Pretty blond woman in a hat enjoying cocktail

Feminism seeks rights without responsibilities

The following quotes are excerpted from the writings of E.B. Bax, on the subject of rights and responsibilities for women. – PW


These dogmas of “advanced” faith in the Woman Question are… namely, that women ought to have all the rights of intellectual capacity with all the privileges of physical weakness, otherwise expressed, all the rights of men, and none of the duties or hardships of men. For it is a significant and amusing fact that no mention is ever made by the advocate of women’s claims of the privileges which have always been accorded the “weaker sex.” These privileges are quietly pocketed as a matter of course, without any sort of acknowledgment, much less any suggestion of surrender.”
Some Heterodox Notes on the Women Question (1887)

“Now in order to maintain this position it is necessary to assume the complete intellectual and moral equality of women with men, while judiciously conceding their physical inferiority. A desire, conscious or unconscious, on the part of these Socialists, as of other advocates of Feminism, is to make out a claim for women to all that is honourable and agreeable in the functions of human life, while safeguarding them from any obligation to accept rough or dangerous duties. Thus Bebel, in his “Frau und der Sozialismus,” while maintaining that no social function filled by men ought to be inaccessible to women, since any seeming unfitness in the latter is only the result of certain cruel oppression at the hands of vile man, yet is careful to guard his fair clients from the danger of being called upon for military purposes, even of defence.”
Feminism in Extremis (1902)

“What does the woman’s-rights movement demand? Female privilege, and when possible, female domination. It asks that women shall have all the rights of men with privileges thrown in (but no disagreeable duties, oh dear no!), and apparently be subject to no discipline but that of their own arbitrary wills. To exclude women on the ground of incapacity from any honourable, lucrative, or agreeable social function whatever, is a hideous injustice to be fulminated against from platform and in press – to treat them on the same footing as men in the matter of subordination to organised control or discipline is not to be thought of – is ungentlemanly ungallant, unchivalrous! … Advanced women and their male supporters in demanding all that is lucrative, honourable, and agreeable in the position of men take their stand on the dogma of sex-equality. No sooner, however, is the question one of disagreeable duties than “equality” goes by the board and they slink behind the old sex-immunity.”
The “Monstrous Regiment” of Womanhood (1907)

“From all we have said, it will now be evident, one would think, to the most prejudiced reader that modern English Law, following obsequiously a deluded or apathetic stage of public opinion, has solved the problem of the division of rights and duties between the sexes, by conceding to woman all rights, and imposing on man all duties.”
The Legal Subjection of Men, Chapter IX: A Sex Noblesse (1908)

“This public opinion regards it as axiomatic that women are capable of everything men are capable of, that they ought to have full responsibility in all honourable and lucrative functions and callings. There is only one thing for which unlimited allowance ought to be made on the ground of their otherwise non-existent womanly inferiority, and that is their own criminal or tortious acts! In a word, they are not to be held responsible, in the sense that men are, for their own actions when these entail unpleasant consequences for themselves. On the contrary, the obloquy and, where possible, the penalty for the wrong-doing is to be shifted on to the nearest wretched man with whom they have consorted.”
Why I Am an Anti-Suffragist (1909)

“From being part of a general code of manners enjoined upon a particular guild or profession it has been degraded to mean the exclusive right in one sex guaranteed by law and custom to certain advantages and exemptions with- out any corresponding responsibility.”
The Fraud of Feminism, Chapter V: The “Chivalry” Fake (1913)

“Chivalry, as understood by Modern Sentimental Feminism, means unlimited licence for women in their relations with men, and unlimited coercion for men in their relations with women. To men all duties and no rights, to women all rights and no duties, is the basic principle underlying Modern Feminism, Suffragism, and the bastard chivalry it is so fond of invoking.”
The Fraud of Feminism, Chapter VII: The Psychology of the Movement (1913)

About Ernest Belfort Bax

Ernest Belfort Bax (1854 – 1926) holds a special place in the history of men’s rights advocacy, being the first to mount a sustained public campaign soliciting compassion for men and boys, while denouncing gynocentric chivalry and cultural misandry that was common in his time. As the first major spokesman on these issues Bax is often considered the father of the first wave of the men’s rights movement.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • fathers4fairness

    Gosh – over a complete set of “A Voice for Men” editorials if I only knew where to look.
    I think the 1887 quote said it best.

    “These privileges are quietly pocketed, …. without any sort of acknowledgment, much less any suggestion of surrender.”

  • Rawhammer

    Feminism has enabled women to have their cake, and eat it too. If a woman wants to work, she can work, and keep shouting ‘I don’t need a man’! If the same woman, does not want to work, she can get married, and make her idiotic husband pays her bills. So essentially, women now have it both ways. They are having their cakes and eating them too, all thanks to feminism. God bless feminism, eh? It will only change once enough men wake up and realize just how easily they are being duped. Treat women as equals damn it. Stop paying your wife / girlfriend’s bills. Just stop it. Equality, remember?

    • donzaloog

      That was always the intention of feminism. To give women all the rights of men but none of the responsibility. What you’ve said is true. It is only men who can change this. We sat back and allowed this to happen, due to our acquiescence to our outdated gender role. Now we have to reign in this beast that is unchecked female privilege.

      The imaginary pedestal that we placed women on must be revealed to be a lie. And the best way to do this is to give them what they already have, equality. Hold them to the same standards you would hold any man. No more free rides. Call them out on all their bullshit.

      • Bewildered

        Call them out on all their bullshit.
        Who will bell the cat? PC was a clever invention to prempt public exposure.
        Just note how any criticism of feminism is conflated with an “attack on women”

        • MGTOW-man

          Yes, feminists knew exactly what they were doing when they masterminded the PC hype. They knew too many men and women, wanting to be honest first and foremost, observing the many pitfalls and lies of feminism, would say things too truthful for them to have their brainwashing synthetic replacement scheme implemented as hoped. Feminists were the vanguard behind PC. Manipulation/censorship is their forte…for the truth is their number one enemy!

  • Bewildered

    I am spellbound by this man,he truly is the father of the Men’s Rights movement.

    • Daniel Qian

      For the longest time, I honestly thought that saying was referring to gardening implements. Turns out it’s a racial thing, which you probably didn’t know, so I’m telling you.

      • Dean Esmay

        This is a common misunderstanding. “To call a spade a spade” comes from a book on proper English usage from over 100 years ago where they were sarcastically observed, about using language that’s too flowery,

        “For instance, you may not want to call a spade a spade. You may prefer
        to call it a spatulous device for abrading the surface of the soil.
        Better, however, to stick to the old familiar, simple name that your
        grandfather called it.”

        This is what the term originally meant: to use a bunch of fancy words to say something simple. Eventually, decades later, it became sort of a racial joke. Now people seem to think the racial joke is the original derivation, but it isn’t. FYI.

        • Bewildered

          hehehehe! another phrase to take back !

        • TarzanWannaBe


  • Jared White

    Let me just run these quotes through my nifty feminist checklist…oh wait, yeap, there it is. Inferior, he said inferior. I see the word inferior in relation to women in one of those quotes. That’s all I need.

    Misogyny. Misogyny this whole article is. Anyone who even entertains it is a misogynist.

    And now my work here is done.

  • Flo

    Enlightened people