The feminist movement has for decades propagated the myth that historically, and almost universally, women have been uniquely oppressed and confined to the domestic sphere, leaving the power, wealth and public life for the men.
Over the past 170 years, the feminist movement has undergone multiple waves of change, however, a consistent thread within this ideology has been the suppression of traditionally feminine traits with the promotion of masculine traits within women. The movement which originally pledged to fight for equality between men and women bestowed upon them by their Creator (Seneca Falls Declaration 1848) has progressively abandoned the biblical distinctions between male and female genders and roles for the fictitious idea of sameness.
Within any ideological “-ism” a grain of good can be found, but within feminism, the grain of truth has mutated into a vulgar and abusive ideology. The feminist movement has been hurting and enslaving many women for decades all the while purporting to be liberating them from the alleged evils of patriarchy. Now many women are waking up to the reality that the promises of liberation and equality from the feminist movement come at a great personal cost.
God has given women the keys to the future of any society—motherhood—and if we are going to pass on a good legacy to our children true feminine feminists must take the lead within our personal spheres of influence by adhering to the authority of the Scriptures in our understanding of male and female identity and roles within the marriage, family, church, and society.
Classical feminism advocated for the recognition of the basic equal humanity, dignity, intelligence, and competence of the female sex (e.g. Olympus de Gourge, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Jane Austen). However this is not a new or revolutionary concept, it was embedded within the creation account of mankind by their Creator, “So God created man [humankind] in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Gen. 1:27)
In this verse, both males and females are included under the heading of “man” and are granted equal status as sharing in God’s image. The Bible has provided clear teaching regarding gender roles and distinctions while upholding an inalienable equality between men and women. A woman who embraces her femininity and biblical gender role is no less than a man–they are distinct yet equal.
However, the feminist movement has consistently sought to undermine gender distinctions of any kind and subsequently proven to be quite disingenuous in its claim of being advocates for women’s rights. They have not been advocates for the many women who uphold the binary definitions of gender and the God-given roles within the marriage, family, and the church. On the contrary, they have promoted women adorning masculinity and viewed femininity as a facilitator of oppression.
The feminist movement has been significantly influenced, if not highjacked, by Marxism, another -“ism” with a grain of truth, which focused on the power struggle between business owners and the working class. As the feminist movement intersected with Marxism the practical result was women being demoted from wife, mother, and matriarch to join the ranks of the labour force for the marketplace.
The feminist movement pressured women to enter the workforce in order to gain economic equality with men. However, if these women were going to compete with men within a male-dominated workplace they were called upon to shed any stereotypical femininity and female gender roles.
No longer was it acceptable for a woman to find her value in being, “created in the image of God,” now it was calculated by her ability to dominate within her life and work spheres like a man. Biblical femininity and female gender roles were typecast as weak and a relic of the oppressive patriarchal system.
The feminist movement subsequently crafted a toxic caricature of male masculinity that vilified strong and successful men. Therefore if true equality were to be attained the feminist movement required both genders to become neutered. Herein lies the real rub, the feminist movement is not pro-women it is pro-masculine women. The modern feminist, in practice, disdains feminine-women and despises masculine-men.
It should not be surprising to anyone that a feminist movement that is so anti-feminine would evolve into a quagmire of perversions. The new 21st-century feminist is defined as such, “Quite simply, feminism is about all genders having equal rights and opportunities.” (International Women’s Development Agency)
The feminist movement does not exclusively promote women’s rights but includes “all genders,” and ironically transgender-women. Quite absurdly, the feminist movement has trumpeted the valour of men winning women’s athletic competitions, beauty pageants, and laughably Woman of the Year awards.
For a female to speak out against such perversions and inequalities is considered a transgression against the feminist ideology and is met with incensed anger and disapproval. An article from the ACLU titled “Banning Trans Girls from School Sports Is Neither Feminist nor Legal” by Shayna Medley and Galen Sherwin makes the argument that, “The politicians who introduce these anti-trans bills are not concerned with the integrity of girls’ athletics, any more than proponents of bathroom bans are concerned about preventing gender-based violence. We must see these efforts for what they are: fear-mongering intended to push transgender and non-binary people out of public spaces.”
In turn, the men and women who do speak up to protect the equal rights and opportunities for these girls are vilified as transphobic oppressors of women. The response to such crusaders for female rights is met by a disproportionate level of anger and cancellation from the very people claiming to advocate for women’s rights–witness the backlash JK Rowling is receiving for having the audacity to stand up for women’s (female) rights.
This begs the question: why are feminists embracing transgender women? For decades the feminist movement has tirelessly worked to undermine gender distinctions and transgenders personify the ultimate degradation of gender. Perhaps transgender women are the logical end of the modern feminist movement. Where does this leave the female girls on the college swim team? They have become losers dominated by men in lipstick and high heels. The feminist movement is replete with people who refuse to address the real assaults on female rights and equality, like transgenderism and Islam, while also minimising the real-world success of countless women in the public sphere. This leaves many women (and men) feeling unable to relate to or work with the loud angry mob of feminists in the west.
The feminists display disproportionate levels of anger about perceived inequalities and reproduction laws which they allege are oppressing women, while they pay little regard to the reality that they are living in societies brimming with successful, wealthy, and powerful women (many of whom are also mothers). A disconnect with reality is exemplified in this quote from Martha Rampton, professor of history and director of the Center for Gender Equality at Pacific University, “the realisation that gains in female representation in politics and business, for example, are very slight.” Compare this assessment of “very slight” with the following facts:
In 1965 2.3% of the US House of Representatives were women compared to 2021 at 27.3%; In 1971 4.5% of the state legislators were women compared to 2021 at 30.8%; In 1995 0% of Fortune 500 CEO’s in the USA were women compared to 2020 at 7.4%; in 1995 9.6% of Fortune 500 board members were women compared to 2019 at 27%; In 1986 9.5% of University and College presidents were women compared to 2016 at 30.1%.
For feminists to make the claim that women have had very slight gains in representation is confounding and disingenuous. Individuals will always face challenges and need to sacrifice in order to gain success in politics and business, but the grievances of the relatively few angry feminists are not shared by the majority of females. Most women are content to rely upon men, in varying degrees, financially, socially, emotionally, and sexually and do not consider themselves oppressed and enslaved.
Many women do not feel the need to have a 50/50 representation within all areas of the public sphere. In our Western world women have equal status, rights, and opportunities as men, so why aren’t the feminists heralding their success? Though the feminist movement has for decades actively marginalised and vilified gender-based distinctions they have been unable to change the ontological realities of gender. Thus, those women who legitimise gender-based divisions of labour, appreciate the value of masculine men and feminine women, oppose abortion, and find personal worth and value in their role as wives and mothers are not considered success stories.
The very things that so beautifully distinguish women from men are trivialised by the angry feminist. God created women to be wives and mothers and gifted the female gender with the intrinsic skills of loving, nurturing and caring for others. Men and women alike can recognise that there is nothing so feminine as a woman being a mother. The female body was created to conceive, grow, bear, and nurture a child. From our wide hips to our soft and squishy bits that cradle a new born baby and cuddle a toppled toddler, the female body was created to give life and bring forth children. The feminist movement has placed little to no value on motherhood.
Perhaps one of the most detrimental effects of the modern feminist movement is the inverting of the woman’s role from a life-giver to a life-taker. The feminist movement has pressured mothers to remorselessly kill their helpless children within their wombs for the cause of equality and personal advancement.
To the true modern feminist there is nothing more important than putting herself first and everyone else second, especially men. This sentiment is decidedly anti-feminine. Modern feminists have inseparably linked abortion rights to women’s rights, but there is nothing equitable about a woman demanding autonomous control over killing her unborn child.
Where is the equity within the abortion equation for the father? He has been stripped of his right to protect his child while it is in the womb, yet after it is born he is forced to financially and practically care for it regardless of his desire to abort or not abort it. Is this equality—equal status, rights, and opportunities? Is this equitable—fair and impartial? No, the woman is demanding superiority and dominance over the father of her child and her child’s human right to live while in her womb.
A mother terminating the life of her helpless child is heinous and anti-feminine, but it is understandably necessary if the feminist movement is to neuter the sexes and undermine the distinct gender role of women.
To promote the idea that to be a strong and successful woman is to put your own goals and desires first is a lie of the feminist movement. It is a deception that is hurting women and men, and killing millions upon millions of pre-born children. Feminism contends that if a woman is to be free to control her own life, and pursue education and a career she must be in charge of her own sexuality and reproduction. The feminist movement makes broad claims that a woman’s right to abortion is necessary if she is to have equality with men and uphold her human rights.
Planned Parenthood argued the following to the US Supreme Court in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey, “the ability of women to participate equally in the economics and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.” Janice Mac Avoy is a partner at the Fried Frank law firm and links her career success to her abortion, “To the world, I am an attorney who had an abortion, and, to myself, I am an attorney because I had an abortion.” A feminist that demands the right to end the life of her helpless child so that she can “be” or “feel” successful is quintessentially anti-feminine. The testimonies of women like Mac Avoy give a great deal of credit to abortion for their career success:
“If I had been forced to raise a child 35 years ago, I would not have put myself through college and Columbia Law School. I could not have gotten a job at a prestigious law firm and risen through the ranks to become partner. I would not have met my husband and given birth to two amazing children in my late 30s when I was financially and emotionally ready to raise them.”
A movement that requires the sacrifice of your first child’s life should not be held up as good for any society. If an organised religious group encouraged parents to bring their firstborn into the church building to be offered up as a death sacrifice to a god in order to gain wealth and success would we trumpet that religion as virtuous? When the feminist movement links the success of women to their abortions is it really any different?
We have all seen the interviews of angry feminists demanding unlimited abortion in order to retain their equal rights and personal success. The fury from the feminist movement does not consider the magnitude of women within our western societies who did not need to kill their unborn children in order to be successful. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Barrett is a notable example of a mother who did not offer up her first unborn child on the ritual altar of the feminist movement, and she has been vilified and criticised for her Catholic faith, anti-abortion sentiments, and maternal-femininity.
She could never be upheld as an icon for the feminist movement as she has seven children— two of whom were adopted from Haiti and one of whom has Down Syndrome. Her astounding professional successes are insufficient to offset her crimes against the feminist ideology. She has reached the pinnacle of her profession, however, the feminist movement can not support women like Judge Barrett because she is a religious, feminine woman. Feminine women have no desire to be masculine because they see the value of gender distinctions and do not view femininity as a deficiency. There is no need to neuter the sexes in order for a woman to have equality and success.
The intrinsic problem feminists have with equality is with gender distinctions and the comparative advantages or disadvantages associated with them. If we admit the obvious differences between males and females we must also recognise that certain vocations are more conducive to specific genders.
Most obviously, a woman being a child bearer and nurturer and a man being a protector and provider. The feminist movement has aggressively sought to dismiss these gender predilections. They do not want equality in status, rights, and opportunities rather they want women to be treated as if they were the same as a man.
However, this does not always practically work and therefore in order to reach statistical parity they offer systems of advantage and employment handicapping. I have a friend who is a fireman and his difficulty is not as to if women could be valuable and useful within the fire brigade but with the realities that most women can not physically perform at the same level as most men. Therefore they must, at times, be given handicaps and special allowances. A few years back in New South Wales, Australia Fire & Rescue introduced a 50% quota within hiring, “The changes mean male and female applicants are now split into two separate streams and an equal number from the top of both streams get picked for the job. Basically, a male applicant who ranks in the 51 percentile of his gender stream will miss out on a job because of the gender quota— even if he got a better score on his tests than a female applicant.”
It doesn’t take a PhD in gender studies to see that this policy is a disaster and will weaken our Fire & Rescue and put lives at risk by an influx of under-equipped women who were hired to meet a gender-based quota. A NSW male firefighter spoke up regarding the lowering of standards brought about due to these quotas said, “If my child was in a car accident, I’d want the best firefighter to rescue her, not a diversity quota.” As offensively sexist as this comment may sound, it is true. Gender differences require an open recognition of the general limitations associated with sex. If we are not permitted to make allowances for intrinsic gender differences we can never have true equity within the equation.
The modern feminist movement has convinced many women that there is little value in being a wife and mother and raising children. Rather their primary value is found in their education, personal achievements, and careers. In order to undermine gender distinctions and promote women’s equality with men all roles and jobs traditionally or biologically exclusive to women are of less value to the feminist movement.
Transactionally a married woman who has multiple children, sacrifices her education and career in order to stay at home and raise her children and support her husband and community is less valuable to the feminist ideology than a CEO who has a Masters in business and economics and has given birth to 1.6 children (birth rate of women 2020 USA). I have ministered to women in the church for over 20 years and I have observed the immense pressure on women to quantify their value based on higher education, income, and influence in the public sphere. Many of these women have been tormented between choosing their children or choosing a career. Every time they drop off their baby at daycare their heartbreaks and they feel guilty. For many women, the feminist movement has not liberated them but enslaved them.
In the 1960s the majority of households had a single earner, usually the father, however over the course of the next thirty years more and more women threw off their aprons and entered the workforce. If both the husband and wife work their household is now reliant upon two incomes, for better or for worse. Within the traditional household, the man earned the primary salary for the household and the wife was free to respond to the winds of change— children, sickness, volunteering or earning auxiliary income during difficult financial times. We now see that double-income households are more likely to file for bankruptcy and have a higher average propensity to consume.
After paying for work clothes, fuel, house cleaning, fast food, and childcare mid to low-income earners may find that they are actually paying to work. In Western countries, a woman can, if she chooses and is willing to work and sacrifice, be highly successful and influential in the workforce. However, it has now become difficult for women to afford to stay home, have multiple children, and be the primary caregiver of her school-aged children. As a result of this push to get women into the workforce, we have a generation of children being raised predominantly by institutions rather than mothers. I wonder if the real and growing inequality in the West is not male vs. female but rather career-woman vs. family-woman.
In God’s good plan men and women were created in his image with unique gender differences, roles, and responsibilities. God does not treat men and women the same, but he does value them equally. However, in our modern neo-pagan societies, the church is feeling immense pressure to obfuscate the Bible’s teaching regarding gender, sexuality, and the specified roles of men and women in the family and church.
Egalitarian feminists within the church are pushing for women to be considered the same as men. Their goal is not for women to be treated with equal value and worth but rather for women to attain the same authoritative offices in the church held by men. Any biblical hermeneutic that interprets, “I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man” (1 Timothy 2:12-14) to actually mean “I do permit women to teach or to exercise authority over a man” is patently wrong.
It is grievous to see women within our churches who have emasculated and undermined men to gain power and position. “The wisest of women builds her house, but folly with her own hands tears it down.” (Proverbs 14:1) Women do not gain by tearing down masculine-men so that they can rob them of their roles and responsibilities. A man needs a woman as much as a woman needs a man because God created them to be interdependent and a cohesive unit: “Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman. And all things are from God.” (1 Corinthians 11:11-12)
The most vital institution within any society is the family unit and biblical “feminists” are committed to its protection and promotion. The daughters of Eve have shaped the progress and advancement of the generations as they have been granted the gift of bringing forth life (Gen. 3:20) and raising and nurturing the children of our future. The power of our femininity is painted on the hearts of our husbands, children, and families and is of great value and worth.
A competent lady is no more a doormat than a lion is a house cat. A true biblical “feminist” embraces the ontological reality of male and female, submits to the authority of Scripture, and the authority of her father or husband, and adheres to the biblically outlined roles of men, women, and children in the marriage, family, church, and society. This is a feminism that builds up rather than tears down. It is time for women to reclaim their power of femininity, venerate motherhood, and permit men to be masculine again.