Proof that Emma Goldman was a virulent woman-hater, not a feminist

LJ_Reloaded

バクスター の
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Posts
21,217
Imagine if a man wrote this... oh, damn.

http://blog.sfgate.com/opinionshop/2012/04/13/emma-goldman-titantic-women-hurt-suffrage-movement/

Suffrage Dealt Blow by Women of Titanic
Emma Goldman Inquires to Know If Equality Is Demanded Only
at Ballot Box — Human Nature Came Into Own in Men
By Emma Goldman

Barring all sensational and conflicting reports of the Titanic* horrors there are two features which seem to have been overlooked altogether. One is, the part woman has played in the terrible disaster, which to say the least, is in keeping with centuries of her training as a mere female.

With all the claims the present-day woman makes for her equality with man, her great intellectual and emancipatory achievements, she continues to be as weak and dependent, as ready to accept man’s tribute in time of safety and his sacrifice in time of danger, as if she were still in her baby age.

“The men stood aside to let the ladies go first.” What about the ladies? What about their love superior to that of the men? What about their greater goodness? Their demand to equal rights and privileges? Is this to be found only at the polls, or on the statutes? I fear very much that the ladies who have so readily accepted the dictations of the men, who stood by when the men were beaten back from the lifeboats, have demonstrated their utter unfitness and inferiority, not merely to the title of man’s equal, but to her traditionary fame of goodness, love and self-sacrifice.

It is to be hoped that some there were among the steerage victims at least, who preferred death with those they loved to life at the expense of the loved ones.

The second feature is this: To die for those we love is no small matter in a world where each is for himself and the devil take the hindmost. But to die for those far removed from us by a cold and cruel social and material gulf — for those who by their very position must needs be our enemies — for those who, a few moments before the disaster probably never gave a thought to the toilers and pariahs of the ship — is so wonderful a feat
of human nature as to silence forever the ridiculous argument against the possibilities of human nature. The average philistine forever prates of how human nature must be coerced and beaten; how it must be kept in check and disciplined. How little he knows of the grandeur of human nature has never before been so magnificently demonstrated as by the crew of the Titanic, the sailors, stokers, workers, and drones belonging to the
disinherited of the earth!

With neither club or statute to compel them, I wonder what induced these men to go to their death with greater fortitude than do soldiers on the battlefield? Why, it is human nature, stripped of all social artifice, of the deadening and dulling chase for material gains. Human nature, come into its own! Into its deep social kinship which so far has only expressed itself in great stress but which points to still greater possibilities for the
future, when man shall no longer his brother maim!
 
Given the era, this was an extreme position to take. It doesn't necessarily mean she hated women though.
 
Given the era, this was an extreme position to take. It doesn't necessarily mean she hated women though.
Of course not. But had she been a male, she would have been accused of misogyny, which was the point of the OP.
 
Imagine if a man wrote this... oh, damn.

http://blog.sfgate.com/opinionshop/2012/04/13/emma-goldman-titantic-women-hurt-suffrage-movement/

Suffrage Dealt Blow by Women of Titanic
Emma Goldman Inquires to Know If Equality Is Demanded Only
at Ballot Box — Human Nature Came Into Own in Men
By Emma Goldman

Barring all sensational and conflicting reports of the Titanic* horrors there are two features which seem to have been overlooked altogether. One is, the part woman has played in the terrible disaster, which to say the least, is in keeping with centuries of her training as a mere female.

:rolleyes: That there is not the statement of a "woman-hater," and is very much the statement we would expect of a feminist, and you know it precious well.
 
Of course not. But had she been a male, she would have been accused of misogyny, which was the point of the OP.



Possibly, but given the era it's hard to say. Did you also dig up the responses to her article at the time?
 
Back
Top