‘The whole education of women ought to be relative to men. To please them, to be useful to them, to make themselves loved and honoured by them, to educate them when young, to care for them when grown, to counsel them, to console them, and to make life sweet and agreeable to them – these are the duties of women at all times and what should be taught them from their infancy.’ Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Little did I think that my work would be first published like this. I was in Amsterdam, was just about to publish two novel medical scientific papers and had already done enough experiments to know that I was onto something big. When these papers appeared – the equivalent of two Ph.D’s, independently undertaken – I thought that doors would open, opportunities would present themselves and my new system of Procedural Analysis, by which human behaviour can be completely understood, would be a Big Thing. I hadn’t arrived at the notion of Big Sister yet.
This booklet is designed to present the maximum information in the minimum space, and some omissions will be inevitable. It is a collection of conclusions, not a documentary of how they were arrived upon. My findings, obtained by logical deduction, came as quite a surprise. If anyone is still under the illusion that males and females are the same except for a few superficial differences, as I once was, they should read Brainsex by Moir and Jessel. This is a good, informal summary of my university course on Sex Differences.
A common reaction to my attitude now is to think that I don’t like women. This is not true at all, indeed I have loved several of the fairer sex to bits. But it is not sane to hold in high esteem someone – or some group – that is bleeding you dry. One does not respect the burglar who carries away your valuables, the invader who kills your family or the con man who swindles your inheritance. It’s not a question of liking: the burglar might be a lovable rogue, the invader could be your brother in a civil war, the con man might be so skilled as to inspire admiration. Emotions don’t come into it. The reality, I contend, is that we, men – particularly Occidental males – are being taken to the cleaners. It is time for this to stop, for when it does it will be to the ultimate benefit of everyone, including our women.
HULL, JANUARY 1998
Contents of the Second Edition, 2015
All About Women is essential reading for men – and feminists looking for a hate figure. The publication summarizes the results of Sheppard’s experiments into human behaviour, and female behaviour in particular, which took place in Amsterdam. Since women vary less than men it is possible to understand their strategies – once it is understood that females are purposefully illogical to make it appear otherwise! It details the nature of women, many of their strategies, their essentially sexual nature and the distortions in perception they promote as defence mechanisms to compensate for the superior physical strength of males. In ‘easy-read’ format with quotes by Darwin, Philo, Rousseau etc. about the nature and inferiority of women. A mine of information that you’re unlikely to be told by the current media clique. Now in its second edition with an Introduction by Jack Donovan. All About Women: What Big Sister Doesn’t Want You to Know by Simon Sheppard, 52 pages, ISBN 978-1-901240-30-6, 2015.
|From squatters’ commune to Lord Mayor’s parlour, the female instinct is always the same|
Aliens’ presence on males’ territory is contrary to their instincts and confounds them, making them easier to manipulate by females.
‘According to William Langer, “in the eighteenth century it was not an uncommon spectacle to see the corpses of infants lying in the streets or on the dunghills of London and other large cities.” Abandonment at the door of a church would have been preferred, but the chance of discovery was too great. Eventually parliament decided to intervene and set up foundling hospitals with various systems for collecting unwanted infants without risk to the donor. On the Continent, infants were passed through revolving doors set in the walls of foundling hospitals.
‘But government was not capable of sustaining the cost of rearing children to adulthood, and foundling hospitals quickly became de facto slaughterhouses whose prime function was to authenticate the state’s claim to a monopoly over the right to kill. Between 1756 and 1760 there were 15,000 admissions to London’s first foundling hospital; of those admitted, only 4,400 survived to adolescence. Additional thousands of foundlings continued to be destroyed by wet nurses employed by parish workhouses. In order to economize, parish officers assigned the infants to women who were nicknamed “killing nurses” or “she butchers” because “no child escaped their care alive.” On the Continent admissions to foundling hospitals increased steadily even during the early years of the nineteenth century. In France admissions rose from 40,000 a year in 1784 to 138,000 in 1822. By 1830 there were 270 revolving boxes in use throughout France, with 336,297 infants legally abandoned during the decade 1824-33. “Mothers who left their babies in the box knew that they were consigning them to death almost as surely as if they dropped them in the river.” Between 80 and 90 per cent of the children in these institutions died during their first year of life.’ Marvin Harris, Cannibals and Kings: The Origin of Cultures, pp. 199-200, as quoted in All About Women.
On the granting of voting rights to women, The Times, 11 January 1918, p. 8
LORD CURZON REMAINS UNCONVINCED
EARL CURZON, after explaining that in taking part in the debate he was not speaking as spokesman of the Government or Leader of the House stated that, having listened to nearly every speech, he personally remained unconvinced that it was either fair, or desirable, or wise, in the manner proposed, to add six million voters to the electorate of the country. In the first place, this was a vast, incalculable, and almost catastrophic change, which, whatever might be their views about it, was without precedent in history and without justification in experience. Nothing could alter the undisputed fact that no great State in history had ever made so far-reaching a change ; and he could not think he was acting foolishly in ranging himself by the side of France and Italy – he would not mention Germany in this connexion – and the other great countries on the Continent, while the example of Russia, which at one sweep had conceded universal suffrage, male and female, did not fill him with enthusiasm. The second point which affected him was that this change, the most serious in our constitutional development for at least a century, would be irrevocable. Once given, the franchise was a boon, a privilege, a right – whatever they liked to call it – which could never be taken back. It might be misused or even abused ; but once given it could never be withdrawn. It might be that they would be doing more than crossing the Rubicon. They would be opening the floodgates to something much more than a tidal river – they would be opening them to a flood which they could not stop, which might presently overspread this country and submerge many landmarks. He had heard in this debate no sufficient answer to the plea that no mandate or authority had been given by the country for the grant of the vote to women.
Giving women a voice and allowing them to comment on contemporary social problems is rather like asking the Devil for advice on how to cure sin.
Detail of page 4 (1st edition)
Actual (low resolution) scan of two facing pages (1st edition)