Feminism is an Evil Ideology Based on Lies!

Feminism is a form of social AIDS: the only cure is death.

Feminism is not about the assurance of equal rights between both sexes; it is about the granting of preferential treatment to a small group of elite female sophisticates - upper-class women who are fundamentally disconnected from the realities of everyday existence - at the expense of the vast majority of men. In fact, feminism has never been about equality; it is about, at its very core, a social engineering project in the form of a massive psychological intervention into the male personality and its subsequent elimination through the process of gradual androgenisation. It is an attempt to do away with traditional feminine roles by replacing them with sex-typical masculine behaviour patterns and by doing this, subsequently introducing an element of post-modernist cognitive dissonance into human socio-sexual relations.

In addition, it is also the concrete expression of the subconscious wish to do away with the masculine personality and facilitate the so-called feminization of the male, which is ultimately a foolish attempt to undermine the hetero-patriarchal foundation upon which modern civilization is based by returning to an idealized vision of a society consisting of innocent primitives. After all, are not women, the majority of people in the West, falsely described of as being victims and entitled to special treatment? Have not women been given considerably more privileged treatment than men? Are not women of a much higher socio-economic and political status than the vast majority of men? The fact that women are granted special status under the institutions of Western jurisprudence by always being awarded alimony payments and granted custody is a clear example of the fact that women are considered more equal than men. Other examples of female power and privilege include the fact that the entire education system of the West has been socially engineered according to female thought and behaviour patterns and that affirmative action and employment equity programmes elevate women to undeserved positions of influence and power at the expense of hard work.

The notion of women being oppressed by men because of some form of systemic discrimination is a myth of colossal proportions. Nowhere and in no other historical period have such lies ever been spread so widely and used to deliberately brainwash others. If anything, for untold millennia, women have been more privileged than men and in no time has this ever been more true than during the twenty-first century.

Feminism, by subverting traditional female roles and attempting to annihilate all visible traces of masculinity, is in effect a denial of the reality of human nature. Although feminists often counter objections from their male opponents with denigrating, psychologically emasculating remarks, even they cannot deny the fact that feminism is about simultaneously reinforcing both gender inequity and the socio-political superiority of a small number of elite WASP/ Western European women. Ultimately, feminism is about the replacement of Western culture with a false consciousness grounded in the thoroughly discredited school of Freudian-Marxist ideology; it will prove to be the downfall of modern human civilization as we know it.

The clitoris: a useless appendage?

The clitoris is a primitive organ that serves no biological function whatsoever; in anatomical structure, it resembles a miniature penis that failed to differentiate sexually during the course of embryological development due to the absence of those genes responsible for foetal androgen synthesis. The clitoris is a vestigial appendage that is really nothing more but the evolutionary by-product of the male genitalia and its capacity to produce an orgasmic response that has developed over hundreds of thousands of years of human physiological adaptation to the external environment of our hominid ancestors.

As a matter of fact, only the human male alone, out of all species within the animal kingdom, possesses a sophisticated apparatus of sexual physiological arousal that is unparalleled in the history of biological evolution. Detailed, meticulous observations derived from extensive anatomical investigations conducted by various scientific researchers throughout the twentieth century have revealed that the penis, foreskin included, contains anywhere between 80, 000 to well over 100, 000 nerve endings, whereas the clitoris contains anywhere between 0 - 8000 nerve endings.

To elaborate further, the overwhelming majority of women possess virtually no nerve endings whatsoever within the clitoris and are therefore organically frigid. How else does one explain the fact that over 86% of women are physiologically incapable of achieving orgasm through intercourse or that more than 66% of women are virtually incapable of achieving orgasm through masturbation? The widespread inability to achieve orgasm amongst woman is a reflection of the fact that both sexual frigidity and anorgasmia are exclusively female problems. It should be obvious to even the most limited intellect that the clitoris is a vestigial organ that is completely devoid of any discernible biological function; it is an organ that should be removed surgically by means of clitoridectomy in order to protect both the physical and psychological health of the woman.

Men exceed Women in All Things

Men are many times more complex than women in terms of personality and behaviour. In other words, what we have is female conservatism on the one hand and male progressivism on the other; because of the great complexity of male socio-sexual behaviour, men vary much more in terms of human trait possession than women. The mere recognition of greater male variability in terms of both mental, emotional, and physical characteristics is something that has been known by Charles Darwin and discussed at great length by the celebrated English sexologist Havelock Ellis. Concerning the principle of greater male variability as manifested in terms of genius, Havelock Ellis wrote in the book "Man and Woman":

We must regard genius as an organic congenital abnormality ... and in nearly every department it is undeniably of more frequent occurrence among men than among women.... Genius is more common among men by virtue of the same general tendency by which idiocy is more common among men. The two facts are but two aspects of a larger zoological fact — the greater variability of the male.

The principle of male variance and monotonous female uniformity can be readily demonstrated on a mathematical level by constructing a Gaussian curve which plots the incidence of sexual dimorphism in male-female personality and behaviour. It will be seen from the standard normal distribution along the curve itself that not only do men have higher standard deviations than women but that men always have a tendency to cluster around the upper and lower extremes of the curve, whereas women, being generally homogeneous in both personality and behaviour, tend to have lower standard deviations and tend to gravitate towards the middle of the curve. Thus, there are more men of genius and high intelligence than women; more male daredevils than women; more male eccentrics than women; more males with tremendous athletic ability than women; more men with high levels of creativity than women; more men with a much greater sense of humour than women; more male criminals than women etc. This is so because of three major reasons. Firstly, because alleles on both sex chromosomes present within the male genome are not coupled in the same dominant or recessive pairs as in the female; this means that there is nothing to mask the expression of gene replication errors in RNA transcription within the male lineage itself, ultimately producing a wide variation in both male temperament and phenotype. Secondly, men often bear the brunt of male-male competition for available females, and because of this are forced to become a kind of genetic filter for the species.

Lastly, greater male variability is due to the presence of testosterone which enhances neuro-biological mechanisms for individual motivation within the male central nervous system, thus giving men a much greater drive to adapt and overcome whatever obstacles have been placed in their way by an unforgiving and merciless environment. All of these features are lacking in the human female, making women roughly homogeneous in both personality and behaviour across all times and places, all ethnicities and cultures.

The Female of the Species

By Rudyard Kipling

When the Himalayan peasant meets the he-bear in his pride, He shouts to scare the monster, who will often turn aside. But the she-bear thus accosted rends the peasant tooth and nail. For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When Nag the basking cobra hears the careless foot of man, He will sometimes wriggle sideways and avoid it if he can. But his mate makes no such motion where she camps beside the trail. For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

When the early Jesuit fathers preached to Hurons and Choctaws, They prayed to be delivered from the vengeance of the squaws. 'Twas the women, not the warriors, turned those stark enthusiasts pale. For the female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man's timid heart is bursting with the things he must not say, For the Woman that God gave him isn't his to give away; But when hunter meets with husbands, each confirms the other's tale – The female of the species is more deadly than the male.

Man, a bear in most relations – worm and savage otherwise, – Man propounds negotiations, Man accepts the compromise. Very rarely will he squarely push the logic of a fact To its ultimate conclusion in unmitigated act.

Fear, or foolishness, impels him, ere he lay the wicked low, To concede some form of trial even to his fiercest foe. Mirth obscene diverts his anger – Doubt and Pity oft perplex Him in dealing with an issue – to the scandal of The Sex!

But the Woman that God gave him, every fibre of her frame Proves her launched for one sole issue, armed and engined for the same, And to serve that single issue, lest the generations fail, The female of the species must be deadlier than the male.

She who faces Death by torture for each life beneath her breastMay not deal in doubt or pity – must not swerve for fact or jest. These be purely male diversions – not in these her honour dwells. She the Other Law we live by, is that Law and nothing else.

She can bring no more to living than the powers that make her great As the Mother of the Infant and the Mistress of the Mate. And when Babe and Man are lacking and she strides unclaimed to claim Her right as femme (and baron), her equipment is the same.

She is wedded to convictions – in default of grosser ties; Her contentions are her children, Heaven help him who denies! – He will meet no suave discussion, but the instant, white-hot, wild, Wakened female of the species warring as for spouse and child.

Unprovoked and awful charges – even so the she-bear fights, Speech that drips, corrodes, and poisons – even so the cobra bites, Scientific vivisection of one nerve till it is raw And the victim writhes in anguish – like the Jesuit with the squaw!

So it comes that Man, the coward, when he gathers to confer With his fellow-braves in council, dare not leave a place for her Where, at war with Life and Conscience, he uplifts his erring hands To some God of Abstract Justice – which no woman understands.

And Man knows it! Knows, moreover, that the Woman that God gave him Must command but may not govern – shall enthral but not enslave him. And She knows, because She warns him, and Her instincts never fail, That the Female of Her Species is more deadly than the Male.

Are women really attracted to men of high intelligence?

Although women are generally attracted to men who tend to be marginally more intelligent than they are, it still remains a fact that the vast majority of women tend to be intimidated by men of high intelligence. One possible explanation for the usual female reluctance to date men of high intelligence is probably becasue of the statistical rarity or total absence of intellectually superior women at the furthermost reaches of the bell curve distribution of psychometric intelligence; since the overwhelming majority of women tend to be roughly homogeneous in personality and behaviour, men of high intelligence often find it difficult, if not almost impossible, to find a woman who is similarly gifted in mental capacity.

Interestingly enough, I managed to pose a similar question to a number of well-known and justly celebrated academics and scholars. My question was:

The French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau once said: “Women, in general, are not attracted to art at all, nor knowledge, and not at all to genius.” A close personal acquaintance of mine seems to believe that most women are physically repelled by men of high intelligence because most women are seeking a man who can be easily manipulated mentally into handing over whatever natural resources he is capable of commanding. He has also informed me that the more highly intelligent a man is, the greater will be his risk of having to endure a lifetime of perpetual celibacy given the statistical rarity of female intellectuals and the fact that “likes generally tend to attract likes” (women, being generally average in intelligence, pursue men who are similarly average or slightly above average in mental capacity). Certain studies would seem to bear this out; for example, a study conducted by C.T. Halpern et al (2000) suggests that “higher intelligence operates as a protective factor against early sexual activity in adolescence and lower intelligence, to a point, is a risk factor.” A number of writers, such as Clifford Pickover (Strange Brains) and Cesare Lombroso (The Man of Genius) before him, have also suggested that both intellectual giftedness and especially genius are highly correlated with celibacy, even gynophobia. I must admit that much of what my friend says seems to be true; it always seems to be the most highly intelligent males who have the most amount of difficulty attracting even a woman of average physical appearance. After all, if we are to believe Lombroso, most of the great geniuses of history were either celibate or endured miserable home lives. Is it true that most women find smart men to be intellectually threatening and run from them as fast as possible? Is there a strong connection between high intelligence in the male and misogyny?
Here are some of the responses I received:

David C. Geary Ph.d., author of the book “Male, Female”, wrote:

Well, there are studies that suggest that women are attracted to these traits in men. But, there is a negative correlation between IQ and men’s reproductive success; positive correlation for income. My guess is that women do not want men who are too extreme on any trait; they want tall, but not too tall, e.g. This is probably true of IQ and for reasons you state. What is too extreme? I don’t know, but probably once you get passed the 145 range (3 standard deviations > mean), you’re probably getting there. Of course, someone this bright should be able to figure out how to cover this up, except when necessary.

Professor David Buss, author of “The Evolution of Desire”, responded by saying:

Interesting thoughts, but they are not supported by my data, nor the studies of others. Women are indeed attracted to intelligent men, and in fact marry men on average 4 IQ points higher than their own. At the tails of the distribution, of course, one runs into trouble; so yes, at the very high ends, both men and women have problems finding someone they can talk to. Still, women are drawn to men smarter than they are; men are more willing to settle for a woman less intelligent, since they prioritize looks and other qualities more.

The famous anthropologist Donald Symons, author of the classic work “The Evolution of Human Sexuality”, wrote:

Here are a few observations re your questions.

Human intelligence increased dramatically over several million years of evolution, which wouldn’t have happened if intelligent men were at a reproductive disadvantage.

Studies of women’s mating criteria consistently show that intelligence is valued by women (cf David Buss’s books on human mating). Intelligence is near, but not at the top of the list, and there’s no reason to suppose that high intelligence by iteself can compensate for other deficits. Furthermore, other female mating criteria, such as high status, economic prowess and being funny correlate positively (though, of course,imperfectly) with intelligence. I would guess that geniuses like Newton, who is not known to ever have had sex with a woman, were celibate by choice, because of odd character quirks, and not because they were too intelligent to be attractive. Einstein certainly did well with women, and it sure wasn’t because of the remorseless precision of his profile.

Studies of preliterate peoples have consistently shown that headmen and shamans, who tend to have more wives and children, are regularly described as unusually intelligent. These are the societies that most closely resemble those that obtained during most of human evolution. And in modern industrialized societies, which diverge in many ways from the environment of evolutionary adaptedness, upper classes have fewer children because they choose to and have the means to (reliable contraceptives), not because upper class men can’t find wives or other sexual partners.

The anthropologist April Gorry analyzed the character traits of the heroes of 45 highly successful romance novels, written by and for women. Heroes were described as muscular (45/45), handsome (44), strong (42), large (35) and so forth, and no hero was described as the opposite of any of these things. Heroes also had various character traits, such as sexually bold (40), calm (39), confident (39), etc., and in 38 of the 45 novels he was explicitly described as intelligent. No hero was described as not having any of these traits or of being unintelligent. I find these data especially compelling, because women are voting for these books with their money, and the market will produce the kinds of romantic fantasies that women want to read.

In sum, I think that intelligence is a highly valued trait in men, and always has been, though it may not be number one on the list, and certainly can’t compensate, for most women, if other highly desirable traits are absent.

The psychologist Roy Baumeister, author of “The Social Dimension of Sex”, wrote:

Hmm, this has not been my impression, except for the statement that highly intelligent young men are slower to commence sex. But my understanding is that they often make up for lost time and live better sex lives than the dummies. Not sure, though.

In future, in the US at least, we are moving toward having a strong majority of university degrees going to women. Because women tend to marry up, this will be quite a sexual bonanza for the next few generations of men who earn advanced degrees. Educated women won’t want to marry uneducated men, and there won’t be enough highly educated men to go around, so those men who are available will be able to pick and choose like studs.

Controversial scholar Richard Lynn, author of “Wealth and IQ”, remarked:

DEAR SIR

YOU HAVE PRESENTED ME WITH SOME DIFFICULT QUESTIONS.

I must admit that much of what my friend says seems to be true; it always seems to be the most highly intelligent males who have the most amount of difficulty attracting even a woman of average physical appearance. After all, if we are to believe Lombroso, most of the great geniuses of history were either celibate or endured miserable home lives. Is it true that most women find smart men to be intellectually threatening and run from them as fast as possible? Is there a strong connection between high intelligence in the male and misogyny?

I DOUBT IT

Is there a causal relationship between psychoticism (mental illness) and genius?

YES - MORE WITH ARTISTS, WRITERS THAN SCIENTISTS

And, if so, is it possible that this factor alone could discourage men of high intelligence from finding suitable mating opportunities?

POSSIBLY

The famous evolutionary biologist Steven Pinker wrote:

It’s totally false. Survey after survey has shown that intelligence is one of the most highly valued traits for a woman seeking a man. There is no evidence that intelligent men are more likely to be celibate. The Halpern study says that smart teenagers are less likely to have sex, not that smart men are unattractive to women.

I also asked Professor Geary this question:

Is there a strong connection between high intelligence and psychopathology? Historically, the notion that genius and madness are somehow interconnected goes back to the time of Aristotle. Certain researchers, such as JC Kaufman (2001) and RA Prentky (2001), have suggested that the incidence of mental illness increases dramatically the farther one goes up the high end of the normal distribution of human intelligence; others have alleged that even high levels of creativity itself could possibly be connected to such disorders as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Even Lewis M. Terman (1947) found a considerably higher degree of social and emotional maladjustment amongst his longitudinal sample of gifted children relative to the normal population at large. Do men of high intelligence share many psychological traits in common with the mentally ill? Does the connection between genius and madness make it difficult for one to form normal relationships with others, especially women? Does it pre-dispose men of genius to lives of complete social isolation from others and the world around them? Can it readily account for the eccentricity and unconventionality that characterize so many of the personal lives of highly intelligent men? How much of this is true?

Is there a causal relationship between psychoticism (mental illness) and genius? And, if so, is it possible that this factor alone could discourage men of high intelligence from finding suitable mating opportunities? What do you think, professor?

The learned professor responded by saying:

Great questions. You might find Redfield’s Touched with Fire of interest. There does seem to be a good link between “genius” – creativity – and bipolar disorder, at least the more mild forms of it. My guess is that this sorts independently of IQ and thus genius types have both, along with a few other traits. There may also be some social awkwardness among really high IQ individuals, independent of bipolar, because they are different from other folks that thus find it hard to really relate to their issues and level of understanding. Some genius types, such as Newton, had a combination of high IQ, and possibly a mild form of bipolar disorder and I suspect Asperger. Overall, since there are more males than females at the high end of this continuum, finding an “equal” will be difficult, but it doesn’t mean a life of isolation. Newton never married, but Darwin did. Galileo had a long-term relationship and sired several children… Tesla never married, but Edison did.

To someone like this, talking to a psychologist about these frustrations might be helpful. Learning a few tricks about dealing with other people is helpful.

Additionally, I posed another question to Steven Pinker:

Evolutionary biologists have long suggested that it is the most successful men who attract women as wives and girlfriends, whereas men who are relatively unsuccessful more often than not tend to attract none. How is this reconciled with the fact that it is always men of the lowest socio-economic strata who tend to be the most fertile?

Mr. Pinker wrote:

Evolutionary predictions concern the time span over which we evolved, not the present. Until the twentieth century and the invention of contraception, wealthy men had far more surviving offspring than poorer men.

Even today, men of the lowest strata are not more fertile, though they use contraception less – that is a big difference.

Women should learn when to shut the fuck up...

... because every woman is a goose-stepping, black-booted Fascist at heart!

The greatest essay ever written on female psychology!

On Women (abridged)

by Arthur Schopenhauer


The nature of the female

One needs only to see the way she is built to realize that woman is not intended for great mental or for great physical labor. She expiates the guilt of life not through activity but through suffering, through the pains of childbirth, caring for the child and subjection to the man, to whom she should be a patient and cheering companion. Great suffering, joy, exertion, is not for her: her life should flow by more quietly, trivially, gently than the man's without being essentially happier or unhappier.

Women are suited to being the nurses and teachers of our earliest childhood precisely because they themselves are childish, silly and short-sighted, in a word big children, their whole lives long: a kind of intermediate stage between the child and the man, who is the actual human being, ‘man.’ One has only to watch a girl playing with a child, dancing and singing with it the whole day, and then ask oneself what, with the best will in the world, a man could do in her place.

Natural weapons

In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of her life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy. For just as the female ant loses its wings after mating, since they are then superfluous, indeed harmful to the business of raising the family, so the woman usually loses her beauty after one or two childbeds, and probably for the same reason.

Female truth

The fundamental defect of the female character is a lack of a sense of justice. This originates first and foremost in their want of rationality and capacity for reflexion but it is strengthened by the fact that, as the weaker sex, they are driven to rely not on force but on cunning: hence their instinctive subtlety and their ineradicable tendency to tell lies: for, as nature has equipped the lion with claws and teeth, the elephant with tusks, the wild boar with fangs, the bull with horns and the cuttlefish with ink, so it has equipped woman with the power of dissimulation as her means of attack and defence, and has transformed into this gift all the strength it has bestowed on man in the form of physical strength and the power of reasoning. Dissimulation is thus inborn in her and consequently to be found in the stupid woman almost as often as in the clever one. To make use of it at every opportunity is as natural to her as it is for an animal to employ its means of defence whenever it is attacked, and when she does so she feels that to some extent she is only exercising her rights. A completely truthful woman who does not practice dissimulation is perhaps an impossibility, which is why women see through the dissimulation of others so easily it is inadvisable to attempt it with them. – But this fundamental defect which I have said they possess, together with all that is associated with it, gives rise to falsity, unfaithfulness, treachery, ingratitude, etc. Women are guilty of perjury far more often than men. It is questionable whether they ought to be allowed to take an oath at all.

Feminine charms

Only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex: for it is with this drive that all its beauty is bound up. More fittingly than the fair sex, women could be called the unaesthetic sex. Neither for music, nor poetry, nor the plastic arts do they possess any real feeling or receptivity: if they affect to do so, it is merely mimicry in service of their effort to please. This comes from the fact that they are incapable of taking a purely objective interest in anything whatever, and the reason for this is, I think, as follows. Man strives in everything for a direct domination over things, either by comprehending or by subduing them. But woman is everywhere and always relegated to a merely indirect domination, which is achieved by means of man, who is consequently the only thing she has to dominate directly. Thus it lies in the nature of women to regard everything simply as a means of capturing a man, and their interest in anything else is only simulated, is no more than a detour, i.e. amounts to coquetry and mimicry.

Absence of genius

Nor can one expect anything else from women if one considers that the most eminent heads of the entire sex have proved incapable of a single truly great, genuine and original achievement in art, or indeed of creating anything at all of lasting value: this strikes one most forcibly in regard to painting, since they are just as capable of mastering its technique as we are, and indeed paint very busily, yet cannot point to a single great painting; the reason being precisely that they lack all objectivity of mind, which is what painting demands above all else. Isolated and partial exceptions do not alter the case: women, taken as a whole, are and remain thorough and incurable philistines: so that, with the extremely absurd arrangement by which they share the rank and title of their husband, they are a continual spur to his ignoble ambitions. They are sexus sequior, the inferior second sex in every respect: one should be indulgent toward their weaknesses, but to pay them honour is ridiculous beyond measure and demeans us even in their eyes.

Insipid women-veneration

This is how the peoples of antiquity and of the Orient have regarded women; they have recognized what is the proper position for women far better than we have, we with our Old French gallantry and insipid women-veneration, that highest flower of Christian-Germanic stupidity which has served only to make women so rude and arrogant that one is sometimes reminded of the sacred apes of Benares which, conscious of their own sanctity and inviolability, thought themselves at liberty to do whatever they pleased.

Monogamy and 'filles de joie'

In our monogamous part of the world, to marry means to halve one's rights and double one's duties. But when the law conceded women equal rights with men it should at the same time have endowed them with masculine reasoning powers. What is actually the case is that the more those rights and privileges the law accords to women exceed those which are natural to them, the more it reduces the number of women who actually participate in these benefits; and then the remainder are deprived of their natural rights by just the amount these few receive in excess of theirs: for, because of the unnaturally privileged position enjoyed by women as a consequence of monogamy and the marriage laws accompanying it, which regard women as entirely equal to men (which they are in no respect), prudent and cautious men very often hesitate before making so great a sacrifice as is involved in entering into so inequitable a contract; so that while among polygamous peoples every woman gets taken care of, among the monogamous the number of married women is limited and there remains over a quantity of unsupported women who, in the upper classes, vegetate on as useless old maids, and in the lower are obligated to undertake laborious work they are constitutionally unfitted for or become filles de joie, whose lives are as devoid of joie as they are of honour but who, given the prevailing circumstances, are necessary for the gratification of the male sex and therefore come to constitute a recognized class, with the specific task of preserving the virtue of those women more favoured by fate who have found a man to support them or may reasonably hope to find one. There are 80,000 prostitutes in London alone: and what are they if not sacrifices on the altar of monogamy? These poor women are the inevitable counterpart and natural complement to the European lady, with all her arrogance and pretension. For the female sex viewed as a whole polygamy is therefore a real benefit; on the other hand there appears no rational ground why a man whose wife suffers from a chronic illness, or has remained unfruitful, or has gradually grown too old for him, should not take a second.

No argument about polygamy

There can be no argument about polygamy: it is a fact to be met with everywhere and the only question is how to regulate it. For who is really a monogamist? We all live in polygamy, at least for a time and usually for good. Since every man needs many women, there could be nothing more just than that he should be free, indeed obliged, to support many women. This would also mean the restoration of woman to her rightful and natural position, the subordinate one, and the abolition from the world of the lady, with her ridiculous claims to respect and veneration; there would then be only women, and no longer unhappy women, of which Europe is at present full.

Property and inheritance

In India, no woman is ever independent, but in accordance with the law of Manu, she stands under the control of her father, her husband, her brother or her son. It is, to be sure, a revolting thing that a widow should immolate herself upon her husband's funeral pyre; but it is also revolting that she should spend her husband's money with her paramours – the money for which he toiled his whole life long, in the consoling belief that he was providing for his children. Happy are those who have kept the middle course – medium tenuere beati.
In almost all nations, whether of the ancient or the modern world, even amongst the Hottentots, property is inherited by the male descendants alone; it is only in Europe that a departure has taken place; but not amongst the nobility, however.

That the property which has cost men long years of toil and effort, and been won with so much difficulty, should afterwards come into the hands of women, who then, in their lack of reason, squander it in a short time, or otherwise fool it away, is a grievance and a wrong as serious as it is common, which should be prevented by limiting the right of women to inherit. In my opinion, the best arrangement would be that by which women, whether widows or daughters, should never receive anything beyond the interest for life on property secured by mortgage, and in no case the property itself, or the capital, except when there cease to be male descendants. The people who make money are men, not women; and it follows from this that women are neither justified in having unconditional possession of it, nor fit persons to be entrusted with its administration. When wealth, in any true sense of the word, that is to say, funds, houses or land, is to go to them as an inheritance they should never be allowed the free disposition of it. In their case a guardian should always be appointed; and hence they should never be given the free control of their own children, wherever it can be avoided.