BIGGEST LIES FEMINISTS TELL ABOUT PATRIARCHY!

There are Three sections to this blog Sections One: LIES FEMINISTS TELL ABOUT PATRIARCHy! ( Section 2 ) Feminism has destabilized the American family. ( Section 3 ) How Feminism Harms Families. feminism has contributed to the breakdown of the family.

Feminists (evangelical and otherwise) blame patriarchy for all of society’s ills, and even most conservatives seem to be allergic to the word. So why would we defend patriarchy? To start, the term is an accurate description of the Bible’s teaching that God designed men to rule in the home, church, and society. The English word patriarchy is formed from two Greek words that together mean “father rule.” In this sense, patriarchy is a gentle term. It refers to the rule not just of men, but of fathers. Moreover, the term “complementarianism” is not all that helpful. It is clunky, hard to spell, and includes a wide variety of views on men and women. There are currently fights between “narrow” and “broad” forms of complementarianism, with the narrow form resembling its alleged counterpart, egalitarianism. Thus, while finding much agreement with broad complementarianism, we prefer to embrace the word patriarchy. In doing so, we seek to redeem the word, and the best way to do so is by refuting common misconceptions of patriarchy. Here's a look at the 11 biggest lies feminists tell. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.Patriarchy oppresses women. This is the most common charge against patriarchy. Allegedly, most societies throughout history have practiced patriarchy and kept women back from their true potential. This charge assumes the foundational principle of modern feminism that women are best off by taking on careers like men rather than embracing the duties of marriage and motherhood. Yes, women are “free” today to choose alternatives to family life, but in doing so they trade the greatest natural gift God has given them (children) for wage-slavery and the drudgery of office life. Moreover, this charge fails to distinguish between different forms of patriarchy. Male rule is inevitable, but that does not mean it is always good. There are ungodly forms of patriarchy that have included abuses of women. We are not defending them. Rather, we are arguing for a Christian patriarchy. We are arguing for the patriarchy of the Bible, which begins with God the Father sending His Son to redeem us and bring us into obedience to His law. And God’s law requires men to take responsibility for providing for and protecting their wives and daughters, and it requires women to be helpers to their husbands and submit to them. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.Patriarchy devalues women. Some forms of patriarchy think lowly of women, considering them inferior in worth to men. That is not what Christian patriarchy holds. The Bible teaches that both men and women are made in God’s image—“in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27). Together both men and women are children of God and thus joint heirs with Christ (Romans 8:17; Galatians 3:28-29). However, God has also designed men and women differently, seen in their different bodies and personalities. God has placed duties on men and women corresponding to these natural differences, and He has made them to relate to one another differently. Women are not to hold positions of authority over men, including in the church or civil government. Rather, women are to submit to their husbands. This is God’s way of honoring women, not devaluing them. When women are protected and provided for, they are free to fulfill their joyful calling as mothers and helpers to their husbands. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Patriarchy leads to violence against women. There is nothing in the Bible advocating violence against women. On the contrary, the Bible requires men to protectwomen, even laying down their lives for their wives just as Jesus “gave himself up” for His bride, the church (Ephesians 5:25). Violence against women does take place in this fallen world, including (sadly) in Christian marriages espousing male headship in the home. However, there is also violence against women in egalitarian relationships. In fact, feminism has contributed to the breakdown of the family, and domestic violence is much more common among non-married couples. The fact is that in a fallen world there will always be violence committed against both men and women. The question is, which societal arrangement is best equipped to limit violence and protect women? The answer is undoubtedly Christian patriarchy, where men are taught to honor and protect the women in their lives. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4. Patriarchy prohibits women from working. The Bible does not prohibit women from working. Rather, the Bible calls women to focus their efforts on marriage, homelife, and children. The Apostle Paul commands “older women” to “train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands” (Titus 2:3-5). Paul did not want “younger widows” to remain single, but he called them to “marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander” (1 Timothy 5:14). Homemaking and childrearing are work. We need to stop saying that a stay-at-home wife “doesn’t work.” She does work, and she works very hard. And the hard truth that women need to hear is that homemaking and children do not leave much time for work outside the home. A wife can contribute to household income, as the Proverbs 31 woman did by selling merchandise (Proverbs 31:18, 24). But moneymaking is the husband’s primary responsibility, not the wife’s. If there are not children in the household, a wife may want to consider part-time work outside the home. But careers—professions that often require extensive schooling and years of continuous work—get in the way of homelife and wifely duties. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Patriarchy opposes women’s education. Women should receive a strong education in childhood, as well as training to be a godly wife and mother. There are also benefits to women receiving a college education. A good Christian education is a blessing to both men and women. The concern Christian patriarchy has is that many women today are pursuing education (and careers) to the neglect of marriage and children. The birthrate is dropping drastically in the West, and much of this is due to women trading motherhood for careers. Thus, Christian patriarchy calls women to seek marriage and children and avoid extensive schooling that interferes with these pursuits. A woman should not bring debt into marriage, and she should not unnecessarily delay childbearing into her 30s. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Patriarchy disregards a woman’s opinion. This really is a ridiculous charge, but it is still a common one. While a woman is under the authority of her husband, it does not follow that a woman’s opinion is unimportant. Godly men listen to their wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters, taking their opinions and desires into consideration and seeking their best in all things. Only a weak man disregards input from the women in his life. The strong man listens. He hears and even seeks his wife’s opinion. He may disagree, and the wife should submit to him when he does so. The king listens to his queen and seeks what is best for her and the family. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7. Patriarchy prohibits women from studying the Bible and theology. The Bible calls for pastors to preach and teach God’s Word to all people, which includes women. So this false charge could not be further from the truth. Women are to study the Bible and theology and apply these things to their lives. (We even encourage women to read this article!) Women should read the Bible regularly, and men should regularly be reading Scripture with their wives and children. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8. Patriarchy prohibits women from all Christian ministry and teaching. Women can and should still minister to others (in the sense of “serve”) without being pastors or elders. Yes, a woman should not teach or preach to the congregation (1 Timothy 2:8-15; 1 Corinthians 14:34-35). But that leaves plenty of other opportunities for ministry. Women should first start by serving their husbands and children, as well as being hospitable and welcoming others into their homes. They should help other women in the church and community. They can share the gospel with unbelievers they meet. They can be involved in mercy ministries by serving as assistants to the deacons (1 Timothy 3:11). Older women should be discipling the younger women, training them to be good wives and mothers (Titus 2:3-5). Now there is a question as to what it means for them to “teach what is good” (v. 3). While the text does not explicitly prohibit women from leading women’s Bible studies, the goal of this teaching is to “train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled, pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands” (vv. 4-5).In other words, while teaching doctrine is a task primarily given to the pastors and elders of the church (1 Timothy 2:12; 3:2), women are to focus on training other women in the duties of being a good wife and mother. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9. Patriarchy is unbiblical. Male rule is all throughout the Bible. Though God is spirit, He has revealed Himself in masculine terms, emphasizing His kingship and rule over humans. God consistently raised up men to lead in the Old Testament (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, David) and in the New Testament (the 12 apostles were men). When God became man, He took on the body of a man, not a woman, and Jesus reigns forever as the God-man. God has given rule and authority to husbands and fathers (Numbers 30; Ephesians 5:22-31). Feminist attempts to counter the obvious are futile. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10. Patriarchy makes women unhappy. Actually, when godly women submit to godly male rule, the women are quite happy. God knows what is best for us, and He has given us instructions for godly, joyful living in His Word. So really the question is, what does the Bible teach about male rule? Feminism cannot be found in the Bible, and that is because it did not originate in the Bible. Feminism is rebellion against God and His Word. It is unbelieving man’s attempt to undermine godly authority structures. Moreover, there is plenty of data suggesting that feminism is actually making women very unhappy. In the West, there is an alarming rate of children growing up without fathers around. Divorce rates are high, and sexual immorality and female careers are so normative that many young people struggle to find a spouse. Many women are staying unmarried and/or childless well into their 30s and 40s, thus leading to a future lonely generation. Is this the recipe for female happiness? The obvious answer is a resounding "no." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 11. We can live without patriarchy in egalitarian bliss. Egalitarianism does not work. There must be a leader. God has made men dominant, which is why all societies are patriarchal. Even in our current feminist society, men still rule—it’s just bad men taking advantage of women. Instead of women being protected and provided for, they are used and discarded. Thus, it is not a question of whether patriarchy, but which patriarchy. The world does not need more feminism or soft Christianity. The world needs what God set down in His Word. The world needs Christian patriarchy.https://www.ericconn.com/blog/11-biggest-lies-feminists-tell-about-the-patriarchy -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 2; Feminism has destabilized the American family

in 1970, three furious feminist tracts dominated the bestseller lists: Kate Millett’s “Sexual Politics,” Germaine Greer’s “The Female Eunuch,” and Shulamith Firestone’s “The Dialectic of Sex.” They, and others who comprised what was then called the “women’s lib” movement, fulminated against male dominance, endorsed sexual liberation and demanded that the nuclear family be smashed. Their fame has faded, but their influence lives on. Lena Dunham, who has built a persona as a spokesman for women, wondered how any woman could reject the label feminist (a 2016 poll found that 68 percent of American women use the term to describe themselves). Her free-floating contempt for men was evident in a recent tweet: “I’d honestly rather fall into one million manholes than have one single dude tell me to watch my step.” Note the resentment, even when men are attempting to be kind. Dunham is voicing the 21st-century version of the 1970s slogan: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Without denying the beneficial effects of feminism, we are overdue for a reckoning about its missteps. One of those was stoking such bitterness between men and women.While there is near-universal agreement that women should be treated equally in the workplace and in the family, other aspects of the feminist agenda — such as devaluing marriage — have left women more, not less vulnerable than they were pre-revolution. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 2012, Katie Roiphe, feminist and mother of two children by different fathers, condemned concerns about single motherhood: “If there is anything that currently oppresses the children, it is the idea of the way families are ‘supposed to be.’ ” That’s the feminist mantra, but “alternative” families work only for a tiny minority. For most women, children and, as we’re coming it should not be anti-feminist to recognize that men and women do need each other and that, contrary to feminist theories, marriage is a key pillar of stability for both sexes and especially for children. Feminists greeted unwed parenthood and easy divorce as steps on the ladder of liberation. For some it was and is. But the price has been steep. Women are commonly worse off financially after divorce than their ex-husbands. Those who worked before, during or after their marriages experienced a 20 percent decline in income after divorce, compared with men, whose incomes rose by 30 percent. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Forty percent of American children are now born to single mothers. This rate of non-marital births, combined with the nation’s high divorce rate, means that around half of all American children will spend part of their childhood in a single-parent home. Social scientists across the political spectrum agree this family chaos is destructive. In 2017, the poverty rate for woman-headed families with children was 36.5 percent, compared with 22.1 percent for father-only families and 7.5 percent for families headed by a married couple. And abundant data show married adults are happier, healthier and wealthier than singles. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The sexual revolution has scythed through the institution of marriage, leaving millions of women without the love and emotional and financial security that they and their children so need. It hasn’t been a picnic for men, either. Recent studies about the effects of fatherlessness have revealed that the rise of single-parent (which usually means mother-only) families has had even worse consequences for boys than for girls. Father absence in African-American homes leads to more mental-health and behavioral problems for boys, according to an MIT study by two economists looking at brothers and sisters born in Florida between 1992 and 2002. “Growing up in a single-parent home appears to significantly decrease the probability of college attendance for boys but has no similar effect for girls.” They found other worrisome effects, too. “Fatherless boys are less ambitious, less hopeful and more likely to get into trouble at school than fatherless girls.” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Everything is connected. When more boys are growing up without fathers, there are fewer young men who become the kind of adults women want to marry — educated, employed, non-drug-abusing and not involved with the criminal-justice system. Without the grounding of marriage, men become disconnected from society. Some 22 percent of prime-age men (25 to 54) are not working or looking for work. Unmarried men are over-represented in this group. By contrast, married men with only high-school diplomas are much more likely to be employed than unmarried men with some college or an associate’s degree. Diseases of despair — alcoholism, overdoses, suicide — have been rising among white, working-class Americans, the very population that has witnessed a steep decline in family stability over the past several decades. Most women want and need upright, well-adjusted, dependable https://nypost.com/2018/07/07/feminism-has-destabilized-the-american-family/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section 2: Why Feminism Wants to Dismantle the Family ----------------------------------------------------- Like many isms before it (Communism, religions, cults), feminism seeks to dismantle the traditional family unit for its own gain. Why? To the ism, old loyalties are like bad habits interfering with an individual’s ability to pledge unwavering allegiance. Isms want control, but families tend to put family members and their needs before the demands of the ism, reducing the ism’s power and influence and therefore undermining its control. Throughout history, the family has been “the ultimate and only consistently subversive organization… the enduring permanent enemy of all hierarchies, churches and ideologies,” notes Ferdinand Mount, author of The Subversive Family. Mount describes the sequence past isms have followed once they “have hardened into orthodoxies:” First, hostility and propaganda to devalue family. The family is a source of trouble. It could distract apostles or potential apostles from following the new idea. The family is second-best, pedestrian, material, selfish. Alternative families are promoted — communes, party cadres, kibbutzes, monasteries. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Feminist icons have not tried to hide their antipathy for the family unit: 1.(Gloria Steinem described marriage as “an arrangement for one and a half people.”) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2.(Andrea Dworkin wrote, “How can anyone love someone who is less than a full person, unless love itself is domination per se?)” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3.(Kate Millett wrote, “so long as every female, simply by virtue of her anatomy, is obliged, even forced, to be the sole or primary caretaker of childhood, she is prevented from being a free human being.”) ------------------------------------------------------------ 4.(Betty Friedan wrote, “women who ‘adjust’ as housewives, who grow up wanting to be ‘just a housewife,’ are in as much danger as the millions who walked to their own death in the concentration camps… they are suffering a slow death of mind and spirit.”) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5.(Linda Gordon said, “the nuclear family must be destroyed… Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 6.(Robin Morgan said “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.”) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7.(Mary Jo Bane said, “in order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.” Vivian Gornick said, “being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.”) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8.(Helen Sullinger said, “We must work to destroy [marriage]… The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men… All of history must be rewritten in terms of oppression of women.” You’d think women seeking high-powered careers would be glad to enjoy less competition from other potential workers…) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- “Not if you understand the feminist ideology,” say Suzanne Venker and the late Phyllis Schlafly, authors of The Flipside of Feminism, Feminists realize all too well that they can never achieve a level playing field in the marketplace as long as their male competitors have the advantage of homemaker wives… Women on the left know that in order to get ahead more easily, they must deprive men of their advantage in having stay-at-home wives. The desire to eliminate the full-time homemaker has been feminists’ goal all along. The need for a second income was never the goal. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Feminism has made some “progress” over the last several decades. If you look at the poorest and least socially mobile areas in America, you will notice one variable consistently lacking: fathers. More specifically, mothers who are married to the father of their children. Over the last few decades, the birth rate for unmarried women in the US has risen steadily from 18 percent in 1980 to 41 percent in 2012. Alarmingly, the majority of moms believe that absent or uninvolved dads can easily be replaced themselves or another man (see here and here) despite the evidence that stable marriages lead to happy, healthy, and motivated kids, which leads to stronger communities, more opportunities, and greater equality: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Physical health: Compared with children in intact, married families, children in cohabiting households (one parent and their girlfriend or boyfriend) are more likely to have a physical or mental health condition and are three times more likely to suffer physical, sexual, or emotional abuse. Unhappy couples have depressed immune systems and their children have elevated stress hormones. Stress is regulated by social systems; the brain regions involved in social relationships are the same ones that control stress response. They develop together, and therefore development problems in the stress response can interfere with the development of social and emotional functioning and vice versa. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mental health: Children raised by single moms are more likely to be on ADHD medication and are more likely to need professional treatment for emotional or behavioral problems (see here and here). As adults, children who grew up with married parents are less likely to have mental health problems (especially true for daughters).Poverty: Both physical and mental health are influenced by socio-economic status. Children of single parents (4 out of 5 of which are women) are far more likely to grow up in poverty and have lower rates of upward mobility than children of married parents (see here, here, here). The current welfare system discourages single mothers from establishing a stable two-parent household despite a portion of welfare funds allocated to promote this kind of family structure. This is because women who marry or maintain a home with the biological father of their children can face the reduction or loss of their benefits. In turn, children who grow up on welfare are more likely to grow up and be on welfare themselves, continuing the cycle. Teen pregnancy and crime: Daughters of single mothers are more likely to engage in early sexual behavior and become teen moms, which, in turn, makes them more likely to rely on welfare and their children less likely to grow up with their fathers. The majority of inmates grew up without their fathers (see here and here). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Drugs and alcohol: Children of single parents have significantly higher rates of drug use. Teens who have less than three family dinners a week are four times more likely to use tobacco, more than twice as likely to use alcohol, two-and-a-half times more likely to use marijuana, and nearly four times likelier to engage in future drug use. School: Children of married parents have fewer learning disabilities; score higher in reading, higher in verbal and problem-solving skills, better on most academic measures, and better on the majority of social competence measures. Children who grow up without fathers are less likely to attend college (especially true for sons). Future income: One of the longest running studies on adult development, the Harvard Grant Study, found that men that had warm childhoods — those who had close relationships with their parents (who were married) and at least one sibling — make 50 percent more money than their peers who grew up with separated parents or in hostile households. Given the information above, it could be argued that if feminism actually cared about helping all women, it would advocate for father involvement, so no daughter would grow up disadvantaged and every son would be a strong and capable partner to those daughters. Yet, while feminism purports itself to be the movement for equality, it is at best silent when it comes to father’s rights. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In fact, feminist organizations have opposed efforts for equal custody. For example, Marc Angelucci, an attorney and member of the National Coalition For Men, told me: In 2005 we introduced a joint custody bill [in California], but feminist groups opposed it and lobbied various other groups like the state bar to oppose it. Feminist groups like California National Organization for Women have fought us not only on joint custody but also on paternity fraud legislation, move away issues, and inclusion of male victims of domestic violence in state funded services. Why would feminists try to prevent father involvement — the very thing that insulates against poverty and inequality? One reason is that they can profit from it. There would be no more need for the vast network of nonprofit organizations, not to mention life-long careers (and paychecks), which only exist because enough people bought into and continue to buy into the myth that women have it worse off than men (that myth debunked here). Feminism needs gendered issues. Feminism doesn’t want you to know that women are about as likely to abuse their partner as men (see here and here) or that boys are at least as likely to suffer sexual abuse as girls (see here, here and here) because it would impact their funding. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is not in feminist institutions’ best interest to solve anything. In order to maintain a steady flow of cash, they now seek to preserve their own existence by perpetuating myths and inventing problems where there are none to reassure their followers that there is still an “us” and a “them.” Sexist pockets anyone? Intact families, married mothers and especially stay-at-home-married-moms are feminism’s number one enemy. Here are a few reasons why: Whereas feminism minimizes the role of nature, telling us that the differences between the sexes comes down to social conditioning, mothers notice innate differences between boys and girls. Psychologist Steven Pinker may have said it best: “It is said that there is a technical term for people who believe that little boys and little girls are born indistinguishable and are molded into their natures by parental socialization. The term is ‘childless.’” Married women tend to vote conservative while unmarried women tend to vote liberal (see here and here). Liberal votes = more $ for feminism. And more feminism = more liberal votes. It’s not a coincidence that former President Obama created a White House Council on Women and Girls but refused to create a White House Council on Men and Boys. https://nikitaccoulombe.medium.com/why-feminism-wants-to-dismantle-the-family-long-4695d45bcf88 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feminism is under fire. Feminist philosophy has reigned—the queen unchallenged—since the end of the early 1980s. But in recent years, biologists, educators, law enforcement officials and thinking women have begun objecting to and rejecting some long-held feminist doctrines. The throne’s foundation has cracks! Many of the radical feminist’s sacred truths are now recognized for what they are: myths and lies. Although there exists some strong opposition against the feminist fortress, we should not expect the feminist movement to topple any time soon. But is there truth in the criticism? Has the feminist movement, so proudly praised for servicing women, done a disservice to the family? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Women’s Suffrage to NOW Feminists claim the women’s suffrage movement as the beginning of modern feminism. The suffrage movement originated in the United States during the 19th century. Some famous early suffragists were Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucy Stone. Originally, women’s suffrage sought to give women equal political rights with men—the right to vote in elections and referendums; the right to hold political office. We must remember that these political rights had only been given to the majority of the male population as a result of the democratic revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries. The women’s suffrage movement claimed its victory shortly after World War i with the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution on Aug. 18, 1920, guaranteeing women the right to vote in state and federal elections. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the 1960s, the women’s liberation movement was organized and became active. Betty Friedan is credited as one of the founders of modern feminism. Her 1963 book The Feminine Mystique challenged the traditional idea that women could find fulfillment only as wives and mothers. She taught that the idealization of the role of wife and mother was the product of a well-organized conspiracy by males to prevent women from competing with men. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 1966, Friedan founded the National Organization for Women (now) to fight for equal rights for women, and served as its president until 1970. At that time, the women’s movement sought to liberate women from the tedious humdrum of babies, bottles, diapers, cleaning and cooking. Women’s movement leaders sought freedom from their “prison” at home. The key to freedom was equal opportunity with men, which meant equal jobs and equal pay. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Then, the women’s movement aligned itself with the civil rights movement. A clear message was being sent: Blacks had to fight white racism; enslaved women had to fight male sexism. Women everywhere had to be made aware of their oppression and oppressors. The women’s movement borrowed heavily from the attention-getting strategies of the civil rights movement. It skillfully employed rallies, demonstrations and marches to trumpet the women’s cause. Besides politicians and media, the struggle targeted young, impressionable college-aged women. What began as a tiny rumble soon roared into major discontent. Many angry, frustrated women joined the cause. The energy released by the women’s liberation movement was enormous. Old traditions came tumbling down. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Now we have four decades of feminist history to look at. What do we see? More than any other social movement in our time, feminism has changed the warp and weave of our society. Feminist philosophy has made major inroads into politics, the work place, the military, education, medical research and the building block of society—the family. Very few have questioned the changes. Many who balk at some feminist notions heartily embrace others. Wisdom tells us not all change is good. Not all change is growth. Some bitter fruits are now being harvested from feminism in all areas it has infiltrated, in the personal lives of many women, and especially in the family. Who will take the blame? For decades, feminists have condemned men for everything. Supposedly, our patriarchal society is the root cause of everything wrong. Of course, some men should be condemned for their mistreatment of women. But what has feminism brought us? Is life really better for women? Are families better off? Is society stronger? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attack on Motherhood: The fact that so many women identified with the liberation movement shows that there were real problems within the American home. The movement greatly publicized the dissatisfaction and desperation of housewives. Many American wives were indeed unhappy. But what was the cause of all the unhappiness? Leaders of the women’s liberation movement theorized that the real cause of women’s sorrow was the role of wife and mother. Many asked, shouldn’t we women find fulfillment in a career like a man? Supposedly, those who wanted to hold a career had been made to feel guilty about it by oppressive males. Many women began to feel their real potential was being denied them. The proposed solution was that women seek real fulfillment outside of the home—without guilt. Women fought hard for the right to choose a career outside the home. Yet labor statistics at that time show that a large number of women had already entered the work force. Could the cause of unhappiness have been wrongly identified? Was a wrong solution given? Caught up in the movement, few seemed to ask these all-important questions in the ’60s and ’70s. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today, many women have come to understand that feminism really did not offer a choice in the ’60s. In fact, it demanded that women could only find fulfillment through a career outside the home. Though it has taken several decades for it to be recognized, in reality, feminism has led a vicious attack on motherhood—one of two major underpinnings of strong families. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The ’60s woman complained that she was made to feel guilty for not desiring to stay home. Isn’t it ironic today that a woman who desires to stay home to be a wife and mother is made to feel guilty? In an interview on abc’s Good Morning America, prominent feminist Linda Hirshman said, “I am saying an educated, competent adult’s place is in the office” (February 23). Feminist Rebecca Traister admits that, somewhere along the line, the feminist movement declared stay-at-home mothers uneducated and incompetent: “[W]hen you lose your paycheck and lose your title, somehow you lose respect. And … that should not be the case” (Salon.com, Dec. 6, 2005). Young women are made to feel that education should be directed toward career advancement only and not toward teaching and training their own young children. Stable families with educated, stay-at-home mothers would solve a large number of our current social troubles. We must learn to defend and praise the women who stay at home. Motherhood is noble and fulfilling, real work! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mothers as Non-Persons: Today, a stay-at-home mother is viewed as a kind of second-class woman. In fact, feminists do not even view stay-at-home mothers as persons. This derogatory view began with Betty Friedan. “[V]acuuming the living room floor—with or without makeup—is not work that takes enough thought or energy to challenge any woman’s full capacity. Down through the ages man has known that he was set apart from other animals by his mind’s power to have an idea, a vision, and shape the future to it. … [W]hen he discovers and creates and shapes a future different from his past, he is a man, a human being” (The Feminine Mystique). The basic idea of feminism was that women should have a choice to go to the workplace and become less animal-like. What does that make a stay-at-home mother? Since being a wife and mother was supposedly glorified in the 1950s, the women’s movement fought to demote that role to the lowest level possible. Many impressionable young women wholeheartedly believed this 1960s philosophy. Unfortunately, this feminist teaching has planted deep roots in the consciousness of American women. The feminist tree has blossomed. Today, it is considered a great shame to be a wife and mother only. In fact, being a wife and mother is synonymous with the meaningless life of a lower, uneducated class of people. What are today’s fruits of this philosophy? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Families in Crisis: The fight for women’s rights has actually turned into a fight against the family. Even the mothers of modern feminism admit that radical feminists have worked hard to repudiate the family. Feminist Stephanie Coontz, history professor at the Evergreen State College in Olympia, Wa., wrote in the Washington Post, “We cannot afford to construct our social policies, our advice to our own children and even our own emotional expectations around the illusion that all commitments, sexual activities and caregiving will take place in a traditional marriage” (May 1). You don’t have to read between the lines to understand that such thinking is destroying the traditional family! ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is within the Anglo-American world that feminism has been embraced the most passionately. These countries also have the highest divorce rates in the world, and are producing record numbers of fatherless children—which in turn creates many other social problems. Robert Sheaffer writes, “One can try to argue that the U.S. family died of natural causes at precisely the same time feminists began shooting at it, but after examining the depth and ferocity of the feminist attack against women’s roles as wives and mothers, such an argument fails to convince” (Feminism, the Noble Lie). Let’s own up to it: Feminism has caused some tragic results for the family. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If we are going to fix our social problems, we must recognize that feminism has led our Western families into serious crises. Here is how it happened. Although many young women answered the call to pursue a career, they could not deny their natural desire for a husband and children. Many then opted to have a husband, children and a career. Realizing that certain feminine desires could not be denied, a new movement slogan was quickly pushed into public view—“having it all.” This slogan lives on. But it ignores a hard reality for many working mothers: Having it all also means handling it all. Working career mothers were forced into a high-stress rat race. Having it all was supposed to be fulfilling, but it was not. Now, almost four decades later, women find they are not any closer to finding true, satisfying fulfillment. For some, “having it all” has meant losing it all. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The truth is, working mothers suffer. The children of working mothers always suffer. And should we forget—the husband suffers too. Severe fatigue plagues many working mothers. Balancing career, marriage and child care is an impossible task. Few can actually do it all. To do it all, corners have to be cut. Unfortunately, because of feminist peer pressure, marriage and family are sacrificed before career. Many two-career marriages have crumbled. Children have been left at home alone. Can we begin to see the harm that working motherhood has done to families? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Absentee Mothers: Our society of working mothers is a disaster. Experts agree that the industrial revolution produced families with absentee fathers. Now feminism has given us families with absentee mothers. What does this mean? Essentially, our children are growing up alone. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is estimated that as many as 60 percent of American children do not have full-time parental supervision. Think about it. If children are blessed enough to be in a two-parent home, generally they still have both parents working outside the home. The children are left home alone. If the family is run by a single parent, that parent (whether male or female) is working. Again, the children are home alone. This means our youth are growing up with an ever-dwindling amount of parental love, nurturing and supervision. The average latchkey child (a child returning home after school with no parent to greet him) is alone three hours per day. Some of these children are as young as 8; most are in their teens. When we think about parents arriving home after a difficult day at the office, we can logically surmise that there is not much quality time left for the child. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- All children and teens fundamentally need acceptance, praise, teaching and discipline. Children need to be taught right from wrong. Children need to learn how to be successful. This requires experience and activities. These needs are best met by parents. If these needs are not met at home, children have no other choice than to look elsewhere. This makes our children frustrated, angry and vulnerable to many dangers. Unfortunately, many children and teens are falling prey to unscrupulous adults and other youth who lead them in the wrong direction. For example, law enforcement officials recognize that gang membership is up. The sale of illegal drugs to elementary and middle school children is also escalating. One proverb states, “The rod and reproof give wisdom: but a child left to himself bringeth his mother to shame” (Proverbs 29:15). Many adults are shocked by headlines about school shootings and other youth crime, but is anybody doing anything about it? Experts are looking for causes and solutions. It is a proven fact that children and youth living under the loving attention of parents generally do not get involved with crime. Most experts now agree that to fix our social problems, the family has to be restored. But how? The solution to restoring families can only be found by understanding God’s intended purpose for men and women. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- God’s Purpose for Women Herbert Armstrong taught for many years that if you start from a wrong hypothesis, then the solution will be in error and the problem will grow worse. Isn’t that exactly what we are seeing today? When it was discovered that so many American women were unhappy, the women’s liberation movement assumed that the role of wife and mother was the cause of all the unhappiness; the solution to the problem was to have women reject the role of wife and mother. Did this solution produce the desired result? Today, many women admit they have not found true fulfillment in careers, and our social problems have increased. As Mr. Armstrong forewarned, the problem has grown worse. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is the cause of women’s unhappiness? We must look to the Bible for our answer. The cause for women’s unhappiness and frustration predates even the women’s suffrage movement of the 1900s. For millennia, women (and men) have not understood the God-intended purpose for women. Elizabeth Cady Stanton stated this about the Bible: “I know of no other books that so fully teach the subjection and degradation of women” (Eighty Years and More, 1898). I am sure many of today’s feminists would agree. But this comment reveals a total lack of understanding of a woman’s true purpose in life—of what true womanhood is and how to achieve it. In truth, the Bible’s purpose for women (and men), when fully understood, reveals a potential so incredible it is nearly unbelievable. Request your free copy of The Incredible Human Potential, by Herbert Armstrong, for an eye-opening explanation of God’s purpose for all mankind. The Bible shows that God created women to be wives and mothers. “And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him” (Genesis 2:18). This one verse reveals that man by himself was not complete. God designed a woman to be his perfect counterpart. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A woman was not created to be a man’s slave, but his co-regent (Genesis 1:28). Neither could achieve success in life without the other. To be successful and happy in life, both would have to fulfill their respective created roles. Simply put, the man was to be a loving leader and provider; the woman was to help and inspire the man. She was also given the exalted responsibility to bear and train children. Men and women were created to work together to build a happy society that fosters growth and success. All this training on Earth was intended as a preparation for a future, more permanent afterlife. God intended that men and women share equally the opportunity to obtain eternal life (1 Peter 3:7). When men and women work together to achieve their designed purpose, they will experience satisfying fulfillment. So how do we restore families? What about putting fathers back in charge of families and having mothers stay at home? To many, this solution may seem oversimplified, yet it is the only solution that will work. As long as men and women forsake the position in life God intended for them, unhappiness, frustration and catastrophe will be the result. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Our first parents, Adam and Eve, rejected what God taught them. They rejected their intended roles and they produced a child delinquent. Remember, Cain killed Abel (Genesis 4). Sounds thoroughly modern, doesn’t it? Will society fix our family problems? The answer is no. But if you seriously consider this article, you can change your family situation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It’s All About Me: The problems in our society and families go much deeper than feminism. What is the real problem? Feminism is a symptom of a deeper human sickness. After 40 years of history, it is clear now that feminism’s agenda has always been to seize power and change society to suit its own purpose. Feminists have been selfish and self-centered. Little thought has been given to the impact on others. Many now recognize that feminists have grown excessively selfish. The movement is now best defined, not as we, but me! The current trends in feminism are a sign of our times. It is typical of a human problem that has existed since Adam and Eve: Men, women and children have all become extremely selfish. The Apostle Paul prophesied this sickness in our society nearly 2,000 years ago. He wrote to Timothy, “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men [and women and children] shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Timothy 3:1-5). If we are truly honest with ourselves, we can easily recognize that this scripture perfectly describes our time. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We live in dangerous times. Why? Remember, there is a cause for every effect. As Mr. Armstrong said so many times, all human beings are living the way of get! Everyone selfishly seeks only what he perceives as good for himself. What are the results? Isaiah gives us the answer. Referring to our time, he wrote, “And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable” (Isaiah 3:5). When human beings live only for self, everyone eventually suffers. The Bible shows us that the worst time of human suffering is just ahead of us (Matthew 24:15-21). Mankind—which includes men, women and children—is bringing this suffering upon itself. But there is hope. Although the Bible shows us there are some very serious times just ahead, afterward there will be the best of times. Jesus Christ will return. He will restore the family. Women’s high calling as wife and mother will be reestablished. Fathers will be taught how to lovingly guide their families. Peace, success and abundance will break out worldwide.https://www.thetrumpet.com/2384-how-feminism-harms-families