Fathers for Life
Fatherlessness, the lack of natural fathers in children's lives
| Home | In The News | Our Blog | Contact Us | Share

Fathers for Life Site-Search

Site Map (very large file)
Table of Contents
Children—Our most valued assets?
Educating Our Children for the Global Gynarchia
Child Support
Civil Rights & Social Issues
Family Law
Destruction of Families
Divorce Issues
Domestic Violence
Gay Issues
Hate, Hoaxes and Propaganda
Help Lines for Men
Law, Justice and The Judiciary
Mail to F4L
Men's Issues
The Politics of "Sex"
Our Most Popular Pages
Email List
References - Bibliography

You are visitor

since June 19, 2001

After Prone to Violence had been published in 1982, shipped out for distribution and placed on the shelves in the book stores, the redfems so thoroughly pilfered the copies of the book that only 13 copies of the book remained in a few libraries in the whole world.
   As a result of that the publisher went into receivership.  That is an example of the power of feminist censorship in action.
   However, the book is now available on the Internet, and it has been put back into print.



EJF newsletter - In defense of David Gray 2/2/04

For some time now I suggested that femicommies, rather than radfems or feminazis, would be a fitting term to describe radical feminists (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist-feminists) the currently ruling faction with virtually absolute control of political power.  See also Radical Feminism in Feminism? You want feminism? Which brand would you like?).

It makes me happy to see that Dr. Charles E. Corry produced a much more practical term with a definitive ring to it: redfems.

Please read also my comment after Dr. Charles E. Corry's message.


-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Charles E. Corry [ccorry@ejfi.org]
Sent: Monday, February 02, 2004 9:25 AM
To: EJF comments
Subject: EJF newsletter - In defense of David Gray 2/2/04

Several days ago David Gray's essay Eradicating The Heterosexual Family was distributed and prompted a number of replies. EJF newsletters are intended to be provocative and stimulating and, from that viewpoint, Gray's essay was certainly a success.

However, many of the comments I've received deserve a more general reply. I assume that our readers are willing to accept that a subclass of women can be categorized as "extreme." I am equally willing to describe the actions of many men as "extreme."

Oh how quickly we seem to have forgotten the history of the 20th Century. The role of Fifth Columns, and the destruction they are capable of, seems to have been completely forgotten, and certainly ignored by most of the respondents.
One recurring theme in the responses concerned the comparison of radical feminism with Marxism. For example, a local medical doctor, whose family, career, and health have been destroyed by what is locally referred to as the "Filthy Fourth" judicial district stated that:

"I think you're an intelligent man; therefore, why do you spread the misrepresented/anti-Semitic crap of these ignorant Christian writers.  Marxism if read without the "Christian haters bias" is nothing about promulgating the corrupt feminist agenda.  Marxism at it core is an overly idealistic belief that each person will be responsible and supportive of the human race and each other  with the result being a classless...society and a better world.  The article you sent is a perverted Marxist/Jew hating misrepresentation of the facts."

which ignores the fact that at the "core" of Marxism is a statement that class struggle begins in the family. Also, I found nothing anti-Semitic in Gray's essay, and if there were any references to Christianity, or any religion, I missed them.

According to Dale O'Leary in her book The Gender Agenda (p. 103):

"The radical women of the sixties saw in Marx's and Engel's analysis the justification of their own dissatisfaction with liberal reforms. They became convinced that previous Marxist revolutions had failed because they had failed to target the family. If Marxist analysis was correct, the family was the cause of oppression and would have to be eliminated."

Now I am no Marxist scholar, or student of communism, and I defer to Erin Pizzey on the relationship between extreme, radical, gender feminists, feminazis, Redfems, or whatever you want to call them, and Marxism.

Ms. Pizzey became world famous after opening the first refuge (shelter) for battered women in Chiswick, London, England in 1971. Virtually all modern efforts to curb family violence are traceable to her work. In her essay From The Personal To The Political Erin relates the growth of modern feminism as she lived it. Born in China in 1939, her parents and brother were arrested and held by Chinese Communists for several years during WW II. Later she was exposed to communist propagandists while working with medical missionaries in the African bush in Senegal. Then she was driven out of England into exile for ten years by radical feminists after publishing her book Prone To Violence, in which she dared to point out that in domestic relationships women are as violent as men. So when Erin tells me there is a close relationship between Marxism and extreme feminists, who have seized upon the very human concern society has for family violence as a cash cow, I accept her word.

And thank you, Erin, for all that you have done!

In response to the ACFC officer who commented about the comparison between Marxism and radical feminists that:

"If you asked them to explain the difference between dialectical materialism and dialectical idealism, you'd get nothing but an uncomprehending blank stare from most of them."

I would agree fully, but note that I am much more deeply concerned that these women have no idea of why ad misericordiam is a fallacy, or why an ad hominem attack is considered the last refuge of a scoundrel. Indeed, Redfems regard all logic as a form of patriarchal oppression, one of the themes of David Gray's essay.

Is there really any need to expound on the widespread, indeed global observation that family courts are acting on the Marxist dictum: "From each according to his ability, to each according to their need," and thereby destroying families and children on an unprecedented scale? In Foundations of Civilization I point out that, using the government's own figures, statistically there is a zero percent chance that a child born today will reach age 18 living with both biological parents in an intact family. It would seem that the topic of David Gray's essay has already come to pass.

"Redfem" thus seems a most accurate description for the class of people, primarily militant women, who stridently promote these destructive laws and policies towards families and marriage.

Then there were the comments from a liberal attorney who has grown rich from the breakdown in society and the corruption in the courts:

I know this material [David Gray's essay] will cause bile to rise in your throat, but it is necessary to know some of the intense hatred and deep fear some men have for women. Couple that with ignorance and they are dangerous. Especially if we ignore them. We tend to dismiss this as "immaterial rantings of the mentally immature". Regretfully, these can claim a following, and they can lead to disasters ( look at Hitler in Germany, and the Secretary of State in GA who wants to eliminate the word "evolution" from the school texts of that State, and the fellow who shot Jews and non-whites on the streets of LA .) Respond any way you would like, but don't let Gray and his ilk have the uncontested podium.

Now I don't know how he got from Redfems to evolution, and I deplore the ad hominem nature of his response However, I think(?) one of his objections is to Gray's discussion of the Redfem attack on the patriarchy. I would note that in Colorado the DV Offender Management Board standards require treatment providers to undergo formal training in the problems with patriarchy as a matter of State policy. Gloria Steinem has asserted that "The patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself...The most dangerous situation for a woman is not an unknown man in the street, or even the enemy in wartime, but a husband or lover in the isolation of their own home." Feminist analysis thus states that a patriarchal society is a direct cause of oppression and violence against women. An extensive, scholarly discussion of the fallacy of patriarchal oppression in feminist thinking has been done by Dr. Donald Dutton and I would refer the reader to that work for additional details.

In this attorney's comments there also seems to be the oft-recurring theme of misogyny, in that if any man dares question feminist ideology then they must hate all women. What David Gray refers to as "the socialist collective" form of thinking. Perhaps if law schools required course work in logic this attorney might have become familiar with ignoratio elenchi.

But the best proof of David Gray's statements are in the words of Redfems themselves. Some years ago I put forth Why Radical Feminists Concern Us with an included brief essay by Mrs. Dale O'Leary on Radical Feminism As A Psychological Disorder.

As further proof, consider the following statements from this class of women:

  1. "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist" (National NOW Times, January, 1988).

  2. "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" (radical feminist leader Sheila Cronan).

  3. In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" (Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times, Oct. 10, 1989).

  4. "Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole...patriarch!" (Gloria Steinem, radical feminist leader, editor of MS magazine).

  5. "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women.... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men.... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism," November, 1971).

  6. "By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God." (Gloria Steinem, editor of MS magazine).

  7. "Let's forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement, solace, and inspiration from real women.... Two thousand years of patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn women toward the feminist 'salvation' of this world." (Annie Laurie Gaylor, "Feminist Salvation," The Humanist, p. 37, July/August 1988.

  8. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman).

  9. "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family- maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that." (Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981.

  10. "The most merciful thing a large family can to do one of its infant members is to kill it." (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Race," p. 67).

One could go on but the case against Redfems seems established and David Gray's essay one of the better short summaries of the situation. Clearly we have a Fifth Column working within our society whose ultimate goal is its destruction. There is perhaps no better description of this process than the essay on How Civilizations Fall by Prof. Ken Minogue of the London School of Economics.

Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.


NOTE: If you would like to be removed from our mailing list please respond to this message with REMOVE in the subject line. Comments or criticisms of our policies or Web sites should be addressed to comments@ejfi.org.

The Equal Justice Foundation is a member-supported, non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation.

Contributions are tax deductible and can be made on the Web at http://www.ejfi.org/Join.htm

You are receiving this message because (1) you asked to be added to our mailing list; (2) you sent the EJF an e-mail or requested help from us; (3) you are known to work on issues related to men's or father's rights; (4) you are known to be interested in civil liberties and equal justice for all; (5) your name and address appeared as an addressee on email sent to us; or (6) you are a member of the Equal Justice Foundation.

The mailing list of the Equal Justice Foundation is not distributed to third parties. Occasionally members are put in touch with other individuals on our mailing list when there are known common interests or problems. In normal circumstances permission is requested of the third party before disclosing their e-mail address. Prior permission is not sought if referral is made to another group or individual working on the same, or related problems, and that group or individual is known to seek such referrals.

Charles E. Corry, Ph.D., F.G.S.A.
President, Equal Justice Foundation http://www.ejfi.org/
455 Bear Creek Road
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80906-5820
Telephone: (719) 520-1089
Domestic violence against men in Colorado: http://www.dvmen.org
Personal home page: http://corry.ws

Curriculum vitae: http://www.marquiswhoswho.net/charleselmocorry/Default.aspx

The good men may do separately is small compared with what they may do collectively.

Benjamin Franklin

In his closing paragraph Dr. Charles E. Corry correctly stated that,

One could go on but the case against Redfems seems established and David Gray's essay one of the better short summaries of the situation.

In case you believe that the examples of redfem hatred of men and families that Dr. Corry quoted are insufficient evidence and you wish to see more before being convinced, have a good look at more redfem quotes to let the full meaning of the socially destructive redfem ideology sink into your mind.

What never ceases to amaze me is not so much the extent to which feminists instill guilt feelings in men and the fear of being considered misogynist, of being accused as women haters if they dare to be critical of feminism, but the enormous gullibility of men, even of those men whom the consequences of redfem ideology absolutely crushed and all but totally destroyed.  Once having been white knights in shining armor — although now covered with mud, near death, their armor rusted, dented and decrepit, their lances broken and their swords dull — Such men still insist that to be critical of redfems is to be critical of all women.

And that is so even though already at the beginning of the twentieth century the true nature of the redfems had been well-known and already long established. 

Feminism is exhibited by a spirit of unrest among a comparatively small number of dissatisfied women. They preach the gospel of unholy discontent. They are born agitators, and "dearly love a fight." They prefer war to peace; turmoil to tranquility; contention to concord; pride to humility; sophistry to truth; agnosticism to belief, and prefer to assert their own wills, "live their own lives" as against the precepts of all conventional morality, being moral anarchists. ....

In advocacy to this "New Freedom" she has many journals, among others being the "Bondwoman" and Harper's Weekly. She tells all sorts of lies about the "inhumanity" of man to woman, men with their inborn chivalry have been maligned without protest, mistaking these female hyena iconoclasts for women.

— Benjamin V. Hubbard, 
in Socialism, Feminism, and  Suffragism, the Terrible Triplets... (1915)

(More quotes from Benjamin V. Hubbard)

Last but not least, consider another aspect of healthy families and how redfems wish to conspire to eradicate it, the regulation of sexuality, something that once had forged savages into a thriving civilization. 

Homosexual activist groups around the world are working to lower or abolish age of consent laws in order to "liberate" children from the constraints of a patriarchal society.

Kate Millett, a radical feminist and Marxist theoretician, described this philosophy in an interview first published in "Loving Boys" in 1980. It was later reprinted in The Age Taboo, published by Alyson Publishers, a homosexual publishing house in Boston.

Millett claims, "[O]ne of children’s essential rights is to express themselves sexually, probably primarily with each other but with adults as well. So the sexual freedom of children is an important part of a sexual revolution." Millett says the sexual revolution begins with the emancipation of women and also includes ending homosexual oppression.

—Homosexual Activists Work to Normalize Sex With Boys,
FRC publication   (PDF, about 688kB), July 1999
by Frank V. York and Robert H. Knight

Right, it is an important part of the sexual revolution and the planned destruction of our families.  Thereby the burden of western chivalry, exploited to the hilt by redfems, crushes men, women, children in a once thriving western society, and, ultimately, civilization.

In WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, Warren Farrell explains that men and women are equally powerless but that men and boys are being indoctrinated to admire women and to follow career paths that enable men to give women what women want.  For example:

What Are Boys Good For?

What does a teenage girl learn to give to a boy? Let's look at a thirteen-page spread in Teen-the Christmas 1984 issue. Approx­imately seventy presents are mentioned, with an average price of about thirty dollars (over two thousand dollars' [close to US$5,000 in 2007 dollars — F4L] worth of presents). Only one is for a male-pajamas for a baby boy. As with Ms., no presents for boyfriends.
    There are several teenage boys shown in the pictures. One admires a girl while she admires herself in the mirror; another is towing a girl's brand-new car. The same use of men as in Self.
Is the girl in the Teen spread helping the boy who has attached her car to a tow truck? No. She drapes herself over the tow truck. And how does she learn to handle a stressful situation? The caption explains: "If a stressful situation causes complexion concerns, keep skin under control with Noxzema Acne 12. And pass the time in an easy-to-wear wardrobe!"
    All twelve days of Christmas run the same pattern: "Keep tabs on your weight," "File your nails ... ," "Massage your hands," "Massage your feet," "Turn heads in your direction by keeping lips lusciously lubricated .... " What does he get? Nothing is mentioned but her beauty. What lessons does he learn? Admire and rescue. [Emphasis by F4L] In Teen. In Ms. In Self.
Do teenage boys' magazines show a girl towing his brand-new car, while he drapes himself over her tow truck and worries about his acne? Hardly.
    In men's magazines there are only a few gifts for men to buy women. Remember the principle of the De Beers transfer. She chooses the diamond and chooses among the men her beauty power can attract to buy it. Which is why his ads are for how to become successful enough to buy whatever she chooses; hers are to become beautiful enough to be able to make the choice of both the gift and the man to buy the gift. Men's magazines do not feature many gifts for women because men are expected to do the buying after consulting the women, not the magazine, and to concentrate their energies on making the money.

WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, By Warren Farrell, p 34-35

Once they become men (or perhaps even sooner), men (or boys) begin to catch on.  For example:

Why is changing a light bulb always a guy's job? Because women have more important things to do - like making men feel useful and important by giving them things to do, like changing light bulbs.

How many divorced men does it take to change a light bulb? None. They never get the house anyway.

Edmonton Journal,
2007 08 28, p. B2, Venting
(more at edmontonjournal.com Online Extras - Venting)

It will take quite some time yet, however, before a majority of society gets Warren Farrell's message expressed in the following.

One of the fascinating parts about men is our tendency to subject ourselves to war, physical abuse, and psychological abuse and call it "power." The ability to be totally out of control while continuing to view ourselves as the ones with the power can have certain advantages to a woman. As expressed in this poem:

One-Night Stand

He bought me drinks all evening
   in response to just a wink
Then accepted my invitation to
   repair my kitchen sink
Then I brought him into beddy-bye
   to get a little sex
Then couldn't help but smile
   when he called it conquest!

WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, By Warren Farrell, p. 289

That story, translated into a joke that is far more ironic than it is funny, goes like this:

An Irishman an Englishman and a Scotsman were sitting in a bar in Sydney. The view was fantastic, the beer excellent, and the food exceptional. "But" said the Scotsman, "I still prefer the pubs back home. Why, in Glasgow there's a little bar called McTavish's. Now the landlord there goes out of his way for the locals so much that when you buy 4 drinks he will buy the 5th drink for you."

"Well," said the Englishman "at my local, the Red Lion, the barman there will buy you your 3rd drink after you buy the first 2."

"Ahhh that's nothin'," said the Irishman, "Back home in Dublin there's Ryan's Bar. Now the moment you set foot in the place they'll buy you a drink, then another, all the drinks you like. Then when you've had enough drink they'll take you upstairs and see that you get laid. All on the house."

The Englishman and Scotsman immediately pour scorn on the Irishman's claims. He swears every word is true.

"Well," said the Englishman, "Did this actually happen to you?" 

"Not myself personally, no" said the Irishman, "but it did happen to my sister."

found at angryharry.com

Men's problem is that women's "powerlessness" has been amply addressed throughout the history of evolution, intensively so since the advent of radical feminism [*], but that men's powerlessness received little or no attention. Instead, men curry women's favors by giving women gifts, even the gift of men's lives.
   While in the past men were enticed to live up to the social duties imposed upon them with promises that they would be paid back for that through society paying them appreciation, honour and respect, today — thanks to decades of feminist slandering of men, intended to "increase" the social value of women — men are being vilified for being men, and not much else matters.

* If the term "radical feminism" (a.k.a. Marxist- or socialist-feminism) is somewhat new to you, you need to expand your knowledge.  After all, radical feminism, the currently controlling faction of feminism, governs just about everything that is happening in your life.  See,

Carey Roberts column

Carey Roberts is an analyst and commentator on political correctness. His best-known work was an exposé on Marxism and radical feminism.

Carey Roberts' best-known work, his exposé on Marxism and radical feminism, is not necessarily easy to find, but this link will help with that. (Some of the URLs for the article series appear to keep changing.  For that reason the identified link leads to an Internet search for the series.  The first or second link in the return list will most likely lead you to the series.)


See also:

whiterose.gif (6796 bytes)The White Rose
Thoughts are Free

Posted 2004 02 02
2006 03 04 (added link to Feminism for Male College Students)
2007 07 29 (added entry for WHY MEN ARE THE WAY THEY ARE)