Issues Tearing Our Nation's Fabric The Center for Reclaiming America

[ Previous | Table of Contents | Next ]

Feminism
Chapter Seven

The feminist movement traces its roots to the same philosophical and social disturbances that led to the French Enlightenment and to other revolutionary changes in the eighteenth century. Far from being an age of new discoveries, as the name Enlightenment might suggest, it was a time of rejection, bitterness, and moral exhaustion. The most enduring legacy of the Enlightenment was an unbridled assault on all forms of authority—particularly the influence of faith and traditional beliefs about "the good society."

Founders of the women’s movements in Europe and America have tended to see themselves as second class citizens rather than as partners with their husbands and other men. In this country the early feminist leaders claimed that "the rights of man and the citizen" guaranteed by our founding documents did not offer sufficient protection for the interests of women, and traditional ideas about the role of women did not accord them the freedoms they desired.

Abigail Adams, an outspoken advocate of women’s rights, told her husband, President John Adams, to "remember the ladies" when helping to compose the provisions of the U.S. Constitution. British author, Mary Wollstonecraft, wife of the English poet and avowed atheist Percy Bysshe Shelley, wrote an essay in 1792 entitled, A Vindication of the Rights of Women, partly to expand the debate on "women’s suffrage." In the late nineteenth century, Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s Declaration of Rights and Sentiments became the Bible of women activists and "suffragettes" in this country.

During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries the women’s movement often focused on moral programs, such as the temperance movement, the anti-slavery movement, the right to vote, improving conditions for widows and orphans, as well as opportunities for women in education and the workplace. Clearly, many of their campaigns have been good for both women and men. But more recently the feminist debate has become radicalized and no longer reflects the same selfless and compassionate spirit. Since the publication of Betty Friedan’s book The Feminine Mystique in 1963, the women’s movement has been characterized by anger and resentment, and its leaders have become increasingly strident, rebellious, and isolated from mainstream culture.

The founding of the National Organization for Women (NOW) in 1965 provided a highly visible, if only marginally representative, focus for the movement. From that time, women became engaged in radical activist causes. Some of the founders of the group had played a role in the design and passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which included provisions not only for blacks and minorities, but for women, and was to become the first beachhead in the battle to legalize abortion-on-demand.

Hidden Agendas

Over the years, feminists have laid claim to a wide range of issues calculated to portray the victimization of women and the urgency of their cause. Rape, abuse, domestic violence, problems with discrimination and self-esteem, and even slavery, are common themes in feminist literature. Fortunately, none of these is as serious or as widespread as the leaders of the movement would have us believe.

In her book, Who Stole Feminism?, Christina Hoff Sommers investigates the campaign of disinformation and distortion being carried on by some in the movement. Though Sommers is, herself, a feminist, her motivation is to separate fact from fiction and to help clarify the issues. One of the statements she examines is the charge that 150,000 women die of anorexia each year. Both Gloria Steinem and Naomi Wolf helped perpetuate this rumor in their bestselling books. But on tracing the source of the statistic to the Anorexia and Bulimia Association, Sommers found that the original report had stated only that from 100,000 to 200,000 women may suffer from such conditions; but the number of deaths is closer to 70. Hardly the epidemic the feminist authors implied.

There are many such examples. Law professor Catherine MacKinnon claimed in a widely publicized report that half of all women will be victims of rape at least once in their lives. The original projections from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, however, say that approximately 8 percent of women will be victims either of rape or attempted rape at least once in their lifetime—considerably fewer than half.

Inside the System

No one can argue with responsible activism on behalf of equity and fair treatment for any group, even when that group makes up the majority of people in the nation—as women do in this and most other countries. But feminist leaders are not interested in fair treatment or equal rights alone; it is apparent they want exceptional privilege enforced by law, and to get it, large numbers of them have entered the legal professions.

A feminist lawyer, professor of law at Columbia University, and now a justice of the United States Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has championed the radical redefinition of the role of women in society, including the elimination of all laws that grant respect, preference, or advantages for women. As one example, Ginsburg argued that the Mann Act, which prohibits statutory rape and requires husbands to support and provide for their wives, should be repealed because it gives women preferential (and thus, she claims, demeaning) treatment.

Ginsburg has repeatedly opposed laws from a more genteel age which, in some states, have made cursing in the presence of women a misdemeanor, or in another case protected widows from usury and mistreatment. Her published views on prostitution, homosexuality, pornography, military service for women, lowering the age of consent for sexual activity, and many other issues are equally alarming.

These radical views make one wonder what sort of perverse logic is behind this kind of feminist litigation. Better treatment for women is apparently not the issue. But according to Phyllis Schlafly, a lawyer herself, Ginsburg’s record and her publications over many years show clearly what she and other feminists hope to achieve. "In the 1990s," says Schlafly, "the feminists no longer even pay lip service to a gender equality goal (except, of course, when it suits their purposes). Their goals are the feminization and subordination of men, and their tactics are to cry ‘victimization’ and ‘conspiracy.’"

In a 1986 case in which a woman had charged a man with rape, then later admitted that she had agreed to sex and had cooperated with the accused at the time, the Supreme Court agreed with the feminist argument that "‘voluntariness’ in the sense of consent" is not sufficient grounds to overturn a conviction for rape. The Court held that material evidence, including oral statements by the parties, was immaterial if the woman felt she had been abused.

Conservative, Christian, and anti-feminist organizations need to be alarmed about the precedents being set by the bizarre rulings of the activist courts. "The feminists want the battered woman syndrome to free any woman from conviction of violent crime," warns Phyllis Schlafly. "The feminists are even pushing the Catherine MacKinnon fantasy that all heterosexual sex should be considered rape unless an affirmative, sober, explicit verbal consent can be proved."

A Contrast of Opposites

The really bad news for feminists who hold such views is the fact that the majority of women in this country have no such desires. The radicalism of the movement has pushed more and more women toward traditional roles, away from the heated and hate-filled debates. At the same time, there is a growing preponderance of evidence that most women do not want the objectives for which the feminists are fighting. Most women do not share the values or the interests of the male-bashers, lesbians, pro-abortion activists, goddess worshipers, and the other fringe groups that populate the world of modern feminism.

In a 1995 Harris poll, 1,500 American women were asked: "If you had enough money to live as comfortably as you’d like, would you prefer to work full time, work part time, do volunteer-type work, or work at home caring for the family?" Just 15 percent of respondents said they would prefer to work full-time, and 85 percent chose another option. Caring for home and family was the number one choice: fully 31 percent chose this option, while 20 percent chose volunteer work, and 15 percent chose part-time work.

A survey of conservative and Christian women conducted by Concerned Women for America found that 97 percent of respondents rejected the possibility of full-time careers outside the home. In a poll of the general population, this study also reported that 80 percent of respondents (and, amazingly, 74 percent of the self-identified "feminists" surveyed) indicated preferences other than full-time employment outside the home.

In addition to a basic disagreement with the aims of militant feminism, a majority of American women have repudiated the movement’s drift toward lesbianism, goddess worship, and other sordid practices. Witchcraft, which most Americans once thought to be dead and gone, has reappeared, revived primarily by feminists; and even in mainline Protestant denominations there has been a new movement toward the occult, angel worship, and even demon worship. The Re-Imagining conference sponsored by feminist organizations within the National Council of Churches, was one notorious attempt to enshrine the goddess Sophia as a Christian deity; but events like this have alerted many women to just how extreme modern feminism has become.

God’s Design: Very Good, Very Simple

God’s basic design for "the good society" is very simple. It is so basic that almost all societies have practiced it since the beginning of time. God, the Creator, designed a system that works perfectly.

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth" (Genesis 1:27-28).

The language of the passage is very clear, with the implication that God created male and female as partners. God said it was not good for the man to be alone. To be complete, to be happy, the man and the woman would need each other. When confronted by the Pharisees on this topic, Jesus described the sanctity of the marriage partnership by saying:

Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh"? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate (Matthew 19:4-6).

Until we learn to live in that manner, and in harmony as God intended, there will only be strife and division. There are many who are eager to exploit the situation and to use the "gender gap" for their own advantage. We would be foolish, indeed, to let it happen.

You may contact these organizations:

Concerned Women for America
370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20024
(202) 544-0353

Eagle Forum
316 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 203
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 488-7000

For further reading:

R. Ruth Barton. Becoming Women of Strength: 14 Life Challenges for Women and the Men Who Love Them. Wheaton: Harold Shaw, 1994.
Jill Briscoe. De-Baiting the Woman Trap: Escape the Snares and Celebrate Freedom. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994.

On the World Wide Web:

Eagle Forum: http://www.eagleforum.org/
Concerned Women for America: http://www.cwfa.org/
Leadership University: http://www.leaderu.com

[ Previous | Table of Contents | Next ]

Copyright 1997, Coral Ridge Ministries. All rights reserved.