Rape hysteria then and now: From black men to all men

Those who don't learn history not only are doomed to repeat it, but may also miss crucial perspectives on a current narrative. I hadn't heard of this marvelous piece of work, one Rebecca Latimer Felton, first female US senator (albeit for a mere 24 hours, as she died the day after she was sworn in before she could do any further damage), committed third-wave feminist before the term had even been invented, and unapologetic pro-genocidal racist. Excerpt:

'Rebecca Ann Latimer Felton (June 10, 1835 – January 24, 1930) was an American writer, lecturer, reformer, and politician who became the first woman to serve in the United States Senate. She was the most prominent woman in Georgia in the Progressive Era, and was honored by appointment to the Senate. She was sworn in November 21, 1922, and served just 24 hours. At 87 years, nine months, and 22 days old, she was the oldest freshman senator to enter the Senate. To date, she is also the only woman to have served as a Senator from Georgia. Her husband William Harrell Felton was a member of the United States House of Representatives and Georgia House of Representatives and she ran his campaigns. She was a prominent society woman; an advocate of prison reform, women's suffrage and educational modernization; and one of the few prominent women who spoke in favor of lynching. Bartley reports that by 1915 she "was championing a lengthy feminist program that ranged from prohibition to equal pay for equal work."
...
Felton criticized what she saw as the hypocrisy of Southern men who boasted of superior Southern "chivalry" but opposed women's rights, and she expressed her dislike of the fact that Southern states resisted women's suffrage longer than other regions of the US. She wrote, in 1915, that women were denied fair political participation "except in the States which have been franchised by the good sense and common honesty of the men of those States—after due consideration, and with the chivalric instinct that differentiates the coarse brutal male from the gentlemen of our nation. Shall the men of the South be less generous, less chivalrous? They have given the Southern women more praise than the man of the West—but judged by their actions Southern men have been less sincere. Honeyed phrases are pleasant to listen to, but the sensible women of our country would prefer more substantial gifts...."
...
Felton was a white supremacist. She claimed, for instance, that the more money that Georgia spent on black education, the more crimes blacks committed. For the 1893 World's Columbian Exhibition, she "proposed a southern exhibit 'illustrating the slave period,' with a cabin and 'real colored folks making mats, shuck collars, and baskets—a woman to spin and card cotton—and another to play banjo and show the actual life of [the] slave—not the Uncle Tom sort.'" She wanted to display "the ignorant contented darky—as distinguished from [Harriet Beecher] Stowe's monstrosities."

Felton considered "young blacks" who sought equal treatment "half-civilized gorillas," and ascribed to them a "brutal lust" for white women. While seeking suffrage for women, she decried voting rights for blacks, arguing that it led directly to the rape of white women.

In 1899, a massive crowd of white Georgians tortured, mutilated, and burned a black man, Sam Hose, who purportedly had killed a white man in self-defense but had not committed the rape of the white woman whites accused him of. The crowd divided and sold his physical remains as souvenirs, Felton said that any "true-hearted husband or father" would have killed "the beast" and that Hose was due less sympathy than a rabid dog.

Felton also advocated more lynchings of black men, saying that such was "elysian" compared to the rape of white women. On at least one occasion, she stated that white Southerners should "lynch a thousand [black men] a week if it becomes necessary" to "protect woman's dearest possession."'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Her obsessive paranoia around black men as being slathering rapists is matched only by today's feminists who share this opinion about men in general. The only pertinent views she and I might share is that women ought to have the right to vote, inherit and own property, and in all other ways exist on equal legal footing as men -- but no more than that, and if they were black, should have no recognized human rights much less legal ones. Well, it's at such points she and I diverge like two people running in opposite directions from an erupting volcano.

It strikes me that "equality" interested her only insofar as it brought benefit to women as a class, and it was icing on the cake to the degree that it detracted from anything men as a class may have had going for them. In short, she was a classic feminist. Some things never change but at the same time, still do. Funny, that.

I can just imagine what she would have to say about the current college campus rape hysterics drama currently playing out on campuses and in government. I predict she'd be right up there with McCaskill and Gillibrand, babbling their foolishness at the stacked and staged "award" ceremonies and ersatz press conferences we've grown accustomed to seeing on TV, only to be followed by taxpayer-funded red wine and/or champagne-fuelled lunches and dinners at some private dining club in D.C.

The state of Virginia constitutionally limits its governors to non-consecutive 4-year terms of office. (Art. V, Sect. I.) A governor can run more than once for that office, but not immediately after his prior term as governor is complete. The result is that the endless incumbencies to the governorship that plague other states, the House of Reps. and the Senate, etc., are not a problem in VA (as far as governors go), and because the voters get a guaranteed chance to see fresh faces and hear fresh ideas, lo, they tend to pick brand-new governors even over previous popular ones who try running again some number of years after their prior governorship. So most VA governors do not serve more than a single term in their lifetimes.

I think when they went to draft the VA constitution, they got this right. Now if we could only get that for every other state and federal elected politician, at least for the executive and legislative branches. Judicial, well, gotta think about that one, but if I had to answer it now, I'd go with term limits for them, too. After all, you have as much chance of getting stuck with a flake/nutcase/despot on the bench as you do a genius/enlightened one/King Solomon type, so may as well keep rotating through them, too. Besides, how the heck are going to get the ludicrous "family court" precedents changed until we start getting some new blood onto the benches?

Like0 Dislike0

I made a similar comparison to black lynchings in another forum--and had the comment deleted.

At the time, I had not heard of this gal; she sounds like modern feminists, except modern feminists want all men lynched, not just blacks. Getting rid of due process makes that so much easier. Just accuse a man and he's expelled--not lynched perhaps, but with a stain on his record for the rest of his life.

Her appeal to "chivalry" is also telling. Chivalry was a sort of kindness bestowed on someone--typically of lesser social status--by someone of higher social status. It was, at least originally, not required by law, but was often granted by a lord to his vassal out of mercy. By and large, men have been expected to be chivalrous towards women. And it explains a lot of male behavior toward women: outrageous claims by feminist women are often unchallenged because of chivalry.

Today, chivalry has become a requirement: men must show kindness and mercy toward women, no matter what she's done. Family courts do this routinely. Conversely, women demand chivalrous behavior from men as a female entitlement. On the other hand, men have no right to expect chivalry from females. Indeed, the same women who deny chivalry to men (hang 'em high) insist they are entitled to chivalry from men.

This gal is one of those: she wants to lynch black men while appealing to Southern chivalry for the vote.

Chivalry has long played a major role in relations between men and women, at least in the West. Maybe it's time for a new model of behavior between men and women. The old "justice for men, mercy for women" approach has run its course. And yet it is largely feminists--despite their cries for equality--who insist on continuing the chivalric code. For obvious reasons--it works to their advantage. But it no longer serves men. It's a medieval idea from a time or lords and vassals that should go the way of the Inquisition.

Like0 Dislike0

In the Documents, Downloads and Off-Links section under the Main Menu at the left side of the MANN site, there's a reply I wrote to an Australian student re chivalry and its relevancy/role, if any, in the modern world. Feel free to read it and comment if you are so moved. The direct link is http://downloads.mensactivism.org/MANN_Chivalry_Relevance_Inquiry_20140316.pdf.

Like0 Dislike0

I was unsuccessful in copying from the article (for whatever technical reason) but you make an excellent point about women being permitted to behave in less than honorable fashion. Men, of course, are not.

One of the favorite sayings of the modern feminist is that "Well-behaved women rarely make history." Of course, you never hear "Well-behaved men rarely make history."

It's actually part of traditional chivalry: women get away with things men cannot. Men are expected to behave according to certain standards; these standards don't apply to women. Thus, a woman can slap a man--but he better not slap back.

It becomes very difficult to create gender equality within the framework of chivalry. Chivalry is addictive, especially for women. But even men get a kick out of chivalry: they get to be the white knight rescuing the damsel in distress.

But it also gets old for men: they are obligated to live by the rules while women are not. That makes establishing any kind of "social contract" extremely difficult.

It's like the American Indians used to say about white men: they speak with forked tongue. A lot of men experience women speaking with "forked tongues." But they're told women are allowed to do that. It's just men who can't speak with "forked tongue." If he commits to marriage, he's obligated to keep supporting her if when she leaves. Women, on the other hand, can walk away and give him nothing in return.

Anyway, excellent piece, Matt.

Like0 Dislike0

Thanks, el cid. Yep, cafeteria-style, woman-defined chivalry is a guaranteed man-shafter.

Like0 Dislike0