Otto Weininger (1903): "The Woman is the main obstacle against women's emancipation." Peter Klevius (watching women's world cup 2019): Feminists tried to stop women from playing football in England and Sweden.

While (mostly "white"*) men tried to help girls/women playing football, one group of feminists stopped it and later feminists blamed it on men.

 * "Colored" or "black" men were (and still are to a high degree) hampered by sexist islam (and other "monotheist cultures").

Right part of the image from Peter Klevius web museum which hasn't been touched for more than a decade.

Peter Klevius PhD research long time ago (added by newer citations below) revealed that the English FA in December 1921 only banned women from playing on its grounds because of strong pressure from feminists.

In Sweden the feminist Group Eight, founded 1968, vehemently opposed girls and women playing football.

Extract from Peter Klevius Born to Play a Sport of Nature exemplifying the above:

Sweden:

An examination of one of Sweden’s foremost feminist organizations in the late 1960s and 1970s, the left wing communism inspired Grupp Åtta (Group 843), reveals that sport was seldom debated in positive terms among its members. Furthermore, football was seen as an ‘unacceptable and uninteresting “masculine” form of culture’ (Hjelm 2004: 277). This is the more contradictory because, according to Hjelm, the same feminists also proposed that women, at an individual as well as at a collective level, should try and learn new activities – such as, for example, amateur painting, and performing political music and theater – things they had not dared to try before (Hjelm 2004: 177). Under the feminist Group 8, Swedish females would most probably not have been encouraged to play football.

For feminists and the political left in Sweden competitive sports in general, and especially football, were ‘hopelessly characterized by masculinity’, and, according to one informant from the original Group 8, sport supervisors and teachers of gymnastics were among the worst ‘indoctrinators of our rigid sex role patterns’ (Hjelm 2004: 276). Another aspect of the female resistance against female football seems related and very consistent over time. Whereas in the 1920s the concern about dangers facing sporting females targeted the reproductive organs, in the 1960s the focus was laid on ‘dangling’ breasts, and more recently on the disturbed menstruation cycle. In England, the concern about female fragility has led to the situation that girls and boys aged 12 are not allowed to play against each other (Kosonen 1991, Seiro 2002 in Paavola 2003: 33). All of these can be seen as different aspects of the same underlying resistance, especially targeting football and seemingly paradoxically including many female critics.

It has been noted that sporting females have not internalized role conflicts (Laitinen 1983, 34). However, asks Paavola (2003: 43), herself a footballer, if sporting females do not experience role conflicts, would it be possible that those women for whom sport does cause such conflicts, do not participate in sport because of this?  This conclusion may be adapted not only to the case of the Swedish feminist Group 8 above but also, and similarly, to all the girls that have avoided football precisely because it poses role conflicts. In this light, the Swedish feminists from the 1970s described above seem to have been basically separatist and hence ‘real feminists’ as it is understood here, and consequently for a  continuing sex segregation. Furthermore, a logical consequence of this reasoning would be that much of the so called ‘equal-feminist’ movement was not feminist after all, but rather a social twin to the early women’s movement for the vote and other equal rights.

England:

During the course of World War I, football in England changed. From having been a tough sport practiced by lower class males, it evolved into a two-sex, and even mixed-sex sport. This development is best exemplified by the case of Lily Parr and Dick, Kerr’s Ladies. Whereas Lily Parr took her first steps towards the position as the first woman in the football’s hall of fame, freed from femininity among males on the rough backyards and streets of St. Helen, Dick, Kerr’s Ladies developed from a mixed-sex factory team to one of England’s most successful female teams. With the young males serving in the war, factory girls continued playing and soon challenged neighbouring teams as well as national teams.
By the end of 1921 it is estimated that some 150 women’s football clubs were active in England, mainly in the North and Midlands (Williams & Woodhouse 1991:93). This pattern is similar as to that of Sweden, i.e. that it was not the biggest cities that functioned as a fertile ground for women’s football but rather the opposite. It may also be noted that the public success of women’s football in the early 1920s just followed a similar boost on the men’s side (Williams & Woodhouse 1991:94). Two main explanations for the English FA ban on women’s football may be suggested:

            ▪ Money and power.
            ▪ Fear of defeminization (or demasculinization).

Initially, and for quite some time, the monetary, as well as other practical aspects of the women’s charity games, seemed to have developed to the satisfaction of all, including the F.A. According to Williamson (1991: 58), ‘because of the level of co-operation shown to the girls by the men's clubs, and the increasingly well-oiled operation of the charities in organising the games in the first place, the F.A. was content with the way things were going.’ This state of the matter, however, lasted only ‘until certain rumours began to filter through to the hierarchy of the Football Association.’ The actual source of these rumours has never been discovered.

The FA had debated the financial repercussions of continuing with women's matches for months before the decision. According to Williams (2003), the decision appeared to be about the Football League and Association's continued attempts to recoup and defend a masculine image for football. It was impossible to stop women playing per se, but those who did participate were simultaneously seen to behave in an inappropriate manner, in places where they ought not to be. The ban spread across Britain quickly (Williams 2003:32). ‘To recoup and defend a masculine image’, of course, simultaneously implies to recoup and defend a feminine image. This relation ought to be considered when making this evaluation.
Throughout his autobiography Fifty Years of Football 1884-1934 Frederick Wall, Secretary of the FA at the time of the ban, clearly expresses his hostile views against professionalism and commercialism connected to football. I was asked, writes Wall, to referee the first women's football match at Crouch End. I declined, but I went to see the match and came to the conclusion that the game was not suitable for them (Wall 1935/2006: 15-16).

Mary Scharlieb, an influential Harley street physician, expressed her opinion as: ‘I consider it (football) a most unsuitable game, too much for a woman's physical frame’ (Williamson 1991:55). This paraphrasing from a woman physician seems well in line with the wording in the FA ban. After all, the ban was based on a previously arranged meeting with experts on women's health.

Another precursor to the ban may have been the publication of London physician Arabella Kenealy's Feminism and Sex Extinction in 1920 which, according to Russell (1997), outlined the supposed ‘sterilizing’ influences of competitive games, at the same time as the National Birth Rate Commission expressed concern over the fall in the rate of childbirth. Iimmediately after 1921 came a debate in the Lancet and in educational circles over the effects on women of athletics and sport in general. The Board of Education's Chief Medical Officer (assumingly a male) called for more of physical education for girls at the same time as other98 contributors to the Lancet suggested that women's health had been permanently damaged by athletics. The 'Sexless gymnast' reached the national press, a focus of complex anxieties about the appropriate role of women. This was potentially as damaging to the movement for women's physical education as the Victorian 'overstrain' argument (Russell 1997: 97 cited in Williams 2003: 35). The male Mayor of Liverpool commented thus on the proposed ban by FA:

‘I may mention that in the past and present seasons I have watched about 30 ladies' football matches between various teams and I have met the players. I have travelled with them frequently by road and rail ....On all sides I have heard nothing but praise for the good work the girls are doing and the high standard of their play. The only thing I hear from the man in the street is ‘Why have the FA got the knife out for women's football? What have the girls done except raise large sums for charity and play the game? Are their feet heavier on the turf then the men's teams?’ (London Lesbian Kickabouts 2007-04-02).

Militaristic England (and BBC) make a lot of war propaganda noise to get more military budget - but "forget" the real D-Day.

UK/US constantly firebombed civilians in Dresden 13 Feb 1945 – 15 Feb 1945 with 722  (RAF) and 527 (USAAF) heavy bombers dropping some 4,000 incendiary bombs over an unprotected city.

It was a war crime but in the 4th Geneva Convention of 1949 UK/US stopped its investigation.

No real military reasons

The journalist Alexander McKee cast doubt on the meaningfulness of the list of targets mentioned in the 1953 USAF report, pointing out that the military barracks listed as a target were a long way out of the city and were not in fact targeted during the raid.[137] The "hutted camps" mentioned in the report as military targets were also not military but were camps for refugees.[137] It is also stated that the important Autobahn bridge to the west of the city was not targeted or attacked, and that no railway stations were on the British target maps, nor any bridges, such as the railway bridge spanning the Elbe River.[138] Commenting on this, McKee says: "The standard whitewash gambit, both British and American, is to mention that Dresden contained targets X, Y and Z, and to let the innocent reader assume that these targets were attacked, whereas in fact the bombing plan totally omitted them and thus, except for one or two mere accidents, they escaped".[139] McKee further asserts "The bomber commanders were not really interested in any purely military or economic targets, which was just as well, for they knew very little about Dresden; the RAF even lacked proper maps of the city. What they were looking for was a big built up area which they could burn, and that Dresden possessed in full measure."[140]

According to the historian Sönke Neitzel, "it is difficult to find any evidence in German documents that the destruction of Dresden had any consequences worth mentioning on the Eastern Front. The industrial plants of Dresden played no significant role in German industry at this stage in the war".[141] Wing Commander H. R. Allen said, "The final phase of Bomber Command's operations was far and away the worst. Traditional British chivalry and the use of minimum force in war was to become a mockery and the outrages perpetrated by the bombers will be remembered a thousand years hence".[142]
A memorial at cemetery Heidefriedhof in Dresden. It reads: "Wieviele starben? Wer kennt die Zahl? An deinen Wunden sieht man die Qual der Namenlosen, die hier verbrannt, im Höllenfeuer aus Menschenhand." ("How many died? Who knows the count? In your wounds one sees the agony of the nameless, who in here were conflagrated, in the hellfire made by hands of man.")

Military facilities in the north weren't bombed.

The Albertstadt, in the north of Dresden, had remarkable military facilities that the bombings failed to hit. Today they are officer's schools ("Offiziersschule des Heeres") for the Bundeswehr and its military history museum (from prehistoric to modern times).

A war crime

    ... ever since the deliberate mass bombing of civilians in the second world war, and as a direct response to it, the international community has outlawed the practice. It first tried to do so in the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, but the UK and the US would not agree, since to do so would have been an admission of guilt for their systematic "area bombing" of German and Japanese civilians.
    — A.C. Grayling.[143]

Frederick Taylor told Der Spiegel, "I personally find the attack on Dresden horrific. It was overdone, it was excessive and is to be regretted enormously," but, "A war crime is a very specific thing which international lawyers argue about all the time and I would not be prepared to commit myself nor do I see why I should. I'm a historian."[123] Similarly, British philosopher A. C. Grayling has described British area bombardment as an "immoral act" and "moral crime" because "destroying everything ... contravenes every moral and humanitarian principle debated in connection with the just conduct of war," but, "It is not strictly correct to describe area bombing as a 'war crime'."[144]

As a war crime

Though no one involved in the bombing of Dresden was ever charged with a war crime, some hold the opinion that the bombing was one.

According to Dr. Gregory Stanton, lawyer and president of Genocide Watch:

    ... every human being having the capacity for both good and evil. The Nazi Holocaust was among the most evil genocides in history. But the Allies' firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also war crimes – and as Leo Kuper and Eric Markusen have argued, also acts of genocide. We are all capable of evil and must be restrained by law from committing it.[145]

Historian Donald Bloxham states, "The bombing of Dresden on 13–14 February 1945 was a war crime".[146] He further argues there was a strong prima facie case for trying Winston Churchill among others and a theoretical case Churchill could have been found guilty. "This should be a sobering thought. If, however it is also a startling one, this is probably less the result of widespread understanding of the nuance of international law and more because in the popular mind 'war criminal', like 'paedophile' or 'terrorist', has developed into a moral rather than a legal categorisation".[146]

German author Günter Grass is one of several intellectuals and commentators who have also called the bombing a war crime.[147]

Proponents of this position argue that the devastation from firebombing was greater than anything that could be justified by military necessity alone, and this establishes a prima facie case. The Allies were aware of the effects of firebombing, as British cities had been subject to them during the Blitz.[d] Proponents disagree that Dresden had a military garrison and claim that most of the industry was in the outskirts and not in the targeted city centre,[148] and that the cultural significance of the city should have precluded the Allies from bombing it.

British historian Antony Beevor wrote that Dresden was considered relatively safe, having been spared previous RAF night attacks, and that at the time of the raids there were up to 300,000 refugees in the area seeking sanctuary from the advancing Red Army from the Eastern Front.[149] In Fire Sites, German historian Jörg Friedrich says that the RAF's bombing campaign against German cities in the last months of the war served no military purpose. He claims that Winston Churchill's decision to bomb a shattered Germany between January and May 1945 was a war crime. According to him, 600,000 civilians died during the allied bombing of German cities, including 72,000 children. Some 45,000 people died on one night during the firestorms that engulfed Hamburg in July 1943.

Today former allies UK and Russia consider themselves as islam's best friend.