MGTOW – Middle School Boys Speak Out Against Feminism

Degradation of Males After decades of degradation of boys and men of all ages is society starting to wake up to the vile abuse that men and boys endure from the mouths and behaviour of entitled females? Has toxic feminism turned females into loud mouthed narcissists? The next generation of MGTOW men will likely emerge at an even younger age as the years go by. This belief was corroborated by a conversation that I had with my sister the other day as she was working at her job at a middle school. Middle school boys were asked about their frustrations with the girls at the school. A MGTOW moment ensued. #hoodiesup The next generation of MGTOW men will likely emerge at an even younger age as the years go by. This belief was corroborated by a conversation that I had with my sister the other day as she was working at her job at a middle school. Middle school boys were asked about their frustrations with the girls at the school. A MGTOW moment ensued. #hoodiesup This talkie video is by a young dude by the name of Sunrise Hoodie. You can check out his You Tube site at:

Some of the comments:

One punch Meme 19 months ago (edited) Shit a few years ago there was a kid making mgtow videos. They called him the son of sandman. I can’t remember his channel name but his message was on point. I remember when I was a kid I was aware of the gender double standards. The boy’s use to get top of the play set and yell no girls allowed repeatedly. The women teachers scolded and shamed us hard, giving us detention and making sure our moms knew that we didn’t respect women. The girls would do the same thing yelling no boy’s allowed and those same teachers would walk by and give them the nod of approval. Boys even in kindergarten already know the feeling of being the bad guy by default. I’m sure every guy had that female teacher or teachers that hated his guts for nothing more than just reasons. Abandoned&Forgotten9 months ago (edited) I though it was bad in the 1980s when I was in middle school and it was. What these boys are going through today is simply Hell on Earth. I pulled my son out of public school and began to home school him by grade 3. By grade 3 the misandry and complete incompetence of the entirely female staff of his “teachers” was simply out of control. Every day I watched the fire in him fade a liitle more. Fast forward a dozen years and my son is now a happy, intelligent, well adjusted adult MGTOW, pulling down 5 figures and living comfortably. Home schooling was the only option these misandrist indoctrination barns left me with. It was also the easiest and the best thing I ever did. You’re welcome, son. Public school is no place for young boys and men. Bruce Lightfoot9 months ago My son at age 14 this year cane to me and said “dad, there’s no point in marriage.”. I was “what do you mean?”. He was went on to say “well look at you, you work, have us full time, do all the cooking and cleaning and even did it all when you were married to mom. Women don’t do anything.”. I was floored. He figured this out in his own. Part of me does wish I could find a decent woman to be ina relationship with. No not marry. I will never give a woman that much power again. But I do wish my son could see a healthy relationship between a man and a woman.    ]]>


no medical society in the world recommends it. This invasive procedure carries serious health risks, including infection, hemorrhage, surgical mishap, and death, as well many ethical considerations. [gallery ids="19616,19615,19617" type="rectangular"] FIND OUT MUCH MORE Myth – Circumcising baby boys is a safe and harmless procedure. Fact – Surgically removing part of a baby boy’s penis causes pain, creates immediate health risks and can lead to serious complications. Risks include infection, hemorrhage, scarring, difficulty urinating, loss of part or all of the penis, and even death. Circumcision complications can and do occur in even the best clinical settings. Myth – Circumcision is just a little snip. Fact – Surgical removal of the foreskin involves immobilizing the baby by strapping him face-up onto a molded plastic board. In one common method, the doctor then inserts a metal instrument under the foreskin to forcibly separate it from the glans, slits the foreskin, and inserts a circumcision device. The foreskin is crushed and then cut off. The amount of skin removed in a typical infant circumcision is the equivalent of 15 square inches in an adult male. Myth – Circumcision is routinely recommended and endorsed by doctors and other health professionals. Fact – No professional medical association in the U.S. or anywhere else in the world recommends routine circumcision as medically necessary. In fact, leaving boys intact is now the norm in the U.S., with circumcision rates well below 40%. Myth – The baby does not feel any pain during circumcision. Fact – Circumcision is painful. Babies are sensitive to pain, just like older children and adults. The analgesics used for circumcision only decrease pain; they do not eliminate it. Further, the open wound left by the removal of the foreskin will continue to cause the baby pain and discomfort for the 7-10 days it takes to heal. Myth – If I don’t circumcise my son, he will be ridiculed. Fact – Times have changed and so has people’s understanding of circumcision. Today, although the popularity of circumcision varies across geographical areas, more than 60% of all baby boys born in the U.S. will leave the hospital intact. Most medically advanced nations do not practice child circumcision. Three quarters of the world’s men are intact. Myth – A boy should be circumcised to look like his father. Fact – Children differ from their parents in many ways, including eye and hair color, body type, and (of course) size and sexual development. If a child asks why his penis looks different from that of his circumcised father (or brother), parents can say, “Daddy (or brother) had a part of his penis removed when he was a baby; now we know it’s not necessary and we decided not to let anyone do that to you.” Myth – Routine circumcision of baby boys cannot be compared to Female Genital Mutilation. Fact – Rationales offered in cultures that promote female genital cutting – hygiene, disease prevention, improved appearance of the genitalia, and social acceptance – are similar to those offered in cultures that promote male circumcision. Whatever the rationale, forced removal of healthy genital tissue from any child – male or female – is unethical. Boys have the same right as girls to an intact body, and to be spared this inhumane, unnecessary surgery. Myth – To oppose male circumcision is religious and cultural bigotry. Fact – Many who oppose the permanent alteration of children’s genitals do so because they believe in universal human rights. All children – regardless of their ethnicity or culture – have the right to be protected from bodily harm. Myth – Circumcising newborn baby boys produces health benefits later in life. Fact – There is NO link between circumcision and better health. In fact, cutting a baby boy’s genitals creates immediate health risks. The foreskin is actually an important and functional body part, protecting the head of the penis from injury and providing moisture and lubrication. Circumcision also diminishes sexual pleasure later in life. Myth – Male circumcision helps prevent HIV. Fact – Claims that circumcision prevents HIV have repeatedly been proven to be exaggerated or false. Only abstinence or safe sex, including the use of condoms, can prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS.   [simple-payment id=”741″]  ]]>

Circumcision: The double standard of genital mutilation

Joe Wilson 7 Comments The debate on circumcision, male genital mutilation, is once again gaining attention. On August 1, on behalf of their wives, 12 men were ambushed and forced to undergo male genital mutilation without anesthesia. The men were stripped naked, smeared with mud, and paraded around the town of Moi’s Bridge in Western Kenya. Their crime? Apparently they lacked hygiene and were not sexually satisfying to their women. Besides the barbaric nature of the attack, equally disturbing but predictable is the mainstream media’s lack of coverage of the crime. Had this been done to women … ah yes, we would have heard about it. But for males, circumcision has evolved from a cultural ritual to a routinely practiced procedure. Debate brings out strong opponents both for and against the procedure. I can understand the “against” proponents since the procedure is rooted in ancient rituals and the science behind the practice is at best quackery, but the “for circumcision” group really stumped me until I began researching. My mom was a “for circumcision” advocate but had later changed her position. I had been circumcised—and I was the only one in my family. My mom told me that the doctors convinced her to have it done (neither my dad or brothers were circumcised). She regretted it after I developed an infection and had to go back to the Montreal Children’s Hospital several times over the course of a month. But before regretting the decision (which came years later), she told me that she often took a stand to strongly defend the procedure when discussing it with her circle of friends. As I probed her stand, she stated it had more to do with avoiding guilt than anything else. She had made the decision to have me circumcised and couldn’t live with the idea that her decision was in retrospect wrong and would result in actual harm to her child. There had to be some “benefit” to justify the ordeal. My mom’s position could be the reason a lot of dissenting voices come out at the calls for abolishing circumcision. After being coached into making the decision—which is easier done if the father is circumcised—they justify their actions (because frankly there is no going back). If the mutilation takes a turn for the worse (i.e., infection, complication)—or more commonly after witnessing the pain experienced by the boy—parents feel it even more necessary to back up their original decision. It has more to do with lessening their own guilt than validating the purported benefits of circumcision. The Benefits of Circumcision Then there are those out there who will vehemently argue with you that male genital mutilation (circumcision) IS NOTHING like female genital mutilation. They (usually feminist who don’t like to share the victim podium) will quote that male circumcision is a benefit. I am here to tell you that they are correct! There is a tremendous benefit—but NOT TO THE MALE. The real benefit goes to the institutions that gain to profit from this barbaric procedure. In the fall of 1989, I was a graduate student at a prominent Montreal university. I was heading back to my tissue cell culture lab when I stumbled upon Dr. G. After exchanging greetings, she asked me how things were going with my research. I told her “not so good.” I had been having challenges getting my V79 human fibroblast cells to work for a series of experiments. And that’s when she told me. She gets her cells from the [redacted] hospitalfrom circumcised boys! And how exactly does she do that? Well, [redacted] conducts a huge number of circumcisions each year and yes the foreskin … they sell them! They make excellent cell cultures, she said enthusiastically. This revelation on the whereabouts of discarded foreskin rubbed me the wrong way. There was an ethical component, but on a more personal level there was an intuitive feeling that somehow perhaps the whole procedure was a sham. But like most people I shifted attention to other issues, and had it not been for the recent red pill revelation I most likely would never have given a shit. Global Conspiracy? Besides guilt-ridden parents or religious zealots, why would anyone else want to ensure that male genital mutilation continues unhindered? Could it be because circumcision is a BILLION-DOLLAR industry! The foreskin of a Caucasian newborn male will set you back $431. That’s if you’re buying it for profit (i.e., cosmetics); if you’re buying it for research, then it’s $359.17. What cosmetics? Human male foreskin is the latest sick trend in the cosmetics world. For instance, facial cream from SkinMedica is a cream that contains boys’ foreskin. It is a product that is promoted by Oprah Winfrey. One of the side benefits of using human foreskin is that it doesn’t have to undergo animal testing! The circumcision procedure itself is a valuable cash cow as well. Each year, 55% of the approximately 2 million men in the US are circumcised. This number has decreased recently and has the medical establishment fuming mad. But the reasons they are upset of course isn’t because they fear revenue lost … no … it’s because of their concern for the health of men. Yeah right! Because we care so much for men that we have national commissions set up for their welfare! We’ll look at the so-called benefits a little later on and dispel any reason these so-called intellectuals have. Back to the question, What does eliminating circumcision mean? Well, in the US, a circumcision could cost you about $250. When you multiply that out, it comes to about $275 million (in the US alone) each year. As for the rest of the world—consider that one-third of all males are circumcised! But Circumcision Is NOTHING Like Female Genital Mutilation, Right? The foreskin is a specialized, functional organ designed for enhancing pleasure. Nature has designed it with a GREATER variety and concentration of nerve receptors THAN ANY PART OF THE PENIS. Those who condemn female genital mutilation say it’s because it removes part of the girl intended to enhance sexual pleasure. Well, the same could be said for the foreskin. An average circumcision will remove as much as 240 feet of nerves, and more than 20,000 nerve endings! Without the foreskin, the glans (tip of the penis) also becomes desensitized to touch—further robbing the male of sexual pleasure. A circumcised male’s glans becomes keratinized (addition of successive layers of skin), becoming much tougher and dryer as a result. The glans was never designed to be an “external organ.” The circumcision process requires tearing foreskin from the glans and “pieces” of the glans could be torn off as well. Sometimes “shreds” of skin left over from the mutilation will hang from the glans. Depending on how much foreskin is removed during circumcision, as much as 80 percent or more of a boy’s penile skin could be removed. This results in a significantly SMALLER PENIS—as much as 25% shorter. Removing the “extra skin” also prevents penile skin from moving freely over the shaft and glans of the penis. This results in destroying the process that normally works to stimulate the glans. A circumcised male also lacks sebaceous glands, which were designed to lubricate the penis during coitus. Without the lubrication, the dry penis dries out, making it susceptible to cracking and bleeding. Circumcision Is Illegal Doctors’ Hippocratic Oath: “First, do no harm.” EVERY doctor that has performed a circumcision procedure on a healthy boy has in fact broken the Hippocratic Oath they were sworn upon. Removing otherwise healthy skin is doing harm to the boy. In addition, in some countries, the existing laws make it unlawful to circumcise healthy boys. As Jacqueline Hooman stated in her recent article, circumcision in Canada violates the law and medical ethics. Despite this, Canadian practitioners continue to circumcise boys. Where are the legal advocates? Why hasn’t the law been addressed? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that “Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.” (Section 15-1.) While females are protected from even a prick of their foreskin, males continue to be subjected to ancient barbaric practices with no medical or legal basis. The Canadian Medical Association’s Code Of Ethics maintains that medical personnel have a duty to “consider first the well-being of the patient” and “refuse to participate in or support practices that violate basic human rights.” Furthermore, the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons deems that for consent to be valid it must be “related to treatment, informed, voluntary, not be obtained through fraud or misrepresentation.” In Layman’s terms, the Physician is obligated to inform the patient of all potential risks associated with a procedure, along with the risks of not performing said procedure. But infants are incapable of giving consent. In the instance of proxy consent (parental consent) to treatment, the O.C.P.S. states, “A physician must provide the substitute decision-maker with the information that would otherwise have been given to the patient to enable him or her to make an informed decision as to consent.” (18.) and that “A physician must consider whether the substitute decision-maker is complying with the principles set out in the HCCA. If a physician is of the view that the substitute decision-maker is not acting in accordance with the HCCA, he or she can call the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee.” In other words, doctors are not allowed to amputate healthy, functional body parts just because the parents request them to do so. In addition, the circumcised foreskin sold actually violates (at least in Canada) The Human Tissue Act: “A person shall not buy, sell or otherwise deal in, directly or indirectly, for a valuable consideration, tissue for a transplant or a body or part of a body, other than blood or a blood constituent for therapeutic purposes, medical education or scientific research.” So What Are the So-called “Benefits” of Circumcision?

  1. Fighting Urinary Tract Infections (UTI) According to the latest information, approximately 1% of boys will develop a UTI within the first years of life. However, there is absolutely NO evidence (in the form of random controlled trials) that links circumcision to a reduction in UTIs. If anything, an American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)—one of the instigators pushing for male genital mutilation—showed scant evidence that 100 circumcisions would have to be conducted to prevent only one case of UTI. And what about a MORE SERIOUS infection resulting from circumcision? Well, as we’ll see in a minute, no one’s bothered to collect data!
In reality, the “urban legend” arose from an extremely flawed study back in 1985 (Wiswell 1985). The study didn’t even accurately count whether the boys were circumcised or not!
  1. Penile Cancer You hear this one a lot. Circumcision prevents penile cancer. Penile cancer is perhaps one of the rarest forms of cancer—occurring in only 1 out of a 100,000 males. And when diagnosed early it has a good survival rate. But let’s face it, who wants to get penile cancer? So how effective is circumcision against preventing penile cancer? Well, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) study,you would need to conduct up to 322,000 circumcisions to prevent one case of penile cancer! In addition, penile cancer is thought to be linked to infection with human papillomaviruses, which is contracted during sex. If you were really concerned about it, you could use a condom!
One conclusion we should consider: since penile cancer associated with human papillomaviruses is such a concern, then why not let the boy reach adulthood (and hence age of sexual activity) and after reviewing the evidence decide for himself whether the surgery is necessary? Given the choice to use a condom or have an irreversible penile mutilation, I would expect that would help the young adult come to a decision rather quickly.
  1. Sexually Transmitted Diseases and HIV The next argument for circumcision put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is that circumcision prevents two common viral STDs (genital herpes and genital warts). The studyfor this is based on a hardly relevant sub-population of adult men in sub-Saharan Africa.
With regards to HIV, again the science is sketchy. Evidence purports that circumcision prevents HIV in heterosexual men. In particular, the data seems to support a reduction of HIV in black men. However, the data shows that the effects of preventing HIV is MOST NOTABLE in men having the procedure AFTER THE AGE OF 35! Again, with regards to STDs and HIV, if there is any concern, then the boy could decide for himself at an age of consent. If anything, at least with regards to HIV, it would actually be a benefit to wait until after the man turned 35. Well, What About the Risks of Circumcision? Again, uninformed trolls—and guilt-ridden parents—throughout the Internet will let you know that the risks with circumcision are minuscule … that the benefits outweigh the risks. In reality, the risks are very real: infections (for one, I can attest to that), hemorrhaging, meatal strictures, and even incidental deaths and partial amputations of the penis. But incredibly, probably to the benefit of the institution, the EXACT NUMBERS FOR THE RISKS HAVE NEVER BEEN MADE AVAILABLE. That’s correct. We cannot say for sure what the incident rates are for circumcision complications because there are none to be referenced. Why would such a vastly routine procedure like circumcision not have any statistics? When AAP’s eight-member team recently decided that circumcision is a “good thing,” they hardly had enough data to determine the relative magnitude of the risk involved. Anyone versed in risk management will tell you that risk = severity x probability. Without probability, the level of risk is unattainable, and by default the regulators only ASSUME that it is low. Let’s Look at the Risks in More Detail We’ve already looked at the very real desensitization of the penis to sensual touch. As I’ve indicated, we have no idea exactly how much “damage” is attributed to circumcision—because frankly I don’t think they want us to know. But there have been numerous accounts of boys losing their glans … or having their entire penis cut off usually without anesthesia! Let’s look in more detail to the harm circumcision results in.
  1. Meatal Stenosis A condition known as “meatal stenosis” can occur as a result of circumcision. Normally blood flows from the extra skin to the penis. Without the circumcised skin, blood flow is disrupted and causes a back flow of blood, resulting in an obstruction of urine flow. This condition is almost always associated with circumcised boys.
  2. Severed Lymph Vessels Circumcision results in the severing of lymph vessels. Lymph is a colorless fluid containing blood cells that is intended to bathe the tissues. When lymph circulation is hampered, it could result in lymphedema, a very painful and disfiguring condition that results in lymph not draining from the penis. This fluid becomes trapped and begins to swell.
  3. Effects on the Brain Wonder why men have lower pain thresholds than women? Studies (Taddio 1997; Anand 2000) published in leading medical journals have shown that circumcised boys have lower pain thresholds than girls or intact boys. Dr. James Prescott, a researcher in this area, suggested that circumcision could result in disturbing levels of brain damage (to the developing boy).
  4. Effect on Women The free-flowing skin of an intact penis allows the penis to move easily inside a woman in a much more pleasurable fashion. The sebaceous glands also aids in lubricating the inside of the vagina. Is it any wonder why most couples (where a man is circumcised) require an artificial lubricant?
Another effect of circumcision on moms (as well as dads) is the disruption that circumcision has on the parent-infant bonding that occurs during this crucial time following birth. Studies at the Washington University School of Medicine found that most boys would not nurse right after they were circumcised and most would not look into their mother’s eyes!
  1. Painful Procedure Before a boy can be circumcised, his foreskin must be removed from his glans. He is literally being skinned alive! In most cases, the procedure is done without anesthesia. But even when it is, studies performed at the University of Colorado School of Medicine showed that circumcised boys usually had unrestful non-REM sleep. This is in response to the boy’s bombardment of neural pathways, resulting in unbearable pain. The boys sometimes fall into a “semicoma” that can last days if not weeks. Think about it: Why do boys cry during and after a circumcision? It’s disingenuous to suggest that they DON’T FEEL ANYTHING!
Moreover, in the civilized West, only 45% of doctors (and even fewer obstetricians, 25%) use anesthesia. The reason they don’t is because it takes too much time! Studies have shown that circumcision results in post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, lower self-esteem, and issues related to intimacy (Goldman 1999; Hammond 1999; Boyle 2002). But Doesn’t Circumcision Make It More Hygienic? Perhaps the biggest myth about circumcision is that it aids in hygiene. That’s like saying cutting off a boy’s eyelid makes it more hygienic in caring for his eye! In healthy boys, the foreskin is COMPLETELY FUSED to the glans. It is designed to keep feces off the head of the penis. Circumcision causes the glans to be more susceptible to infection and more likely to bring invading germs in closer proximity to the urinary tract. But what about the production of smelly smegma? Doesn’t circumcision prevent this? Smegma is produced by both boys and girls equally. It is washed off easily during bathing. And NO, it doesn’t cause cancer. PERIOD! In conclusion, we already know the outcry a single case of female genital mutilation would bring … nothing less than a candlelight vigil and 24/7 coverage on CNN. But because men and boys are disposable, their genital mutilation comes with benefits to society … the reduction of fine lines and wrinkles. Isn’t it time that we revisit why it is that we continue to do this … and perhaps even more importantly why we continue to pretend nothing is wrong? Circumcision should not only be less prevalent, but I would suggest it should be outlawed the way female genital mutilation is.

About Joe Wilson

Joe Wilson is a healthcare executive living in Toronto. In his spare time he runs a blog on men’s rights issues. He is particularly concerned with the challenges boys face, especially with regards to education. Today’s men’s movement is giving him new hope in humanity.   [simple-payment id=”741″]]]>

The Poor Life of An Apprentice Chimney Sweep – The History of Children at Work Part 3 of 5

Children were not only expected to put up with little care, but they were expected to find customers

Produced by Owlcation for Education

In London and other larger cities apprentice chimney sweeps usually fared the worst, not only because the competition was keener, but because the chimneys were smaller and taller.

Unfortunately, especially in London and other larger cities, master chimney sweeps kept as many children as they could keep alive; many sweeps didn’t want to spend more than would keep each child moving and earning money. Too many of the children were in rags, and seldom had shoes. To save money and to keep them small so they could climb small chimneys, they were often fed as little as possible.

The children were worked long hours, even the youngest of them, at 5 or 6 years old. (The youngest known apprentice was taken at 3 1/2 years.) Most sweepers didn’t like them below the age of 6, because they were considered too weak to climb tall chimneys or work long hours, and they would “go off”, or die, too easily. But taken at 6 they were small (and could be kept that way with poor feeding), strong enough to work and not nearly as likely to die.

Each child was given a blanket. The blanket was used during the day to haul soot after cleaning a chimney. The soot was valuable. It was dumped at the master chimney sweep’s courtyard, sifted of lumps and sold as “dust” fertilizer to farmers.

After the blanket was filled and emptied of soot on a regular basis during the day, the child slept under it at night. Sometimes a child and his companion apprentices slept on either straw or on top of another blanket full of soot, and they normally huddled together for warmth. This was so common that it had a term, “sleeping in the black”, because the child, clothes, skin and the blanket were all covered with soot.

Some children actually received the weekly bath outlined in the apprenticeship agreement. However, some were never bathed, and many followed a more common custom of 3 baths per year, at Whitsuntide (shortly after Easter), Goose Fair (early October) and Christmas.

In London, many sweeper apprentices had washed on their own in a local river, the Serpentine, until one of them drowned. Then the children were discouraged from bathing in it.

The master chimney sweep might have plenty of regular customers, or might have gone through the streets calling, “soot-o” and “sweep-o”, reminding people that it was time to clean the chimney to prevent the too-common chimney fires.

If a master sweep had several apprentices, the older ones would also walk the streets calling for clients. They would do this on their own, but their call was “weep, weep”. If someone hailed them for a job, they would either fetch the master’s journeyman to handle the transaction, or they would do it themselves and bring the money back to the master.

Depending on their circumstances, people tended to wait as long as they could before having the chimneys cleaned, to save on the expense. For the child, this meant that when the child went up the chimney, there was too often a great deal of soot. As he scraped it above him and it came down on his head, in that small space, it could surround his head and shoulders and suffocate him.

[gallery ids="1552,1553" type="rectangular"]

The apprentice chimney sweeps did work that was too dangerous for anyone to do.

When a master sweep was hired to do the job, the hearth fire would be put out. Then he would place a blanket across the front of the hearth. The child would take off any jacket or shoes. If the chimney was tight, the child would “buff it”, or climb the chimney in the nude. The child pulled his apprentice sweep cap over his face and hooked it under his chin. This was the only protection the child had against the great volumes of soot and any burning creosote that would fall on his face and body as he brushed and scraped the chimney above him. The larger chimneys were about 14″ square, and the smaller ones about 9″ by 14″. If there were bends or corners, which was normal, the child had to find a way to make it past the changes in direction within that small space. Some chimneys could even be as small as 7″, and only the very smallest children were used to clean those chimney flues. The chimneys were square or rectangular, and the child could maneuver his shoulders into the corners, which allowed for crawling up some surprisingly small chimneys. The child worked his way up the chimney, holding his soot brush in his right hand above his head, and using mainly his elbows, knees, ankles and back, like a caterpillar. He often had a metal scraper in the other hand to scrape away the hard creosote deposits that stuck to the chimney walls. When a child first began to climb chimneys, his elbows and knees would be badly scraped with every climb and would bleed profusely (children climbed anywhere from 4 to 20 chimneys a day). While a few of the more humane master sweepers provided the children with knee and elbow pads, most solved this problem by “hardening” the child’s elbows and knees. This involved standing the child next to a hot fire and scraping his scraped knees and elbows with a rough brush dipped in brine. Needless to say, it was extremely painful, and many children were either beaten or bribed when they cried and tried to get away from the brush. Some children’s elbows and knees didn’t harden for weeks, months or even years. Nevertheless, they received these brush and brine treatments regularly until the scraped and burned skin hardened. Being burned by chimneys that were still hot, or by smoldering soot and creosote when a chimney fire had begun were also very common for apprentice sweeps in London. If a household waited too long to have the chimneys cleaned, then a chimney fire began, the master sweep was called to take care of it. The master sweep would then send the child up the hot chimney to clean it out, burning embers and all. Because many children burned to death this way, the master sweep would often stand on the roof with a bucket of water to dump on the child if he cried out or if flames started above him. Chimney10 Chimney9

In Part 4:  There were many ways for the children to die on the job. The apprentice chimney sweeps not only had to contend with the chimneys, they had to contend with the weather. Sir Percival Pott’s comments on apprentice chimney sweeps, 1776. If boys reached puberty, it could hold one more tragedy for them.

Chimney2 Owlcation [simple-payment id=”741″] [contact-form][contact-field label=”Name” type=”name” required=”1″ /][contact-field label=”Email” type=”email” required=”1″ /][contact-field label=”Website” type=”url” /][contact-field label=”Comment” type=”textarea” required=”1″ /][/contact-form]    ]]>