The Ugly Face of Feminism
I have already briefly spoken to a quite appalling opinion piece by a noted feminist, but because of more pressing engagements – the celebration of my 30th wedding anniversary – I was rightly pulled away from a proper assessment of the article.
So now I want to spend a bit more time on it, and demonstrate just how ugly the face of feminism can get. I refer to the January 22 Age article by arch-feminist Anne Summers. She is an Australian feminist who has been around for decades, spewing her angry diatribes against men, marriage, family and common sense.
I recall many years ago hearing a radio interview with her. She was asked what her greatest achievement was. She said she loved hearing from women who had walked out on their marriages, thanks to what Summers had written. So in her eyes, the greatest thing she accomplished was to destroy marriages, or at least ‘empower’ women to see that as a high and noble calling.
So in true ugly feminist fashion, she is no friend at all of marriage and family. And she is certainly no friend of the unborn. Her Age article is one long attack on those feminists who are in fact pro-life. She informs us that it is impossible to be a feminist and pro-life.
This would certainly surprise a lot of important feminists. Contrary to the baloney Summers is trying to pass off here, the truth is this: the early feminists – the founding mothers of the contemporary feminist movement – were overwhelmingly pro-life. One simply has to read their many writings on this. Let me offer just a few quotes:
“Child murderers practice their profession without let or hindrance, and open infant butcheries unquestioned…Is there no remedy for all this ante-natal child murder?…Perhaps there will come a time when…an unmarried mother will not be despised because of her motherhood…and when the right of the unborn to be born will not be denied or interfered with.” – Sarah Norton
“The rights of children as individuals begin while yet they remain the foetus.” – Victoria Woodhull
“Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!” – Susan B. Anthony
“Women becoming, consequently, weaker…than they ought to be…have not sufficient strength to discharge the first duty of a mother; and sacrificing to lasciviousness the parental affection…either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast if off when born. Nature in every thing demands respect, and those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity.” – Mary Wollstonecraft
“Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women.” –Alice Paul
So who do we believe here? The early suffragettes, or the likes of Summers? Just who are the true feminists? Indeed, given the quotes I have just offered above, consider this quote from Summers – perhaps the most hideous statement found in her article: “the ultimate assault on a woman’s body: requiring her to carry a child she has decided she cannot have”.
Incredible. Carrying a baby is “the ultimate assault on a woman’s body”! And please take note her language here: “a child she has decided she cannot have”. What she means of course is “does not want to have”. That is the real issue here.
Women have been sold the bill of goods which tells them that they are master over their own children in the womb, and somehow have the right to kill them if they are seen as inconvenient or unwanted. Just where in the world did such a right to kill come from?
There are many people in our lives who are inconvenient and unwanted – all of us would know of such people, both as family members or close friends: those who may have become too old, or too wearisome, or too expensive to care for, or too disagreeable. Should we then just bump these people off?
The only assault going on in a woman’s body is when the cold, hard metal instruments go in to rip a living baby to shreds, or extracts the burnt, dismembered pieces of an unborn child. Abortion is certainly the ultimate assault here. And the result is a dead baby.
Consider also this remark: “There are two fundamental preconditions to such independence: ability to support oneself financially and the right to control one’s fertility. To achieve the first, women need the education and training to be able to undertake work that pays well. To guarantee the second, women need safe and effective contraception and the back-up of safe and affordable abortion.”
Wow, what an acidic patch of ideological verbiage. Feminists like Summers demand independence; normal people recognise quite the opposite: we are made for relationship and community, and we need each other. There is no such thing as the fully independent person. Or as has been said elsewhere, no man is an island.
We need each other, and we are meant to live in interdependent relationships. But all the feminists are interested in it seems are barren power trips where women are cut completely adrift from the complementarity of others. That is some vision of a brave new world.
I recall speaking to a group of rather angry single mums some years ago. I was the only male in the room, and I knew I would be treading on some slippery ground. I tried to make the case that just as it takes two to marry, so it takes two to divorce. I mentioned that relationships involve sacrifice, give and take, forgiveness, and willingness to go the second mile.
None of this impressed my audience. They were power feminists who believed that having power and superiority over men was the way to go. It is not surprising that their marriages did not go the distance with that kind of attitude. I even had some great resources for single parents from Focus on the Family available. Hardly anyone looked at them, and none bought any.
They were angry, they were militant, and they were in no mood to hear about how relationships demand giving, not taking. They demand softness, not power trips. They demand forgiveness, not grudge-bearing. But the modern feminist ideology seems to know nothing of what makes for true, lasting heterosexual relationships. Summers is a perfect illustration of this.
And her other hallmark of a real woman? The ability to kill her own offspring. What sort of monstrous and ugly logic is this? The truly free and independent woman is the woman who can utterly resist her own maternal instincts and actually kill her own baby in her own womb? That is independence?
If this is the best that modern-day feminism can dish up, then it is time to close up shop – and real fast. This is not liberation. This is not freedom. This is not independence. This is the death of womanhood and the death of humanity. It is the ugly face of feminism.
G.K. Chesterton, writing of the first feminist movement, said that “twenty million young women rose to their feet with the cry, ‘We will not be dictated to’: and proceeded to become stenographers”. Modern feminists demanded to be freed from every limitation and every moral boundary. All they proceeded to do was sink into bondage and moral darkness.
24 Replies to “The Ugly Face of Feminism”
Well said Bill. What a tragic, painful business the ’empowerment’ of women has turned out to be both for them and for their aborted children. Our girls are continually conned into believing that they can have life entirely on their terms. They have been infantilised and sadly fail to realise it. Sexually used and abused while believing they are in ‘control’ they have been deceived and deceive themselves. Persuaded to be Politically Correct they have been Politically Conned. When will they wake up?
Alan Williams, UK
Ann Sofia and Elizabeth Botkin have written a wonderful book, “So Much More”, that speaks profoundly to Christian young women in relation to the proposals of feminism.
As we make comment on the ugly side of feminism, we need to provide an alternative, and the Botkin girls have done that very ably.
Copies may be obtained from here eg: http://www.amazon.com/Much-More-Anna-Sofia-Botkin/dp/0975526383/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327362219&sr=1-1
Lance A Box
Great article Bill! Thank God for people like you who are willing to speak out about these atrocities against the unborn. I particularly enjoyed the G K Chesterton quip!
Thanks for that Ian.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Thanks, Bill, for another excellent article.
On top of the the abomination of abortion, Satan has used the useful idiots of feminism to destroy the image of a father as the head of the family. We only have to look very trivially at TV programming to see the mocking of men and fatherhood and the promoting of women as better than and more sensible than men. Men are promoted as being simple minded and foolish.
Specially since now the destruction of children is used as mere entertainment.
What an outrage:
What we see here is the high priestess’ of the new ba’al worshiper church. They think nothing of “throwing children into the fire” to advance their agenda’s.
All I can be thankful of is that my wife and I are past the child age and have hit the empty nest stage. I would not enjoy having to bring children up in todays world. Reminds me a bit of the scripture that says those who are without young children or the barren will give thanks whilst fleeing the roman distruction of the Holy Temple.
Keep up the good work Bill while we still have the ever diminising light of free speach.
There is no ‘like’ button here, but a good article Bill.
I was reading a article the other day about the Jezebel spirit and thought it would be fitting to post, as in my opinion it think most feminists have it.
Welcome to a world of sexual revolution. The funny thing is that they tell women that they are free to do whatever they want, but the irony of this is that they enslave themselves. Abortion used to be rare, until a certain “Doctor” came out with some books the were totally fraudulent and yet they have been accepted as truth ever since. The Bible is correct when it say that “they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” We are seeing the consequences of these actions on the lives of innocent people.
Yes the single minded selfishness of the feminist certainly is an ugly and graceless look. Ultimately intelligence surely recognises that love is the only thing that can save the planet but it seems to escape these airheads. I’ve had feminists tell me to dump my husband, and my marriage came under attack, so there was a lot of marriage wrecking going on by all sorts of people. A work colleague of my husband whom I had never met announced to my husband that I must be jealous of her because she had a career as a teacher, while I was juggling childcare with a job. Many people succumbed and allowed their marriages to fail because of the poisonous suggestions whispered in their ear and now we have broken societies. I was determined not to be just another statistic of another broken family which I regard as a tragedy. I’m glad I hung on in through thick and thin. Many brave and determined women picked up the pieces of their broken relationship and raised their children single handed but the child often asks “where is my dad? whose fault is it that he is not here?” I have heard feminists say they want children but not the man and make IVF plans. Hatred of men, contempt for married women, irritation at a foetus regarded as an inconvenient mass of cells as a result of a dalliance with a man – this is what spews from the militant feminist. All this anger makes a person bitter and twisted. There is a time for hardness and a time for softness. The feminist seems to me to be solely motivated by envy of other people.
Yes quite right Rachel.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Christianity and Feminism both take a battering, usually because of the people who use the title for their own agenda. I am a Christian and a Feminist… let me explain, the original platforms of Feminism were for the protection and wellbeing of women, the issue of “reproductive health” was not abortion, that came later under another agenda, married women had no protection from beatings and abuses, a blind eye was turned and women suffered in silence. Childbirth, Menopause, Post natal depression, and premenstrual disorders were “womens problems” that were not addressed, again women suffered in silence, it saddens me to see women against Feminism if they were to take a time machine back to see how our fore sisters lived, they would surely think differently. Jesus was and always will be the greatest emancipator, He did not intend us to live as chattels, but in loving partnerships where we each had our place. So if you want to speak out against women that use the label of Feminist to spew their never ending vile hatred go ahead, but don’t assume my self labeling is an oxymoron, in their purest sense they match very well.
Hi Christine, I take your very good point that historically (and still,regrettably, in some cultures today), women were treated as chattel and lacked adequate protection of the law and the suffragette movement did much to raise public consciousness of this injustice and get laws changed. Bill raised the question “who are the true feminists?” I evaluate the early suffragettes in a positive light and am grateful for their efforts but I feel a tipping point has been reached and passed whereby feminists now seem to have changed the goal posts and now rant against men and hold intact family in low esteem and embrace the culture of death.
If only more people could realise the model of a man and a woman living in a loving partnership, where each had their place. It’s certainly a goal worth striving for.
As a Male in 2012, what’s my protection from beatings and abuses?
Happy Anniversary to you and your wife Bill.
With the promotion of women in the workforce (am not against this) unfortunately it would seem that radical feminists have been able to weave their way into positions of power and the MSM are happy to print whatever they say. Sadly true feminists are not given the same opportunity within the MSM.
What is interesting is that violence against women and children has not decreased with all this radical feminism but in actual fact has increased.Abortion is violence against two living human beings, the child in the womb and its mother.
The male and female are complimentary to one another; equal but different. Dare I say that Anne Summers needs to be re-educated on the reality of the feminine genius, and the very necessary part it plays in giving life to the next generation.
Daniel, I sincerely hope you don’t need that sort of help, but if you do the “Domestic Violence Association” is open to men and women in need.
Thanks Christine but no I’m not in that situation because my wife is a beautiful creature, inside and out. No my point is God is our refuge man or woman.
About the hijacking of the original “Feminist” movement that honourably stood up against abuse of power:
Seems to me that hijacking a good cause is a common tactic. Look at the hijacking of environmental stewardship – now represented in Australia by the Frankenstein called “The Greens”.
Yes quite right indeed Tim.
Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch
Feminism which sought to protect abused women is not the same as that which abuses them by demanding they should be identical to men.
Not sure how they justify killing female babies.
Good on you Bill, great to see articulate people doing something wise.
As usual, I am a bit late with my comment.
I think it is important to differentiate between movements such as feminism or the environmental movement as mentioned by Tim that seek to redress past deviations from God’s plan of harmonious marriages or environmental stewardship from those whose aim is to distance themselves as far as they can from submission to God and His standards. The 2 have nothing to do with each other and should be recognised by their different goals. We will only be able to do this successfully by knowing the God that His word the bible reveals Him to be. A lie is always best exposed by intimate knowledge of the truth so that any deviation can be instantly recognised and rejected.
My understanding as a young person, is that feminism is really not about equality. It is not about woman’s rights and protection of women at all. It is really about women using other women to gain more power on the pretext that women need other women to be strong, powerful and independent. (Check Emily’s List motto – it sums it up) Feminism is female chauvanism – worse than other sorts for its deceptiveness. I am no feminist because if its premises. I am staunchly against feminism. It neglects the needs of men and children, and attempts to impose its views on other cultures (non-Western cultures). Accordingly, I think, Summers, in the academic sense is right that there is no such thing as a pro-life feminist. Check out my blog for more: goodwritingandfun.blogspot.com.au