Saturday, February 20, 2010

Feminism and the Communist Revolution

First a brief introduction from a famous playwrite....

Aristophanes A famous Greek playwrite produced a very interesting and revealing play in 390BC.

Aristophanes wrote Ecclesiazusae or Assembly Women (The Latinized spelling of the Greek title Ἐκκλησιάζουσαι, Ekklēsiázousai also known as Assemblywomen). It is a play dating from 390BCE which is similar in theme to Lysistrata in that a large portion of the comedy comes from women involving themselves in politics. This play is much more infused with gender issues than Lysistrata is. This play also shows a change in the style of Ancient Greek comedy after the short period of oligarchy after the Peloponnesian War, or at least an attempt at it. It seems to be a merging of the two styles that works in the beginning, but falls apart by the end.

The play concerns a group of women, the leader of which is Praxagora. She has decided that the women must convince the men to give them control of Athens, because they could rule it better than they have been. The women, in the guise of men, sneak into the assembly and vote the measure, convincing some of the men to vote for it because it is the only thing they have not tried.

The women then institute a Socialist-like government in which the state feeds, houses, and generally takes care of every Athenian. They enforce an idea of equality by allowing every man to sleep with every woman. (Similar to the "free love" concept which was a part of the Bolshevik Communist Revolution, the American Cultural Revolution associated with "sexual liberation" in the 1960's)

There is a scene in which two men are talking. One of them is going along with the new government, giving his property to the women, and obeying their orders. The other does not wish to give up his property, but he is more than willing to take advantage of the free food.

Please click to enlarge:

If you are interested in the roots of feminism it is important to get to the roots of the ideology.

Much of feminism is rooted in the political ideology of Marxism which is the basis for the formation of Communism and Socialism..

The feminist revolution in Russia began during the Russian Bolshevik Revolution around 1917. Alexandra Kollontai, much like Obama's Valerie Jarrett was tasked with leading the Zhenotdel or "Women's Department" in 1919 as was Jarrett just appointed the same position for Obama's new Federal Council On Women and Girls. You can see from the below quotes that Kollontai espouses the views that Communist Feminists espouse today.

On Women in the Workforce:
"Nowadays the working woman hastens out of the house early in the morning when the factory whistle blows. When evening comes and the whistle sounds again, she hurries home to scramble through the most pressing of her domestic tasks. Then it’s off to work again the next morning, and she is tired from lack of sleep. For the married working woman, life is as hard as the workhouse. It is not surprising therefore that family ties should loosen and the family begin to fall apart. The circumstances that held the family together no longer exist. The family is ceasing to be necessary either to its members or to the nation as a whole. The old family structure is now merely a hindrance." "Communism liberates women from her domestic slavery and makes her life richer and happier." -Alexandra Kollontai -Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920

On Childcare: (Leading to the Implementation of Child Care Facilities through the Commissariat of Health and Education): Note: this would require a large health appropriations bill which incidentally our Congress is working on now....Do you know where your government is leading us? Perhaps it is time to lead your government as our founders intended.

"The state is responsible for the upbringing of children" "The woman who takes up the struggle for the liberation of the working class must learn to understand that there is no more room for the old proprietary attitude which says: “These are my children, I owe them all my maternal solicitude and affection; those are your children, they are no concern of mine and I don’t care if they go hungry and cold – I have no time for other children.” The worker-mother must learn not to differentiate between yours and mine; she must remember that there are only our children, the children of Russia’s communist workers." -Alexandra Kollontai -Komunistka, No. 2, 1920, and in English in The Worker, 1920

On "Free Love":

The key, to Kollontai was to eradicate the bourgeois \ proletariat relationship between men and women.. The idea was to get as much access to sex between men and women as possible without forming a mutually dependent "submissive" and "oppressive" pair bond which involved "ego" and "possession" and of course the dreaded capitalist relationship i.e the gender roles communism and feminism is opposed to.

The bourgeois \ proletariat relationship i.e. male incentive to produce and be worthy of the female who in Marxist terms owned the means of production must be destroyed;
the courtship and economic model that formed the nuclear family and gave rise to it must be destroyed. Kollontai was also opposed to prostitution for the same reason as it represented to her the epitome of the capitalist relationship between men and women. Communist theory surmised that equality and a "free love" dynamic would take the place of the capitalist model of family and relationships between the sexes and serve to liberate men and women. What Marxist theory describes as the bourgeois \ proletariat relationship feminist call "The Patriarchy".

She also exclaimed that Communism would free men of their provider role:

"Contemporary society goes even further than the ancient tribal society in acting as woman’s trustee, instructing her not only to marry but to fall in love only with those people who are “worthy” of her."

"Now imagine another situation. A respected woman of bourgeois society – a social figure, a research student, a doctor, or a writer, it’s all the same – becomes friendly with her footman, and to complete the scandal marries him. How does bourgeois society react to the behaviour of the hitherto “respected” woman? They cover her with “scorn”, of course! And remember, it’s so much the worse for her if her husband, the footman, is good-looking or possesses other “physical qualities”. “It’s obvious what she’s fallen for”, will be the sneer of the hypocritical bourgeoisie."

It was claimed that if the capitalist relationship between men and women could be destroyed women would be able to select men by who they are as a person rather than be attracted to a male because he was of high status and resourcefully successful etc.

Unfortunately Kollontai did not understand hypergamous matting behavior of females i.e. the tendency to look for tall, strong, intelligent, ambitious, good looking, high status, resourcefully successful males..

Here: you can see,because of this,as crazy as it sounds...that female matting behavior changes in proportion to how much college she has attended and thus her monetary earnings ratio to a prospectful male mate..... The study shows that female chance for matting with a male lowered with every year of higher education i.e. the associated post educational increase in her resource potential compared to males.

Thus also lowering the percent who ever become mothers:

As you can see below the reverse it true for men. The hypergamous dynamic is diametrically opposed and thus proportionately compounded. This is a powerful force. It has been postulated by feminists that the reason hypergamy exists is because males or "The Patriarchy" dominate resources to such an extent that females are forced to marry up and men are forced to marry down in terms of a mate in regard to resource potential. I say this is not the case because female hypergamy has not decreased proportionately to the increasing amount of female participation in the workforce and subsequent increase in female resource acquisition.

Kollontai Continued:

Here she exclaims the need for the destruction of the family through the use of no fault divorce:

"The attempt by the middle-class intelligentsia to replace indissoluble marriage by the freer, more easily broken ties of civil marriage destroys the essential basis of the social stability of the, bourgeoisie. It destroys the monogamous, property-orientated family. On the other hand. a greater fluidity in relationships between the sexes coincides with and is even the indirect result of one of the basic tasks of the working class. The rejection of the element of “submission” in marriage."

Below you can see the effect that the "free love" i.e. sexual liberation and second wave feminism has had on America from the time these ideas influenced the American Cultural Revolution in the 1960's. 40% of all women in the United States now give birth outside of marriage.

The question we need to ask ourselves is yes, marriage and the family have been and are being destroyed by the implementation of these ideas along with social law policies that accompanied them. The question we need to ask is, what are we building to take its place???? Are we better off now??

Single Woman Births now at 40% of all births in U.S.

With so many men's lives defined by what is now a 70% female initiated divorce rate and 50% or 1 in 2 marriages ending in divorce this way, what are we to do in order to establish the rights and "choices" of men within the contract of divorce? Should they lose the right to fatherhood and be reduced to "visitor" or "visitation" status by default or should men be allowed the option to share custody of the child and thus be freed from his fatherhood being turned into money and capitalized...Can fatherhood be bought with money? These are very good questions?

Women lobbied to create no-fault divorce which was first implemented in California and soon swept the nation. Should men have an obligation to financially support women who have left them? Should the "choice" of women to work if they want or stay home if they want be formed into a capitalized liability to the man in the form of Alimony (woman support)? These are very good questions...

With the forced "male resource transferability model" and "government husbandry" i.e. communized support for single mothers in place, with women as a gender collectively divorcing men how can men find a place in the family and with our children? With the dissolution of family what is the male place in society? Is a husband and father even needed? Shouldn't an "isolated resource producing male" be sufficient? Are men simply a means to an end, the work horses of civilization.. Do men even matter? Do men like to be "isolated resource producing males"? These are very good questions to ask...

Below: The early beginnings of The Feminist Majority, one of the leading Women's Party organizations in the United States along with N.O.W.

NOTE: No-fault divorce was pioneered by the Bolsheviks following the Russian Revolution of 1917 with the implementation of Communism. No-fault divorce was also introduced in the final ends and fall of the Roman Republic. It was introduced here in the U.S. in the Family Law Act of September 4, 1969 (effective January 1, 1970)

The Above image was annotated because it is now thought that divorce is on the decline because marriage itself is on the decline..The drop off in divorce rates seem to coincide with increased cohabitation among couples and the 40% single woman birth rate...SEE:

Kollontai Continued:

NOTE: When she refers to "individualist" she means "capitalists \conservatives" in the American lexicon.

"The “individualists” who are only loosely organised into a collective with other individuals, now have the chance to change their sexual relationships so that they are based on the creative principle of friendship and togetherness rather than on something blindly physiological."

"The conservatively inclined part of mankind argue that we should return to the happy times of the past, we should re-establish the old foundations of the family and strengthen the well-tried norms of sexual morality. The champions of bourgeois individualism say that we ought to destroy all the hypocritical restrictions of the obsolete code of sexual behaviour. These unnecessary and repressive “rags” ought to be relegated to the archives – only the individual conscience. the individual will of each person can decide such intimate questions. Socialists, on the other hand, assure us that sexual problems will only be settled when the basic reorganisation of the social and economic structure of society has been tackled."

These ideas soon spread to the United States. The subversion of American Culture to Communist ideology began in the "free love" era of the 1960's.

The Council On Women and Girls serves the same purpose as what can be called the Communist Women's Workers Party i.e. the Zhenotdel or "Women's Department". Representation at the Federal level has been the goal of Women's Feminist Organizations since the 1960's. Now they have secular representation for women as a separate socio-political class with their own class interests. Many of these interest go against the class interests of men who's economic wellbeing and the prospects thereof are directly affected by the "Women's Party" policies such as Title IX and Affirmative Action "women first" laws..Not to mention that Women's Party Feminists lobbied and successfully diverted the bulk of the Stimulus Package to women though 80% of jobs lost in this recession have been to men.(Read article: No Country For Burly Men by Christina Hoff Sommers)...WOW!!!
This is just the beginning...

We simply can't afford the chivalry to add any more "women first" laws and funding to handicap men as a class. We can't afford to implement "equality" laws based on Marxist Communist theory.

As men our earnings prospects are directly related to our ability to garner a mate as is shown by the hypergamy study referenced earlier in the article..Not to mention these laws are against the founding principals on my dear Republic. Equal opportunity, not unequal outcome by unequal means.... I challenge the "Communist Women's Workers Party" i.e. The Council On Women and Girl to remove women first laws so that males may have equal opportunity to attend college. We must not continue to artificially handicap men with unequal representation under law if we want to be a free society.

I leave you with this.....I believe with women'sincreasing marriage to the State including it's accompanied mandates of forced male resource provision outside of marriage will continue to grow. Government will continue to meet the demands of feminists to provide and protect women as it is the case that our innate human nature to do so is personified within the government ethos. The competitive echelon or the equal opportunity for competitive advantage that serves to enfranchise male productive incentive will be destroyed. A critical mass of disenfranchised males will increasingly become the norm and the mating dynamic, marriage and family destroyed.

I believe that as seen from the graphs above on Hypergamy pitting females against males in the economic sphere (especially while using "women first"laws such as Title IX and Affirmative Action and others) to handicap males from competing and producing will lower overall birth rates and mated pair bond formation.

In terms of the breakdown in the family: Our high divorce rate, our 40% single woman birth rate and the skyrocketing amount of loose knit cohabitating relationships coupled with family laws pertaining to divorce or cohabitant separation, a critical mass of "isolated resource producing males" will be reached, lowering male productive incentive as a whole. A healthy society thrives on enfranchised males with productive incentive...

When you disenfranchise a critical mass of males from a role in the family and the productive incentive that comes with it our Republic will consume itself of it's own means of production.

At this point in time however I believe the best choice for male equality is to in fact become complimentary to the feminist paradigm of equality i.e. men must withdraw from protection and provision of women and from the family.

It is said that men do not contribute to their fair share of housework but when the entire structure of mating dynamics are analysed women do not contribute to their fair share of providing and protecting the family. Men must free themselves from female hypergamous mating behavior. Men must demand the role of stay at home dad and primary care giver of children. Alimony and Child Support must be abolished and shared custody of children implemented.

The male role in the family can no longer be reduced to a monetized or capitalized liability of provider or in the case of divorce as an "isolated resource producing male".....As the Communist Revolution sought to establish, following through on Marxist form of equality entails men no longer playing a role in the family or the lives or our children. In an ideal Communist social structure male resource provision will not be required in order for a female and "her" offspring to thrive. This is the feminist goal. Do you the reader have another solution??? Can we stop this???

How can men achieve equal rights and a place in the family in this new order? Can we fix this? Both men and women have the duty to try..

More on women as a separate socio-political class away from the class interests of men.. Can be found here

***Jessica Smith in Women in Soviet Russia (1928) describes conflict between men and women in Changing Attitudes in Soviet Russia and records debates in which women accuse the men of condescension (oppression) and patronage or (misogyny) & (patriarchy).

- "Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included."-- Karl Marx

Works of Alexandra Kollontai


Anonymous said...

Communism was an early attempt at Feminism/Matriarchy but for a variety of reasons it failed. The new incarnation, however (led by the West) will not fail.

Past performance does not indicate future performance.

The parallels between Communist rhetoric and Western Feminist rhetoric are interesting, but ultmiately we have to see that it doesn't matter that much, as Western Femnism is working off its own steam and Matriarchy is ploughing full-steam ahead.

It's ironic to note that at the end of the USSR in 1989, after decades of Soviet Communism, society was fairly distinctly Patriarchal. Far from disintegrating, the nuclear family remained firmly established. Bourgeouis (or what used to be regarded as bourgeouis, i.e. traditional) sexality and moral standards were intact.

We always have to remember this, when we paint "Red Communism" - old school Communism - as a great villain.

Bwec said...

And how is it that you plan to free men now that "western Femnism is working off its own steam and Matriarchy is ploughing full-steam ahead."?

Do you plan to free men of their provider role or not? What role do you expect men to play in the family?

You say: "It's ironic to note that at the end of the USSR in 1989, after decades of Soviet Communism, society was fairly distinctly Patriarchal. Far from disintegrating, the nuclear family remained firmly established"

Actually you need to be corrected, the presence of a man in the home was no longer seen as obligatory.

Ok, and now, as you can see from the data on my blog, the patriarchal family is deteriorating at a rapid pace.

What role will men play in the family upon the institution of Matriarchy of which you speak?

Your comment is rather simplistic. When I remove the articulate veneer your statement yields an opinion but nothing to work with here..

Bwec said...

Can you explain to me the central tenets of the family under this Matriarchy of which you speak?

Again...please illiterate upon the formation of family in your Matriarchy.

Bwec said...

Furthermore do you support the idea that female supremacy is being forcefully implemented through "women first" laws, essentially in an attempt to handicap men from producing?

Does the Matriarchy approve of equal protection under law and thus equal opportunity?

Anonymous said...

In an equitable world, women would have been marrying men who earned less, for years or decades. The idea that it's news in 2010 exposes a hidden problem in women's expectations, called "hypergamy." (Yep, I'm trained as an anthropologist.)

Hypergamous marriage is a long-standing norm in which women tend to marry men who are a little wealthier, smarter, stronger, etc, getting a socioeconomic upgrade as well as a life partner. As women wanted more participation in the workforce, they didn't systematically abandon their hypergamous expectations, and still haven't. (Don't remember seeing a lot of articles in Ms magazine advising women to set aside the idea of a higher-earning spouse--Gloria Steinem didn't.)

However, in the socioeconomic pyramid, as more and more women attain higher levels, the "point of the pyramid" does not contain enough males to provide hypergamous partners for all. "Having it all" is the mantra of the women's movement, remember?

Women setting aside their insistence on higher-earning males should have been news in 1970. That it took forty years to understand that "equality" doesn't mean "I get an upgrade in every dimension" is really the headline here. The real news is that it's taken forty years or so for the obvious implications of career mobility to sink in.

Anonymous said...

That fact is that African American women have been in the position of making more than their male counterparts for over a generation. As far back as the early 1960's African American women were going to college in higher numbers than African American males.

For African American women in their late teen and early twenties, the unemployment and incarceration rates for African American males make it very difficult for them to fine 'marriageable' men.

Ebony, a magazine focused primarily on African American women has for over 30 years periodically ran stories about black female executives happily married to black males that have 'blue collar' jobs or in some other way are not the woman's social equal on a professional level.This is a rarity though. Fatherless children, single mothers and few if ever married couples was the result. The explosion of the welfare state did not help repair our families though.

It is okay, even desirable, to date and marry a man of a lower professional social status but does it happen?

Perhaps, but the economic trends, the ones that have impacted African American men for 30 years and is only starting to catch up with the rest of the country, is that working class males in this country have become increasing squeezed out and marginalized in our economy.

From the top, the once well paying manufacturing jobs are being systematically shipped overseas or de-unionized with increasing lower benefits, salary and job security.

From the bottom, unchecked illegal immigration is eliminating opportunities in the non-skilled working sector to make a ‘living wage’. So-called ‘undocumented’ aliens can afford to work for lower wages because often the families they support are in countries where the cost of living is substantially lower. Also, employers often view (correctly for the most part) as workers who will not actively lobby for their rights because of the real fear of deportation. These trends hit African American men first because they tended to occupy those marginal jobs in higher proportions.

So to you white women who are facing the issue of unequal professional status, I suggest you look at the experience of African American professional women. If you like what you see, keep moving forward. If you start to worry about the broader implications of what is going on, you might want to start with the economy first.

Anonymous said...

Women used to get married for financial security, and to have a family. Men got married because that was what their mate wanted, and because it was a point of pride to be the alpha male. Men have never had a financial incentive to marry, and still don't when we look at the cost of raising a familiy, and the probability and cost of divorce.

The incentives for women have changed to the point where marrying a man is strictly a question of whether he's useful enough to warrant the effort (most of us aren't, girls). The financial benefits are disappearing with men's declining earning potential, and the social stigma of single motherhood just isn't there. For a man, sex is no easier to get if married, disposable income is certain to fall, and he's signing up for a contract which obligates him to decades of alimony and child support whenever the wife chooses to end it. Plus he's no longer allowed to even pretend he's in charge, and the kids that he may want can be taken away from him at any time by the wife and her lawyer. No man with any sense will sign up for marriage today unless he is besotted with a woman who demands it.

Men will continue to get married because their women want it, but only those men with superior earning power and useful house skills will be invited to the party. They will be divorced when their usefulness declines. Women, as always, will mourn the dirth of marriage-worthy men, but that pool will continue to shrink. When demand for marrige-worthy men greatly exceeds supply, I predict the return of polygamy, multiple women with children cohabiting with one man. With the number of unmarried men steadily increasing, I predict the continued growth of the single male subculture, increasingly divergent and out of touch with the marriage/family subculture. Perhaps there will be single male ghettos, filled with small apartments, strip clubs and sports bars. A brave new world indeed.

Mario said...

My concern is the trend of single motherhood as a deliberate choice, having not found a "suitable" man. This will only lead to a "women's and children's issue" where more tax dollars will be demanded for childcare, children's healthcare, education, and so forth. The women will outvote the men, as there are more of them in sheer numbers, and many more men than women made ineligible to vote on account of the increasing amount of felonies males will invariably be committing by this time. Not to mention men in the U.S. have been dropping out of civic life on multiple levels but more specifically voter participation.

The end result will be that more tax dollars will go towards caring for children and accommodating single mothers. I to see no place for men in the family with this paradigm

In short, men will be reduced to thralldom.

This can't be good for either sex. And the backlash will not be pretty.

Anonymous said...

Some of the ideas attributed to Marxism in the article did not in themselves seem unattractive. May be the consequences where not up to expectation but people a 100 years ago were not to know that.

Also some of the comments ( I read them all) where very candid and I think valid. Certainly the thoughts that they expressed resonate with the way I feel.

I find it hard to be optimistic in any way what-so-ever. That social evil (whatever that might be) will develop is not the point. For me the point is that the tide has been set and the force of history put in motion. Only when there has been a complete working through of all that is in place now will there then be the possibility of any improvement. These are my thoughts anyway. I don't seek to convince others of their merit.

Bwec said...

Hello Anon, YOU SAY: "For African American women in their late teen and early twenties, the unemployment and incarceration rates for African American males make it very difficult for them to fine 'marriageable' men."

This is very true and the black community is a perfect example of what the rest of the social structure is headed for.. Your statement rings true in that I believe the artificial restraints placed on males through women first social policies etc serve to hinder male productive incentive thus leading to high unemployment "suspended adolescence" of males and high incarceration rates.

There were no black women first laws in your community but the same result was accomplished by single mother welfare policies.

It is my contention that if a "resource transferability" construct is implemented as is currently the case with Alimony and Child Support i.e. forced male resource provision to the female outside of marriage along with what I call "government husbandry" or "welfare" the same results in mated pair bond formation will take place in the rest of the social construct outside the black community...This is indeed currently and increasingly the case....

This is of grave concern to me..

If I recall 70% of all black households are single mother households... I expect the same to happen in the rest of our social structure if we do not protect equal representation for males by law and thus protect the competitive echelon among males along with equal opportunity for competitive advantage among males to compete...

This model is also supported when you look at the time in which welfare was implemented in the black community, it infact took place during the time in which you specified.

I have no doubt that if we do not change our marriage and family law along with other social policies the end results will continue to get worse...

AdVader said...

feminism destroys children, men, women, families, feminism violates universal human rights and constitutional rights asif they are another species (coming from venus!), feminism is a sever mind-control-illne$$, sociopathic inhuman antisocial and destructive, worse than racism and destroys the world

Anonymous said...

Fellow Men,

The problems of feminism are numerous and blatant.

But you as a Man can do something personal and meaningful to change that in your own life.

Go to The Manhood Academy at

There is a free ebook, a real masterpiece of writing which sits on my bookshelf along with the classics.

Read it if you're a man and you will not be disappointed in the wisdom it communicates to you.

Anonymous said...

So good topic really i like any post talking about Ancient Greece but i want to say thing to u Ancient Greece not that only ... you can see in Ancient Greece Ancient Greece Gods and more , you shall search in Google and Wikipedia about that .... thanks a gain ,,,

Anonymous said...

Wow so good post i like it so much and i hoipe to visit my blog View Goals and it talking about World Goals ViewGoals.Com thanks again ,,,

Anonymous said...

George Gilder published a book in the 1960's called "Sexual Suicide". He forecast quite accurately that if women were given economic equality plus sexual superiority we would have all the prolems occuring today. The book is still worth reading.


Anonymous said...


Dan Abrams, the legal analyst of NBC, is writing a book called “Man Down, How Women Are Better At…” One can just imagine the reaction were Dan Abrams to write a book entitled “Blacks Down, How Whites Are Better At…” The reaction would be instantaneous. The book would be labeled racist, vile and untrue by definition. The facts on white superiority would count for nothing. One cannot believe that whites are superior to blacks but one can believe that women are superior to men. We may be sure that Dan Abrams does not discuss Alcohol Prohibition in his paean of praise to female superiority. The fact that women were the driving force behind the most disastrous social reform movement in American history might present difficulties for Mr. Abrams contrived thesis. Thus, we may be sure that he deletes it. Dan Abrams shall also be predictably silent on how women are treated in his real country called Israel. Thus, “Danny Boy” shall not be describing how women in Israeli busses are required to ride in the rear as the bus passes through Orthodox neighborhoods. Nor shall he discuss the vast Jewish controlled sex slave trade and the thousands of women kidnapped to the Tel Aviv brothels each year. “Danny Boy” may mention Israel’s 1953 law granting women full civic, political and economic rights. But, if so, he shall surely delete the exception for family law and what it entails. Thus, “Danny Boy” shall not mention that a wife cannot get a divorce without her husband’s consent or that a wife whose husband dies while she is still childless must offer herself in marriage to his bother – or buy her release through forfeiture of the community property. Still less shall he mention that if a woman has a child born from adultery the child shall be termed a mamzerim, a bastard, and shall be forbidden to marry, except to another bastard. A woman whose husband goes missing in war or who otherwise disappears cannot remarry unless she has absolute proof of his death. Abortion, in Israel, is a state decision, not a personal decision. A Jewess must obtain government permission for an abortion. The decision shall be made based on the state’s need for more Jewish babies and the danger of a higher Arab birth rate, counterbalanced by the woman’s financial ability to care for the child. Traditionally, in Israel, a woman’s testimony has no standing in family law court. In the Orthodox synagogues until recently a woman could not qualify for the minyam, the minimum number of Jews necessary to form a quorum. Only male Jews so qualify. The free love, no-fault divorce system that has caused so much grief in the United States is virtually unknown in Israel. Divorce has been severely restricted in the Zionist state. When divorce does occur, it is exclusively under the control of the religious authorities, not the civil authorities. There is no civil divorce in Israel.

“Danny Boy” Abrams knows these facts on his real country perfectly. But like the deceased Jewish Communist Ashley Montagu/Israel Ehrenberg who wrote “The Natural Superiority of Women” back in the 1960’s, he is not about to mention them as he lies through his teeth.