost of womyn hatred, to correct this gross injustice, and white knight for these courageous and brave ladies of the past who’ve been ignored and marginalized by the feminist zeitgeist for too long?
It’s time to put them back up on their pedestals where they belong!
Notable Commentary from the Original Post
Anonymous Reader May 25, 2011 at 07:46
This approach to political operations is certainly not new. For example, consider this noted liar:
All this was inspired by the principle–which is quite true within itself–that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. —Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X
Opus May 25, 2011 at 07:58
I am not a legal Historian but perhaps as an Appendix to the above, it might be of interest to compare the position in England and Wales. In 1882 an Act of Parliament – The Married Women’s Property Act was passed allowing married women to own property including land. Previously a woman ceased to have a separate legal identity on marriage at which point all her goods became her husbands. This was not however a one-sided deal, as (most women marry having little by way of property anyway) she was now to be protected by her husband for the rest of her life, indeed as most women marry up it was a very good arrangement for her. Better still her husband became responsible for her debts. In pratice even to this day a married couple in practice treat their possessions as joint possessions and for that matter tend to vote for the same candidate in elections.
The position for single women and widows was quite different in that they – being femme sole – could own property including land in their own right. As I was indicating yesterday in the post concerned with Michael Faraday, voting rights depended as much on land as sex so that many, indeed most men had no right to vote in parliamentary elections.
By an act of 1919 women were allowed to qualify as Solicitors of the Supreme Court (Attorney) and after much aggitation a few having sat the examinations did so, but then for the next fifty years or so the women seemed little interested in becoming Solicitors. I do not know what the position was for women who aspired to the dizzy heights of being a member of The Bar (Barristers). (England and Wales have a split legal profession).
In spite of all this I cannot immediately think of any famous Victorian Women apart from Ms Nightingale – so I suppose they were all being oppressed by ‘The Patriarchy’.
demirogue May 25, 2011 at 08:43
Shhh! How dare ye stir up controversy by telling the truth. Femitwats don’t care for it. As a matter of fact women in general don’t believe in it either. The enormous sales and use of cosmetics alone is proof of that.
Keyster May 25, 2011 at 08:48
Academic feminists are not only careful to avoid pointing out successful women of the “pre-feminist era”, most of these women were very much opposed to women’s suffrage, and feminism is general. They simply didn’t see the need for it.
Yes, even if you’re dead and gone, but didn’t tow the feminist party line in your writings…they’ll dismiss you as if you never existed at all.
Annie Oakely, who was basically an entertainer as a freakish woman who was good with guns, was very outspoken about what a bad idea women’s rights would be, for all the same reasons we now know to be true.
Read more commentary after the jump...
SingleDad May 25, 2011 at 09:26
@ Opus
The truth is that today even the average woman looks to extend the law to eventual ownership of the man himself. My first wife was much smarter than my second wife (who I met after becoming a MRA).
My first announced that she owned my professional degree by fact of her being married to me during part of my training. I was uneducated in this area but since I never considered divorcing, being a good Catholic, never thought about it much.
When we did divorce I was shocked to find out that in the State of California, a spouse is only entitled to recieve back half of money they paid toward a professionals education, not living expenses. As I had paid my entire tuition and taken loans because my ex decided within a year to stop working, she actually owed me money. But, on the wise advice of legal council, I paid her double alimony because she agreed to a stipulation that she could not take me back to court. It was worth every dime.
My second tried to get me to declare bankrupgy thoughout our marriage. She would not let me contribute to retirement. She clearly was planning divorce from day 1. When she did leave, within 8 months she declared bankrupcy to the tune of $80,000.00 dollars.
I know this because I had her next boyfriend testify for me at my last custody hearing. Interestingly he believed her when she told him that I had run up the debt and what the court had assigned this community debt to her.
The audacity of modern women together with the naivete of modern men never ceases to amaze me.
Raj May 25, 2011 at 09:27
A) Feminism is about acquiring resources, not about equality. All the rights it seeks are just so women can have more resources.
B) Women don’t have to create wealth because they are not good at it. Their strength lies in manipulating men to do it and give it to them. Men comply gladly.
NWOslave May 25, 2011 at 09:27
I must cry “foul” at the premise of this entire article. If you take away the perception that women weren’t eternally oppressed throughout history right up to and including the present day, you have committed a mortal sin. Hatred must be maintained. For propogating such slanderous lies Mr. Price, I demand you put youself on moderation.
Jameseq May 25, 2011 at 09:41
Actually mary seacole was a household name in victorian times here in the uk, and was on the front page of the times of london at least once
In the usa ‘wild west’ it was not uncommon for women, particularly madames, to own houses and businesses. The social and financial power of the madame in the community was hinted at in the wildwest films of the mid 20th c, but the filmmakers didnt er want to dwell on it lol
Opus May 25, 2011 at 09:49
@ single dad
I am shocked and saddened to read your story.
Chivalry is fine if you are a feudal Knight, but applying chivalry to ordinary people in the 21st Century seems to me to be on a par with Don Quixote mistaking a serving wench for a Lady, and Windmills for Giants. Perhaps the legislators of your state have paid one too many visits to Disneyland or Knotts Berry Farm.
Quartermain May 25, 2011 at 09:52
@ Opus
Maybe instead of calling them White Knights, we should call them Don Quixotes.
Used to be one but those windmills don’t fight fair.
SingleDad May 25, 2011 at 09:57
@ Jamesesq
Watch “McCAbe and Mrs. Miller”, the tale of a female brothel owner in the 1800′s, played by Julie Christie and her man, played by Warren Beatty, a great movie.
How do I know? My parents took me when I was 12 because they thought it was a typical Western and my brothers friends told my parents it was OK, lol.
I remember it being good although I only saw it through the filter of my moms fingers over my wide open eyes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCabe_%26_Mrs._Miller
Rebel May 25, 2011 at 10:03
“I think it’s high time that the men of The Spearhead, offer a conciliatory gesture of peace towards the female gender on teh interwebz.”
I’m slow sometimes…
At first, I thought it was serious: it took me five minutes to understand that this was a joke.
I must admit that you had me there…..LOL!!!!
Ken May 25, 2011 at 10:11
“Chivalry is fine if you are a feudal Knight, but applying chivalry to ordinary people in the 21st Century seems to me to be on a par with Don Quixote mistaking a serving wench for a Lady, and Windmills for Giants. Perhaps the legislators of your state have paid one too many visits to Disneyland or Knotts Berry Farm”>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Alas, we are trumpeting the SELFISH nature of the average sweet-cheeks!
A man who thinks otherwise is the same sap who thinks a smiling Stripper “likes” him or that a flirtatious waitress “wants” him.
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 25, 2011 at 10:18
Hi Keoni,
Even the BIBLE talks of women whos husband had died as being the owner of the property and she owned that property until she remarried at which time it became the husbands property UNTIL one of them DIED. Whichever DID NOT DIE would then own the marital property.
Women seem to forget the marriage vow was ‘until death do us part’.
Now. Why would it be that the property was considered to be the property of the HUSBAND? Well? Might that not have something to do with the husband BEING ACCOUNTABLE for protecting and providing for the wife and kids?
Duh? If you are going to hold a man accountable for outcomes then you make sure he has full responsibility for creating the outcomes. Simple as.
It is clear from women of today that they are disasters at managing money, assets, investments in the VAST MAJORITY.
We are STILL awaiting the first fortune 500 company founded by women.
The vast majority of western women just lie through their teeth the whole time now. It’s really disgusting. I’m really sick of it. I simply don’t tolerate it any of this shit any more. If a woman wants to talk to me? She will be honest. End of story. I have no time for talking to women who are liars and hypocrites. They can find some beta-loser to talk to.
Skeptik May 25, 2011 at 10:48
Hey Opus,
Not on any pedestal to get down from. I’m far from being a royalist however I do acknowledge certain facts. Despite what some will say Queen Victoria took an active interest in politics, gave birth to nine children, excelled as a diplomat to the point of being known widely throughout Europe as ‘The Grandmother of Europe’. She held the throne for 61 years and gave her (admittedly condescending) royal seal of approval to vast amounts of commodities, social conventions and legislation.
Tellingly she was VERY anti feminist, although the term wouldn’t have existed in those days.
In my book, like her or loath her these things alone makes her an immense achiever.
And whilst you don’t see her as a role model and knowledge about her diminishes with time, many have done.
Herbal Essence May 25, 2011 at 10:51
You guys are such myisogeniysts. You deny the Truth of the Feminist Time Machine.
Through the technological efforts of numerous highly-trained women’s studies majors, strong & independent Feminists can now travel back in time to defeat the historical Patriarchy.
As we speak, Jessica Valenti and Amanda Marcotte are in early 20th century England working on the White Feather campaign to shame evil patriarchs into dying for strong & independent women.
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 25, 2011 at 11:00
@Skeptik,
you sound like you have not read this.
http://enlightenedwomen.org/queen-victoria-%E2%80%9Cfeminists-ought-to-get-a-good-whipping%E2%80%9D/
“I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of ‘Women’s Rights,’ with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to ‘unsex’ themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings and would surely perish without male protection.”
Half baked May 25, 2011 at 11:01
@Jameseq
I grew up in Alaska in the 60′s, there was a serious shortage of women up there so everyone knew where the local whorehouse was, it was named after the madam that owned it and was quite the popular place to go. She was a respected member of the business community and ended up owning half the town and was on the town council for a while. So yes even after the “wild west” this was true.
Opus May 25, 2011 at 11:06
@ half baked
Perhaps you are familiar with George Bernard Shaw’s play ‘Mrs Warren’s Profession’, and I do not need to tell you what that profession was. Mrs Warren had become through her wealth (brought about by her looks) a respected member of the community – but her daughter was a bit of a feminist. The Irony!
My experience of prostitutes is, that as well as being understanding of men, they (being well paid) come across as very respectable, and well dressed – unlike the silly Toronto sluts.
Traveller May 25, 2011 at 11:07
“I think it’s high time that the men of The Spearhead, offer a conciliatory gesture of peace towards the female gender on teh interwebz.”
I do not think that, do you really believe it would be noticed or understood?
“There’s been too much anger towards the fairer sex ’round these parts as of late, and it’s time we MAN UP”
Oh yes we needed some insults.
Topic already covered (Little House in the Prairie), such women are the PAST of women.
fondueguy May 25, 2011 at 11:37
I liked the ending paragraph.
“Elizabeth Arden, born Florence Nightingale Graham in Woodbridge, Ontario, moved to New York at the age of 30 to pursue her dream of building a cosmetics corporation. There she began working with a chemist to create a beauty cream, something new for the cosmetics industry at that time. After traveling to Paris in 1912, Arden became the first person to introduce the concept of eye makeup to American women and offered the first makeovers in her 5th Avenue salon.”
Interesting that it was a woman who had such an impact at moving the enormous cosmetics industry along… Because feminism told me that women only want to boost each others self esteem and not make everything about looks, and cosmetics comes the patriarchy. It’s not like a woman could be largely responsible for the cosmetics infrastructure, or give a child botox, or pick applicants based on looks…
fondueguy May 25, 2011 at 11:46
“Chivalry is fine if you are a feudal Knight,”
Aside from chivalry being out of place, I get the impression that it has been enormously rewritten to make it look like its for wymenz (prvileges!) and as if that was honorable…
Keyster May 25, 2011 at 11:48
If women were not given special rights and privelages today (as re-payment for past oppression), they’d have to be as forthright and industrious as many of the women from a century or more ago.
Now the either advance through affirmative action or divorce their way into prosperity. Very little actual work is required of them as long as they have “rights”.
SingleDad May 25, 2011 at 11:54
Honor, in the same sentence as wymenz? Deplorable.
Here are our proud feminist moms in the US, the day after mothers day. 52,684 sign in to the Dolly Madison cheating site to:
“A significant percentage of these women [from Mothers Day] are looking for an emotional connection,” said Noel Biderman, president and founder of controversial matchmaker site http://www.AshleyMadison.com. “If you sign up for a service like this, and a day later you have six people interested in you, that is a revalidation of a time when your partner paid attention to you in that way. I genuinely believe this is what a large percentage of these women are seeking.”
The Slut walkers are amateurs compared to married middle American mothers.
Read more: http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/05/11/cheating-moms-mothers-day/#ixzz1NOLexgu4
And you want to marry cupcake so you can have some kids…lol.
SingleDad May 25, 2011 at 11:56
Sorry, that was Ashley Madison. Dolly Madisons are some damn good cupcakes not to be confused with the sleazy cupcakes I described above.
http://www.dollymadison.com/
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 25, 2011 at 12:13
Speaking of acknowledging women Erin Pizzeys new book is out. Those of you in the UK can get it here.
@Welmer. It might be a good idea for you to talk to Erin and ask her if you can feature her book on the site. If there is ONE woman in the world who deserves our respect and appreciation it is Erin Pizzey.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/This-Way-Revolution-Erin-Pizzey/dp/0720613604/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1306350258&sr=1-1
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 25, 2011 at 12:22
@SD.
from the article.
“Biderman said women in relationships, especially mothers, expected the holiday to bring extra love and attention. Those who were disappointed in the lack of attention they received took advantage of the deal being offered.”
Funny. In 18 years of marriage I don’t recall getting any extra ‘love and attention’ on fathers day.
I do recall the very first time I came home from Hong Kong to the house we had closed out on the day before I left that my ex and her kids put up a banner saying ‘welcome home peter’ and they made me a cake.
As far as I recall. That was the first and last time that happened. Hhhmmmm.
Keoni Galt May 25, 2011 at 12:24
"I do not think that, do you really believe it would be noticed or understood?
Oh yes we needed some insults."
Traveller – It’s called sarcasm. It’s why I tagged this piece with: “subpar satire” and “Underwhelming humor.”
Nico May 25, 2011 at 12:27
I read an article some time ago written by a female journalist angry against feminism which she blamed for becoming a spinster. I can’t find it anymore.
Anyone can help me?
Thanks.
Peter-Andrew: Nolan(c) May 25, 2011 at 12:29
A little OT…..but we call ameriskanks ‘whores’ and they get all upset….yet we have this from lady gaga on the latest album……Yeah…..right….
I can be good, if you just wanna be bad
I can be cool, if you just wanna be mad
I can be anything
I’ll be your everything
Just touch me baby, I don’t wanna be sad
As long as I’m your hooker
(Back up and turn around)
As long as I’m your hooker
(Get her to the ground)
As long as I’m your hooker
(Back up and turn around)
As long as I’m your hooker
(Get her to the ground)
Hookah! Yeah, you’re my hooker
Hookah! Government hooker
Hookah! Yeah, you’re my hooker
Hookah! Government Hooker
I’m gonna drink my tears tonight
I’m gonna drink my tears and cry
‘Cause I know you love me baby
I know you love me baby
I could be girl, unless you want to be man.
I could be sex, unless you want to hold hands.
I could be anything, I could be everything.
I could be mom, unless you want to be dad.
As long as I’m your hooker
(Back up and turn around)
As long as I’m your hooker
(Get her to the ground)
As long as I’m your hooker
(Back up and turn around)
As long as I’m your hooker
(Get her to the ground)
Hookah! Yeah, you’re my hooker.
Hookah! Government hooker.
Hookah! Yeah, you’re my hooker.
Hookah! Government Hooker.
Put your hands on me, John F. Kennedy. I’ll make you squeal, baby, as long as you pay me.
I’m gonna drink my tears tonight
I’m gonna drink my tears and cry
‘Cause I know you love me baby
I know you love me baby
Hookah! Yeah, you’re my hooker.
Hookah! Government hooker.
Hookah! Yeah, you’re my hooker.
Hookah! Government Hooker.
I could be girl, unless you want to be man.
I could be sex, unless you want to hold hands.
I could be anything, I could be everything.
I could be mom, unless you want to be dad.
I wanna fuck up on that hooker.
Stop shittin’ me, government hooker.
I wanna fuck up on that hooker.
Stop shittin’ me, government hooker.
Common Monster May 25, 2011 at 12:55
Annie Oakely, who was basically an entertainer as a freakish woman who was good with guns, was very outspoken about what a bad idea women’s rights would be, for all the same reasons we now know to be true. (Keyster)
“Annie‘s parents were Quakers from Hollidaysburg, Blair County, Pennsylvania:”
I have distant kin on the family tree with essentially the same description, though I’m not sure where in Pennsylvania they came from. Some of their descendants ended up being pioneers out on the western frontier (now fly-over country) about the same time Oakley’s career was at it’s height.
One such family lived a day’s horseback ride from the nearest railroad. They lived among Indians, spoke their language, and had been given Indian names. Needless to say, there were nothing but strong, capable (dare I say “independent”?) women in those families. Everyone had to be a jack-of-all-trades, so there were no special public accolades for this. I’m sure they would have been embarrassed if someone had congratulated them on being what they had to be to get by in the wilderness. It’s difficult to point to many who competed with men, rather than worked with men.
They got enough real hunting in that they didn’t need sharp-shooting as a sport or entertainment. Annie got her start hunting for money, a virtually unknown practice on the real frontier, which was almost entirely a barter economy — until they ventured out to make contact with the world of money at the railroad. They wouldn’t have had time for gunplay. When they did seriously downtime it, it was like a big block party, and horse racing (almost the roots of rodeo) were the fiercely contested activities.
You could say they were living the life Oakley ended up selling some highly limited but palatable view of to the information yet attention-span starved masses back East and in Europe. (She lived her entire life east of the Mississippi.) To the extent she made the West seem more dangerous than it was, she discouraged women from going totally off-pavement and finding their fortunes there on their own, though a few did after settlements had become established. The AWALT women back then followed their men, who had gone ahead first to scout out the prospects. (And the Quakers then were thought to have had very progressive views of women for the time, so much so that there are several glowing feminist books on them.)
There are lots of plain (i.e., non-feminist) biographies of pioneer women (and men) from such families all throughout the West. Only the more sensational ones seem to be very well known at all beyond the local historians in the small towns. Many of the stories contain some colorful characters, but they’re swamped by lots of just regular people going about their lives.
Very few that I’ve seen even mention what would be called feminist issues. The people barely had mail from distant family in many instances, so necessary information traveled by direct word-of-mouth from people they knew, more so than by print. If they chanced to get a hold of the odd newspaper or magazine, they’d no doubt have marveled at how strange and puzzling the things that were going on back in civilization were. Nobody bothered having much of an opinion on such things because they were by nature reserved, knew they didn’t understand those things, and it really didn’t matter all that much to them in any event.
Sounds like Annie’s marriage to Frank Butler was very Marriage 2.5-ish.
Traveller May 25, 2011 at 12:55
Keoni Galt May 25, 2011 at 12:24
Traveller – It’s called sarcasm. It’s why I tagged this piece with: “subpar satire” and “Underwhelming humor.”
My fault, I did not get it at the first reading.
DCM May 25, 2011 at 13:02
There’s no problem with accomplished females.
The problem is the many women who do nothing and are touted far and wide as accomplished and those women who are promoted or placed in high level sincures because and only because they are female and despite their real abilities.
It is feminists who poisoned the knowledge of actual acomplished females.
Nobody can believe anything about any females because of leftists and feminists.
Morrisfactor May 25, 2011 at 13:35
Very illuminating.
I’ve always been suspicious about the claims that females weren’t allowed to own property in the old days. For one, there was Martha Washington, a widow who owned the Virginia estate that George married into.
Among the largest land owners in Seattle, Denver and San Franciso in the mid and late 1900th century were females – the madams who owned chains of brothels. When the great fire of 1889 burned down much of central Seattle, it was one of the madams who used her fortune to rebuild it.
I’m sure it was the same in many other cities.
AntZ May 25, 2011 at 13:36
My vote goes to Rosalind Franklin.
Franklin obtained the data that Watson and Crick used to generate their model for DNA. Later, Watson and Crick won the Nobel prize, along with Maurice Wilkins. Wilkins received the prize for Franklin’s work.
Predictably, feminist nobodies who never accomplished anything screamed bloody murder:
1) Feminists complained because Franklin did not receive the Nobel. In fact, Franklin did not receive the Nobel because she was deceased. By statute, the Nobel is only awarded to living scientists.
2) Feminists then complained because Watson and Crick used (or “stole”) Franklin’s data. In fact, Franklin’s research was public domain. True, Watson and Crick rudely asked Franklin’s supervisor for her data (they should have asked her directly). However, bad manners does not constitute theft.
Franklin herself never played the victim and in fact defended the “thieves” by pointing out that her research was public domain. As a result, two years after the DNA comedy, Franklin discovered the first structure of an infections virus — an accomplishment with far greater practical consequences than the original DNA work. The virus discovery won yet another Nobel prize, awarded to her collaborator Aaron Klug.
By the time Franklin was 33 years old, she had participated as an equal in work that led to two Nobel prizes. It is difficult to dispute that, had she lived, she would have been the third person in history to win two Nobel prizes (along with Marie Curie — Sanger, Pauling, and Bardeen came later).
Both Curie and Franklin dies as a direct result of their dedication to their work. Death in the line of duty, due to different kinds of radiation.
MsExceptiontotheRule May 25, 2011 at 13:40
I have only one thing to say….
(before going on to elaborate)
and that is:
NAWALT.
Someday, a feminist will give this standard response yet remain incapable of comprehending why people are giving her weird looks – and it’s because she just deployed the NAWALT bomb in defense of women that DON’T want to own property, work outside of the home/start their own business, or bear the full responsibility of making the money/spending the money – when she’s carried off by a mob driven to vigilante-style justice and wailing “what did I dooooooo?” the whole way down after being thrown off a cliff by a mob that had enough of circular arguments with opponents who always seemed to switch sides.
Morrisfactor May 25, 2011 at 13:41
Among the largest land owners in Seattle, Denver and San Franciso in the mid and late 1900th century were females – the madams who owned chains of brothels. When the great fire of 1889 burned down the business district of Seattle, it was one of the madams who funded a large portion of the relief and rebuilding effort.
Watcher May 25, 2011 at 14:15
@AntZ
May I respectfully suggest you look very closely at Marie Curie’s two Nobel awards. It is not as straightforward as it seems.
Lovekraft May 25, 2011 at 14:44
I think the show “The View” should cancel out at least 20 notable achievements.
Paradoxotaur May 25, 2011 at 14:45
“The records also show a list of her belongings, which included Belgian carpets, oil paintings, an ice box, numerous pieces of red plush furniture, as well as an inordinate number of sheets, mattresses, blankets, feather pillows and comforters.”
The first thought I had was that this woman ran a whore house (I mean, a private whore house, not one of the Houses of Congress). Does that make me a misogynist?
@AntZ: “Franklin herself never played the victim and in fact defended the “thieves” by pointing out that her research was public domain.”
Well, I think another thing worth pointing out is that Franklin herself had access to her own data, yet didn’t make the connection between her data and the structure of DNA. Sort of like the story of Mary Ann Mantell finding a large, fossilized tooth and leaving it up to her husband Gideon to determine that the tooth was 1) reptilian-like and 2) from an herbivore, specifically like an iguana’s tooth, thus calling the first named dinosaur iguanodon (whereas previously found dinosaur teeth from carnivores were presumed to be from large crocodiles).
s/ Keoni- you forgot other memorable achievements of pre-first-wave women, such as The Widow C. Richards (LA), who in 1860 owned 152 black slaves on her sugar cane plantation, and that, despite massive oppression from men, and whites in general, free black women owned 70% of black-owned slaves at the start of The Civil War. Remarkable achievements, considering women couldn’t own property./s
I can’t remember if it was Richards, The Mistress L. Horry of Colleton District (SC), or some other woman who owned the most slaves at the beginning of The Civil War, but I’m pretty sure that dubious distinction does go to a woman.
DCM May 25, 2011 at 14:56
Also, it’s feminists who deny that there have ever been accomplished females till last week some time. Ever notice how every female who does anything is the first? She probably isn’t unless it’s something impossible before modern times like the first female parachute jump from a plane in 1912.
Some years ago feminists produced a plethora of biographies of famous women going back into early times — then stopped. Why? Because it proved the “Patriarchy” didn’t keep females from accomplishing anything if they tried.
A couple of years ago in an online discussion I happened to mention that the first modern author to have used a rational explanation for apparently supernatural events as a plot element was Anne Radcliffe in, as I recall, “The Mysteries of Udolpho”, published in 1798. Radcliffe also developed the literary form of the gothic novel that persists to today. My statement, which can be looked up anywhere (Wikipedia, for example) unleashed a storm of denunciation, denial, and obscenity directed at me — by feminists. I was told that no woman could have done that. Interestingly, male feminists were more vile and angry than females, who apparently looked it up for themselves.
But the reason was that it proved talented females were not repressed by the “Patriarchy” in the 1700s. Or in the 1300s when English mystic (and social pest) Margery Kempe wrote the earliest known personal memoir in English.
The assertions of female ability, when proven true, contradict feminist doctrine. The “Patriarchy” oppressing female accomplishment is a myth to account for the fact that there are only about 10% as many outstanding females as men — to deny that only 10% of females are as gifted as maybe 70% of men.
Opus May 25, 2011 at 15:25
@DCM
I am glad that you have mentioned Ann Radcliffe because I am familiar with her 1791 Novel The Romance of The Forest. She is not perhaps a great novelist but very interesting nevertheless.
In Romance of The Forest (where supernatural events have rational explanations), our heroine begins the novel in a state of some undress (flaunting herself) and is taken to a castle in a secluded Forest. She is trying to avoid a fate worse than death yet alhough she has the opportunity to escape to a town and acquire a job as a maid, that is just too beneath her. Later she is abducted by some Alpha Male type and again narrowly avoids said fate. The she falls in love with what we would probably regard as a Metro-sexual type. There is a happy ending, but the book just shouts at me. RAPE FANTASY.
LaughOrCry May 25, 2011 at 15:29
Both Rosalind Franklin and Marie Curie were first rate lab technicians. Franklin made excellent X-ray crystallography images of DNA, which were instrumental to Watson and Crick’s deduction of the structure of that molecule.
Curie’s skills in the lab led her to being the first to isolate radium, for which she won her Nobel in chemistry. A great discovery to be sure, however since radium is a naturally occurring element sooner or later someone would have discovered it (compare for example with Glenn T. Seaborg and his team’s discovery of ten elements that don’t exist naturally).
Her Nobel in physics was won as part of a group of physicists (including her husband Pierre, himself a brilliant physicist) for their contribution to knowledge of radioactivity. I don’t know specifically what her contribution was.
The Nobel prizes in the sciences are awards for significant discoveries, not for work of scientific merit. Einstein won his Nobel in physics for his work on the photoelectric effect, not for his work on Relativity – which was undoubtedly of far greater importance and is one of the two pillars of modern physics (the other being of course Quantum Mechanics, to which Einstein also made important contributions).
Eincrou May 25, 2011 at 15:32
@ Antz: Crucial to properly understanding the Rosalind Franklin issue is the fact that she actively and intentionally hid the details of her research, which was publicly funded. Not only is this an affront due to the funding source, but it is anti-scientific to not make her work available for use by other scientists.
She was self-described as only interested in doing experimental work, and as Paradoxotaur pointed out, she didn’t put it all together into a theory describing DNA and its role, as Watson and Crick did.
This all shows that ambition is an important force in driving forward science, which feminists readily admit is most evident in men’s competitive spirit.
Alex May 25, 2011 at 17:25
Women get confused about concepts like independence and strength. Most women think being strong and independent means being a cold-hearted bitch who is only considered powerful if she hurts men. Women don’t understand that the truly strong people in the world don’t feel the need to have a cutthroat attitude. People, especially women, who run their mouths and act tough are usually nothing but insecure weaklings who fall to pieces at the first sign of adversity.
David K. Meller May 25, 2011 at 18:21
The accomplishments cited above indeed are worthwhile efforts to expand public awareness of female accomplishments in business; but it doesn’t change the fact that business, commerce, and finance both then and now, are overwhelmingly male undertakings! These women, were therefore, competing with and displacing men, however impressively they did it!
Nevertheless,they still contributed to the wealth and development of their economy and society, and, therefore, deserve recognition and praise, but I think, as businessmen or entrepreneurs, not as women!
My list of outstanding women is quite different. These are women who added beautifully to the quality to life and well-being to our society in ways that, quite frankly, only women–and women of a certain kind–which we have now largely forgotten, could.
Commediennes and actresses like Lucille Ball, Mae West, Gracie Allen, Carol Burnett, and perhaps, on a different levels, and for somewhat different audiences, women like Marilyn Monroe, Hedy LeMarr, Bette Davis, Jean Harlow, Lillian Russell, or Donna Reed. Overseas, the list would include, but certainly not be limited to, Catherine DeNeuve, Gina Lollobrigida, Sophia Loren, Brigitte Bardot, and Angela Lansbury. These women made lives brighter (often amid dismal circumstances and conditions) spread laughter and love, and dare I say it, looked a damnsight better than your ‘modern women’ nowadays trying to entertain an audience any day of the week!
Other contributions of women which feminists have ignored, overlooked, or denigrated: How about songbirds like Ella Fitzgerald, Fannie Brice, Kate Smith, Dinah Shore, Sarah Vaughn, Theresa Brewer, or Connie Francis, and (at their best) Loretta Lynn, Patsy Cline, or Dolly Parton? Again, the world was a much brighter, more enjoyable place because of these women, and the contributions that these women and others like them–which again, could NOT be done by men–made for their time and place!
I am not as knowledgeable in literature as I should be or would like to be, but I should think that the literary contributions of e.g. Edith Wharton, Agatha Christy, Anita Loos, Edna Ferber, Florence King, and a few others should be noticed and cherished!
Contributions in other areas, from child rearing to cooking and homemaking are also noteworthy, and even–in better times–when the original work was undertaken by a man, e.g. Benjamin Spock, Benjamin Fine, or Haim Ginott in childcare, the advice was implemented and carried out by mothers (and grandmothers) i.e. women. Any success therefore that those men may have had, I daresay, is success owed by those men to those women who found ways of carrying out their instructions and advice. I also think that women writing and lecturing on homemaking and cooking, baking and sewing, contributed immeasurably to a pleasant and civilized environment for the rest of us, and also could never have been done by men, and was–for obvious reasons–totally ignored by the sisterhood from hell! We should rediscover and rehabilitate them and their works!
Why should women try to be imitation men? They have their own sphere of activity, and the longer we have to do without it, the more aware we are of how indispensible that sphere of activity is! No-it has NOTHING to do with voting, owning property, campaigning for political office, competing for executive or professional positions, or any of the worthless rot that feminists–and their renegade male(?) allies–have foisted on us for the past few decades! Dolly Madison or Martha Stewart, Patsy Cline or Ella Fitzgerald, Donna Reed or Marilyn Monroe would be precious and wonderful women even if such accursed “women” like Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, Hitlery Clinton, Bella Abzug, or even their precursors like Lucy Stone, Abigail Adams, or Carrie Nation had never even existed!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
andybob May 25, 2011 at 18:40
Any Aussies remember Caroline Chisolm? I’m old enough to remember her as one of the only women in Australian history significant enough to make it into the history books (Nellie Melba got the occassional mention). Her visage made it onto the $5 note. Her contribution was to ‘rescue’ prostitutes from the streets and steer them into a life of reformed respectability.
Guess wha? Feminists hate her dead guts and have consigned her to historical oblivion. How dare she prevent women from embracing their inner sluts? She must be a patriarchy enabler. They even succeeded in having her yanked off our currency.
She has been replaced by pinko ratbag Mary Durack (on the $10 note), whose principal ‘accomplishment’ was the failed Paraguayan experiment. She and a few other nutjobs tried to set up a Marxist/feminist utopia in the South American jungle. Of course it all ended in tears and dissentry.
Feminists lionise the inept and undeserving while condemning what they fail to appreciate and understand. They play so fast and loose with facts that their every pronouncement is deeply suspect. Aussie school kids have never heard of Caroline Chisolm, but they know all about slut marches.
Depressing.
Paradoxotaur May 25, 2011 at 18:53
@LaughOrCry: “I don’t know specifically what her contribution was.”
Her contributions were:
1) she was colorably associated with that group of physicists (at least by being married to one of them), and
2) she had the only vagina in the group.
Then, as now, if a woman so much as washed the labware she was credited on the published results and would be pushed forward to accept the award.
LaughOrCry May 25, 2011 at 19:33
@Paradoxotaur: Oh come on, don’t be so patronising. I’m sure Madame Curie’s contribution was more significant than mere tokenism.
Those sammiches didn’t make themselves, you know!
DCM May 25, 2011 at 19:50
“Opus May 25, 2011 at 15:25
@DCM
I am glad that you have mentioned Ann Radcliffe because I am familiar with her 1791 Novel The Romance of The Forest. She is not perhaps a great novelist but very interesting nevertheless.
In Romance of The Forest (where supernatural events have rational explanations), our heroine begins the novel in a state of some undress (flaunting herself) and is taken to a castle in a secluded Forest. She is trying to avoid a fate worse than death yet alhough she has the opportunity to escape to a town and acquire a job as a maid, that is just too beneath her. Later she is abducted by some Alpha Male type and again narrowly avoids said fate. The she falls in love with what we would probably regard as a Metro-sexual type. There is a happy ending, but the book just shouts at me. RAPE FANTASY.”
It was “The Mystery of Udolpho” that got much criticism for naturalistic explanations of supernatural seeming events. Fellow novelists were outraged, Sir Walter Scott, it seems, especially. That alone shows that she was considered somewhat of an equal.
I haven’t read her stuff; there are certain literary periods when I can’t really deal with the prevailing style and she came in at the begining of one of them. The novel you describe sounds like a bodice ripper. I wonder if the male feminists who were infuriated by what I wrote were pissed off that a male writer didn’t explicitly give natural explanations for the supernatural.
I’d guess she was one of those persons with original ideas who was somehow limited by her style or background. I’ll never know.
I’d like to note that every era produced many female poets and novelists, most of them mediocre and few known except to scholars. Most male writers have been mediocre, too, but more of them have been original, even important. As is always the case.
Laura Grace Robins May 25, 2011 at 20:04
Keoni,
This is really good. “Women couldn’t own property” and “women couldn’t vote” are the two main cards in the house of cards feminism is built upon. If they didn’t have those two catchy slogans, I wonder what they would say. It’s not that women “couldn’t”, but that they “didn’t”. Largely, they didn’t want to own property or vote and rather deferred such burdens to the men. Women today have romanticized owning property and voting and I think all too often forget the responsibilities attached. With property comes taxes and maintenance and with voting comes diligent research, not merely selecting who Oprah says to. I remember some post I did about a woman back in the day who had property solely in her name, but she was not responsible for the taxes–the husband was! So, if he did not pay taxes he would get thrown in Jail all the while she sits prettyholding her property owning title.
freebird May 25, 2011 at 20:14
OT:
Opra Winfrey is going off free air tv.
Ding Dong the wicked witch is dead!
Good thing she was never allowed to own property or effect politics.
Ted Turner allegedly said, “The world would be a better place is women ruled,and Opra has brought us one step closer to making that a reality.”
R.I.P you old sow, may your misandry
be forgotten in our son’s time.
(never forgiven)
Legion May 25, 2011 at 20:19
Opus May 25, 2011 at 09:00
“It was also luck that she assumed the title of Empress in the 1870s as she never commanded an Army, never mind a Battalion – I believe the last British Monarch, (other than Margaret, who started a civil-war in the 1140s) and then not British but Icini, to personally make war was one Boadaciea though strangely she has had a name change as she now calls herself Boudica. ”
Maybe they let Victoria be empress since since she had the sense not to lead the army. Bodica lead her 260,000 size army against the Roman Governor’s 10,000 man legion and got it shattered. Estimated were (by the Romans) were at over 60,000. That’s 6 killed per legionaire while fighting off another 20 EACH. Now that’s a day’s work for a man.
Avenger May 25, 2011 at 20:22
@single dad-and I thought that Dolly Madison was one of those outstanding females of the past who invented ice cream. Not those stupid Roman Patriarchs who mixed ice from the mountains with cream lol
But I really shouldn’t mock female inventors of the past beause there were quite a few geniuses like:
1892 Sarah Boone, an African American woman who patented an improvement to the ironing board. Her board wa