The foundation of the modern feminist movement

[HT Wintery Knight]

“[A]s long as the family and the myth of the family and the myth of maternity and the maternal instinct are not destroyed, women will still be oppressed…. No woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” ~ Simone de Beauvoir, “Sex, Society, and the Female Dilemma,” Saturday Review, June 14, 1975.

With the above quote in mind, here is an excellent essay outlining why people like myself and my wife are wholly opposed to the radical feminist movement of our era.

The highlights include:

  • Feminism is anti-child, leading to a marked rise in abortions worldwide.
  • Feminism is anti-male, being almost wholly based (like the NAACP) on the perpetuation of class hatred, the perception (not reality) of inequality.
  • Feminism is anti-family, being radically opposed to any gender distinctions it views motherhood as a problem to be solved and not a blessing to be embraced.
Share

18 responses to “The foundation of the modern feminist movement

  1. Would you say that the view of unborn babies as parasites to their hosts (mothers) stems from the feminist movement?

    Another thing that irks me is when a feminist marries! My grandma is slightly feminist in that anytime we are out together as a family she enjoys putting him down pretty much the whole time we're all together. That annoys so much because my grandpa is a great guy, but not in my grandma's eyes. Oh, she'll say she loves him, though there is no fruit of that because she constantly calls him stupid and dumb-head. She also thinks women are better.

    Ugh, the feminist movement AND the chauvinist movement are movements that need to be dismantled.

    • Yes. As my good friend Wintry Knight points out here, it is all about "reproductive choice" or, to take the spin off of it, the unencumbered ability to do whatever, whenever, and with whomever regardless of biological design or constraint.

      As to your grandparents; Many women in my family show similar tendencies and it irks me as well when they put down "men" as if we were interchangeable widgets in the gender toolbox.

      • Perhaps your predecessors and contemporaries shouldn't have antagonized women with the demeaning prescriptions found in your holy book.

        You reap what you sow.

        • Yes, the Bible is so harsh it upholds a woman's right to own property, run an enterprise, and consider herself to be an equal to the men around her.

          Yeah, thats what I call antagonistic..

          • That's not all the Bible says though..right?

          • You tell me. You're the one who thinks the Bible contains "demeaning prescriptions" for women. Tell me what those are so I can stop loving my wife as my own flesh, being willing to die for her as Christ was willing to die for his bride, the Church (Eph 5:29).

          • "You tell me. You're the one who thinks the Bible contains "demeaning prescriptions" for women."

            Maybe you haven't finished reading the whole book yet. I'll wait.

            Or perhaps you are like most other Christians and you just ignore the parts of the book you don't like and then say as loud as you can that it isn't self-contradictory and down right ugly in places so you can go along your merry way down the path of cognitive-dissonance.

            To each their own.

          • I'll take it as a concession of defeat if that is the best you are able to come up with.

          • And I'll take it that you haven't read your Bible. Two can play that game.

          • Not really, I provided reference to a verse which clearly demonstrates the exalted view of women the Bible contains. You stated earlier that the Bible contains "demeaning prescriptions" for women. I am still waiting for you to substantiate that claim.

            You can question my intelligence and whether I know the subject matter well enough all you want. However the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. And the pudding in this case is the evidence, or lack thereof, to substantiate your claim.

          • http://www.cybercollege.com/antiwoman.htm

            Not a bad summary. But of course, you posted a couple of good verses pertaining to women so we can sweep the rest under the rug.

            Cafeteria Christianity at it's finest.

          • It's easy to quote a verse or portion of a verse out of context and make it appear to contain "demeaning prescriptions" for women. I am curious, however, whether addressing the context for each verse that was cited on the site you posted above would matter much to you or whether the ongoing evidence that Christian men, on the whole, do not oppress their wives or treat them like chattel would really matter to you.

            And finally, I feel the need to point out that the person quoted at the end, Bishop John Shelby Spong, is widely known for his disregard for both the Biblical text (ie. what it points to) as well as proper hermeneutics. That is, the notion that any text can be read in objective manner with the aim of gleaning insight into what the original author intended to communicate with their writing. So I'm curious to know from you the answer to my initial question. Does context matter to you or would you say the Bible held a low view of women regardless of the evidence presented?

            I believe I'll post a debate featuring a dear friend of mine in a minute regarding the view of women put forth in two religious texts, the Bible and the Koran. Watch for it, listen to the debate, and let's pick up this thread on that post if you don't mind.

          • Funny that you didn't feel the need to include the context of your positive verses.

            It's also funny that you submit Christian men's behvaior as evidence of what Christianity espoused, but only when it's good things they're doing. Gee, I'm sensing a trend here.

            I'd be very interested in whatever context you can provide that can paint those horrible verses in a better light. I'd also be interested in how you've ascertained that the context you post is correct.

          • "Funny that you didn't feel the need to include the context of your positive verses. "

            That's because I quoted them in context. If you feel I haven't, feel free to offer your well-reasoned refutation.

            "It's also funny that you submit Christian men's behvaior as evidence of what Christianity espoused, but only when it's good things they're doing. Gee, I'm sensing a trend here. "

            Well yes, insofar as their behavior is in keeping with what the founder of their religion modeled and what the founding documents of their religion prescribe I believe their treatment of the women in their lives stands as a solemn witness against the claims like yours that the Bible contains "demeaning prescriptions" for women.

            If you are interested in putting the passages from the article above into context, pick 3 passages you think are the worst and I'll write about them.

          • Actually, for the first time ever, I think I like the Bible…

            o_o

          • That is, of course, in response to:
            http://www.cybercollege.com/antiwoman.htm

  2. "That's because I quoted them in context. If you feel I haven't, feel free to offer your well-reasoned refutation. "

    Hehe. I don't think that word means what you think it means.

    "Well yes, insofar as their behavior is in keeping with what the founder of their religion modeled and what the founding documents of their religion prescribe I believe their treatment of the women in their lives stands as a solemn witness against the claims like yours that the Bible contains "demeaning prescriptions" for women."

    Hello circular reasoning!! You're a gem, Wes.

  3. Still waiting on quotes from the bible that are demeaning to females…… but you do a great job of avoiding posting them

Leave a Reply