Comprehending laws and contracts is impossible, unless we first learn the meaning of the words and phrases they contain.

Moderator: notmartha

Post Reply
User avatar
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm


Post by notmartha »

Word of the year: “feminism”

From https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-a ... s-feminism
Merriam-Webster's Word of the Year for 2017 is feminism. The word was a top lookup throughout the year, with several spikes that corresponded to various news reports and events. The general rise in lookups tells us that many people are interested in this word; specific spikes give us insight into some of the reasons why.

Feminism spiked following news coverage of the Women's March on Washington, DC in January (and other related marches held around the country and internationally), and follow-up discussions regarding whether the march was feminist, and what kind of feminism was represented by organizers and attendees. The word spiked again when Kellyanne Conway said during an interview that she didn't consider herself a feminist. In this case, the definition of feminism was itself the subject of the news story—an invitation for many people to look up the word.

Interest in the dictionary definition of feminism was also driven by entertainment this year: we saw increased lookups after the release of both Hulu’s series The Handmaid's Tale and the film Wonder Woman.

More recently, lookups of feminism have been increasing in conjunction with the many accounts of sexual assault and harassment in the news. Many women have come forward to share their stories with journalists and many more women joined in on social media using the #MeToo hashtag to say that they too have been affected by such behavior. The string of breaking news stories regarding the resignations, firings, or dismissals of men who have been charged with sexual harassment or assault has kept this story in the news.

The words “feminism” or “feminist” are not found in the KJV or any other translations I checked.

Here are some other references:

Matters concerning His Lawful assembly, Issue 63
There is a warped view among some "Christian" men that they are the ones who "bring home the bacon," and a godly wife is one who should do no more than stay at home, and remain there, confined to making babies, changing diapers, cooking meals, cleaning the house, and keeping her mouth shut. But our Father's Proverbs tell us otherwise:

"Gathering wool and flax, she makes it serviceable with her hands. She is like a ship trading from a distance: so she procures her livelihood." Proverbs 31:13-14

"She views a farm and buys it: and with the fruits of her hands she plants a possession." Proverbs 31:16

"She makes fine linens, and delivers girdles to the merchants. She opens her mouth heedfully and with propriety, and controls her tongue. She puts on strength and honour; and rejoices in the last days." Proverbs 31:24-25

But she's doing this all for the good of her husband and children. This is not like modern women who are building their own "career", having their own money and their own bank account. That's not the godly woman. Because a godly woman, while she uses those skills, always brings it back home for the embellishment of the household and the enhancement of her husband. There is no financial competition.

And if your husband and children are not benefiting from your calling outside of the household, then you're not a godly wife. You bought the lie that you're your own woman, you do your own thing, and that man is your inconvenience. That is a lie! The feminism movement is born from satanic rebellion against the Holy One of Israel. But because many women have established their own bank accounts, and spend their own money for their own agenda, and the good of the family is nowhere to be found, then the blessings of God will not rest on your life or be in your household.

When you begin to live your married life with no thought of the betterment of your husband, you have joined Satan in dissolving your marriage. God did not give you a husband for you to still be an independent single woman. He gave you a husband so that you could partner with him, helping him by using your gifts, your skills, and your abilities that He has blessed you with, for the betterment of the whole household. Whenever your calling outside of the household demands of you that which negates your role as wife and mother, it is not a calling from God.
“Straight Talk,” Ben Williams, Jan-Feb 2010
Under God's system we, as a people, are rooted and strong because we stick together and look to God as our King ..... and to each other for trust and fellowship.

However, under the Beast System we are taught to look to the Beast (man’s government/religion) for all our needs, rather than to God, family, friends and community. This separates us into units of ONE and thus easily manipulated and defeated. For instance, today women have no need of men or family for protection and honor. Likewise, children have no need for parents. The reason they don't need men or parents is that they have Big Brother (church & state) that promises to do for them all the things for which they formerly depended upon husbands and parents. Of course, the Beast's promises are false. Women and children who depend upon in the Beast System always get hurt, but by the time they realize they've been hurt the damage has already been done to them, to the family, and to society. Now you can understand why 40 years ago the Beast System initiated the “Feminist Movement” and convinced silly women to abandon their tradition ties as moms and wives. The smart ones resisted the propaganda.

The Beast System UPROOTS those over whom it rules. It doesn't just uproot women, it uproots ALL by creating an unnatural and unhealthy relationship where the state replaces the rolls of natural family and community.


The Century Dictionary, an Encyclopedic Lexicon of the English Language, 1895

The qualities of females.
Funk and Wagnalls Standard College Dictionary, 1973

1. A doctrine advocating the granting of the same social, political, and economic rights to women as the ones granted to men; also, a movement designed to support this doctrine and gain such rights.

2. The existence of female characteristics in the male.

One who advocates or seeks further feminism.
WEX Legal Dictionary
Feminist Jurisprudence

Feminist jurisprudence is a philosophy of law based on the political, economic, and social equality of sexes. As a field of legal scholarship, feminist jurisprudence began in 1960s. It now holds a significant place in U.S. law and legal thought and influences many debates on sexual and domestic violence, inequality in the workplace, and gender based discrimination. Through various approaches, feminists have identified gendered components and gendered implications of seemingly neutral laws and practices. Laws affecting employment, divorce, reproductive rights, rape, domestic violence, and sexual harassment have all benefited from the analysis and insight of feminist jurisprudence.

Feminists believe that history was written from a male point of view and does not reflect women's role in making history and structuring society. Male-written history has created a bias in the concepts of human nature, gender potential, and social arrangements. The language, logic, and structure of the law are male-created and reinforce male values. By presenting male characteristics as a "norm" and female characteristics as deviation from the "norm" the prevailing conceptions of law reinforce and perpetuate patriarchal power. Feminists challenge the belief that the biological make-up of men and women is so different that certain behavior can be attributed on the basis of sex. Gender, feminists say, is created socially, not biologically. Sex determines such matters as physical appearance and reproductive capacity, but not psychological, moral, or social traits.

Though feminists share common commitments to equality between men and women, feminist jurisprudence is not uniform. There are three major schools of thought within feminist jurisprudence. Traditional, or liberal, feminism asserts that women are just as rational as men and therefore should have equal opportunity to make their own choices. Liberal feminists challenge the assumption of male authority and seek to erase gender based distinctions recognized by law thus enabling women to compete in the marketplace.

Another school of feminist legal thought, cultural feminists, focuses on the differences between men and women and celebrates those differences. Following the research of psychologist Carol Gilligan, this group of thinkers asserts that women emphasize the importance of relationships, contexts, and reconciliation of conflicting interpersonal positions, whereas men emphasize abstract principles of rights and logic. The goal of this school is to give equal recognition to women's moral voice of caring and communal values.

Like the liberal feminist school of thought, radical or dominant feminism focuses on inequality. It asserts that men, as a class, have dominated women as a class, creating gender inequality. For radical feminists gender is a question of power. Radical feminists urge us to abandon traditional approaches that take maleness as their reference point. They argue that sexual equality must be constructed on the basis of woman's difference from man and not be a mere accommodation of that difference.
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 2017

1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests
the presence of female secondary sex characteristics in a male


Robert Dowlut:
Gun control stems from racist roots, and ... it undermines feminism by send[ing] women the message that they should not use force to defend themselves.
Walter E. Williams:
In what sense are women equal to men? .... I’ve never seen sexually integrated professional boxing matches, football games, basketball games, 100-yard dashes or ice hockey games. Is that because male chauvinists deny women the chance to compete? The military response to the conspicuous absence of women in male-dominated areas suggests a remedy for professional sports. Army fitness standards call for 80 push-ups for men and 56 for women. Male soldiers ages 17 to 25 must run two miles in 17 minutes and 55 seconds. Females are given 22 minutes and 14 seconds. Male Marine trainees must climb 20 feet of rope in 30 seconds; women are given 50 seconds. The military’s “gender-norming” might be implemented in sports. In football, new rules might allow the offensive team’s female pass receiver to take up an uncovered position one-half the distance to the goal behind the defensive team’s line. In the 100-yard dash, women could get a 25-yard head start. In baseball, a mid-field hit might count as a home run. I’m at a loss for what can be done to gender-norm boxing. All that I come up with to level the playing field between a woman and George Foreman or Mike Tyson is to give the woman a gun. ... Feminists themselves wouldn’t want sports desegregated and gender-normed. The folly and disastrous consequences would be obvious to all. For them, gender-norming is best left to areas where its effects are more readily concealed. The fact of business is that we humans are not equal. Some of us are women and some are men. Some are smart and some are not so smart. Some are colored, others are uncolored. Some are tall, and some are short. Some of us are poor, and others wealthy. The differences -- inequalities -- are endless. Equality before the general rules of law is the only kind of equality conducive to liberty that can be secured without destroying liberty. It is an equality that neither requires nor assumes people are, in fact, equal. Our attempt to make people equal by rigging law to produce results destroys civility and generalized respect for the law. Government cannot create an advantage for one person without simultaneously creating a disadvantage for another. ... Government agencies have no right telling one American he or she can go into a business and another, who is just as able, that he or she cannot.
The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan, 1963
"[Housewives/mothers] were reduced to childlike preoccupation with food, elimination, the satisfaction of primitive bodily needs; they had no privacy, and no stimulation from the outside world. But above all, they were forced to spend their days in work which produced great fatigue...required no mental concentration, gave no hope of advancement or recognition, was sometimes senseless, and was controlled by the needs of others..."
Feminism, New World Order and Rockefeller's New War

By Henry Makow Ph.D. http://www.savethemales.ca/130302.html
March 13, 2002
In the 1960's, the elite media invented second-wave feminism as part of the elite agenda to dismantle civilization and create a "New World Order."

The ultimate aim is to concentrate the world's wealth/power in a relatively few hands through a global "socialist" dictatorship, administered by the UN, and paid for by you. As former President George Bush told the UN General Assembly in 1992, "It is the sacred principles enshrined in the UN Charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance."

This is the long-term agenda of the dynastic Anglo-American international banking and oil monopolies (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan) and British aristocratic families that have used foreign services and intelligence agencies to manipulate world affairs and cause havoc since the end of the 19th century. Some people call this a "conspiracy." Conspiracy is the history that isn't written.

Feminism was promoted for the purpose of destabilizing society, and creating dysfunctional people. Stunted people can be brainwashed and manipulated. Rockefeller's new war (a.k.a. The War on Terror) is an extension of this elite agenda of world monopoly.

Feminism masquerades as a movement for women's rights. This kind of deception is typical of subversive movements of Communist origin. In reality, feminism is ruthlessly opposed to femininity, masculinity, heterosexuality, the nuclear family and children.

It deliberately promotes homosexuality which, according to experts, is a form of arrested development. Feminism neuters women, rendering them less fit to become wives and mothers. Men are emasculated, unable to create families, or make sacrifices for the sake for their children.

If feminism were genuine, it would have disappeared when discrimination against women ended. It continues as a tool of the elite agenda: depopulation, de stabilizing society, and dismantling Western Civilization.
In academia, feminists are the storm troopers of the Brave NW0, making politics supreme over science, objective fact and reason. Feminists believe western culture needs to be "reformulated" because men ("the patriarchy") created it. Essentially, this involves throwing it out.

Modern feminism is a classic Communist "popular front" subversive movement. Betty Friedan, and virtually all its leading exponents were/are Communist/ Marxist activists. Feminism has taken over the education and legal systems, the media and federal bureaucracy because dismantling our culture is the elite agenda.

The elite financed the Communists because the state is the ultimate monopoly. By controlling that, they control everything. As well, they have the common goal of destroying western civilization.

Communists use social ideals to dupe the people. In the past, Communists exploited class and race divisions to divide and conquer. Now they pretend to champion women and homosexuals. Their real aim is to de stabilize and control society.

The result of feminism is massive social and psychological dysfunction. Feminists, who would not touch a genetically modified apple, deny the inherent male-female dichotomy, the yin-yang at the heart of the universe. They are standing between millions of people and their G-d, because loving sexual union mirrors divine union.
Western civilization is Judeo Christian. Every civilization is based on religion. They are founded on the assumption that the material world mirrors an immanent spiritual order. Call it G-d.

Culture, personal and social, is the attempt to reflect this spiritual order. This is the true path to fulfillment and happiness. Civilization is a quest for G-d. There is no such thing as culture divorced from G-d.

The monopolists want to bring down western civilization because the Divine Order is opposed to the New World Order. They want to replace civilization with paganism.

If believers are accused of imposing their morality on others, they should reply, you are imposing your IMMORALITY on us.

Believers should insist on prayer and references to G-d in public institutions because while there are many religions, all lead to the same mountaintop. While we should not insist on our particular path, we should insist on the common goal. We should unite to defend civilization against the onslaught of paganism.

Sexual promiscuity and pornography are a big part of this push to paganism. They result from arrested development. The stunted human equates sex with love and obsessively fills the vacuum with sex. The elite monopolists promote this decadence and call it liberation. They are turning us into sexual misfits and nomads unable to form fruitful permanent relationships.

Monopolists control the mass media, the education system and the professions. Universities and think tanks are filled with intellectual whores and moral cowards financed by tax exempt foundations. William H. McIllany's book, "The Tax-Exempt Foundations" shows how our tastes and attitudes have been formulated and controlled. For example, Rockefeller financed the development of contraception and the promotion of depopulation and promiscuity (The Kinsey Report.) Ominously, Rockefeller also financed the eugenics movement and paid for the United Nations site.

The elite media tells us that Iraq must be contained before it acquires weapons of mass destruction. It doesn't tell us that Iraq now has the second largest oil reserves in the world, and is expected to supercede even Saudi Arabia. Could the projected 300 billion barrels of Iraqi oil be of any interest to Rockefeller-Morgan-Chase-Exxon? Might it interest their minions in the CIA and Bush administration? Who will benefit from these reserves after Saddam Hussein is toppled? These questions are worth asking, don't you think?

Last week General Tommy Franks inadvertently referred to the war in Afghanistan as "Vietnam" and didn't realize his mistake. This telling slip of the tongue wasn't reported in the US. (I saw it on a cable channel from France.) The American "victory" in Afghanistan may have been spurious. The Taliban may have melted away in order to avoid bombs and draw in American ground troops.

What was reported, however, was a "leak" in which seven countries were named as potential US first-strike nuclear targets. In addition to the "axis of evil," Russia, China, Syria and Libya were named. While the administration backpedaled furiously this week, the message got out loud and clear. According to the "Tehran Times", from Iran (a country with oil reserves of 100 billion barrels): "The order indicates the US administration is going to wreak havoc on the whole world in order to establish its hegemony and domination." (National Post, March 11)

An article in the Chicago Tribune March 3, 2002, was remarkably candid for the elite media. Under a headline "Whack Iraq? Striking Hussein is Ill-Conceived," Senior Correspondent R.C. Longworth reported that emissaries from "the Eastern Establishment" recently traveled to Chicago, to win local support for an American war on Iraq.

"About 20 prominent Chicagoans gathered recently for a private dinner to hear an emissary from the Eastern Establishment lay out the administration's case for a war on Iraq. It was a conservative crowd--lawyers, business people, bankers, a sprinkling of academics, even a retired Army general. All probably supported the war in Afghanistan, and there wasn't a card-carrying dove in the lot.''

Nevertheless, the Chicago elite unanimously opposed the war-on-Saddam pitch, comparing it to similar war-hawk assurances they received before the U.S. got into the quagmire in Vietnam. The Chicagoans were not demonstrating Midwestern isolationism. On the contrary, they argued that "a unilateral attack on Iraq would shred those alliances [with Europe and the Arab world], turning the U.S. from a global leader, respected by its allies, into a global bully feared by its subjects.''

It's about time we heard from these US regional elites. Feminism, the New World Order and the Rockefeller's new war are all part of the same picture: a ruthless, insatiable drive for world resource monopoly. Inevitably this will lead to genocide and tyranny.

The American people are good, decent and courageous. It's time they attacked the root of the evil that afflicts them. We should begin by networking with like-minded citizens, and making our voices heard. Our first demand should be an independent investigation of the events of Sept. 11. Why were there no Arab names on the passenger lists? Show us that the elite didn't perpetrate this atrocity. I don't want to believe it did. But these days self-delusion is becoming a luxury.
Read more from Henry Makow here: https://www.henrymakow.com/
User avatar
Posts: 782
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Re: Feminism

Post by notmartha »

The Feminist Movement Has Ruined Women and Damaged Men
Posted on October 10, 2019 by Ben
Feminism has not liberated women. It has robbed them of their womanhood.
My recent article, “No Motherhood, No People” (https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/0 ... no-people/ ) resulted in some perceptive comments. Here is one slightly edited comment:

“It’s sadly ironic that “feminism” has such disdain for femininity. Our society now heaps the most praise on women when they exhibit traditionally male traits such as strength, independence and excellence in STEM occupations. The woman who wants to marry and devote herself to being a wife and mother, raising children and thus shaping the future, making home a safe and happy place to be, is ignored or disdained by the media.

“It’s okay for a woman to have lots of sex appeal as it’s another form of power, but to devote herself to her family and sacrifice for her children, is now considered embarrassingly old-fashioned. It is universally understood that a happy childhood is the main key to creating happy, productive societies, but motherhood is being delegitimised.

“Could this be because our overlords want to create a loveless society where every man and woman are looking out only for #1?

“Mothers most of all LOVE, and good mothers (and fathers) raise children who are also capable of forming strong, lasting bonds with other people, and creating their own happy families some day. Love strengthens us, and the bigger our network of loved ones, the safer we are. We thrive when our lives are filled with laughter, intimacy, companionship, knowing that we matter, and that we will always matter, even when we can no longer care for ourselves.

“On a material level, when one stumbles, the others can raise him up, so no crisis need ever be permanent. For a person on their own, the loss of a job or a serious illness can drag them down so low that they may never recover. This is, of course, what our predatory rulers want: for us to be isolated, scared and vulnerable.

“Another disturbing trend is the state intervening between parents and child and superseding the parents in determining what is right for the child. For example, a woman who had just given birth refused vaccination for her baby, and the nurse then left the room with the just-born infant, rather than letting the parents immediately hold her. It was 12 awful hours before they got their newborn back. It’s part of a trend. Parental rights are being trampled. The state, we are told, knows better than parents what is best for their child.

“I believe the ultimate goal of driving women towards careers and unattached sex is to destroy the family and eventually have children being born who have no parents and belong only to the state. Children outsourced to preschool, nannies and daycare, are not encultrated into family life.”

The family is under attack from more sources than feminism. Economic pressures have forced wives and mothers into the work force. Formerly the rule was that corporations had equal responsibilities to the workforce, customers, communities and shareholders. This rule gave way to the argument that corporations only have responsibility to shareholders. This new rule was enforced by Wall Street’s threat to finance takeovers of any company that did not do everything to maximize profits. Consequently, today the only beneficiaries of corporations are shareholders. Wages are suppressed by jobs offshoring and work visas, benefits are cut, and a person’s job can disappear without a moment’s notice. Economic insecurity forces wives and mothers out of their role of providing household services into the male role of providing money.

Child Protective Services, a gestapo state organization created by wicked “child advocates,” has undermined parental ability to protect their children. So many things now qualify as “child abuse” that children can retaliate against parental authority by calling CPS. The consequence for the child and the parents can be draconian, and this realization by parents shifts power to the child.

Recently I linked to a Russian’s view of why the modern family breaks up. He said that feminism has turned marriage into a power struggle. The woman seizes power by making the child an idol and herself his priestess, leaving the man as an economic appendage. “As a result, the entire family structure is destroyed, and the man leaves the family to find a place where he feels more comfortable. Thus the family falls apart.” https://russia-insider.com/en/culture/p ... em/ri27459 I have seen many cases of this. It is probably the main reason that middle class wives are becoming single mothers.

The feminist propagandistic portrayal of men whose interest in women is alleged to be limited to their vagina is true with promiscuous men, known in my day as “womanizers” and to the English as “rakes.” But normal, un-corrupted men want a loving, mutually supportive relationship. Men are really happy if their woman occasionally takes the sexual initiative so that they don’t always feel like supplicants and if she is passionate. However the normal male is not attracted to low-class, hardened, and brassy women.

Feminism has made such a relationship harder and harder for men to find. Indoctrinated by feminism, a woman regards her vagina as the source of her power, and expects to be paid for access whether she is a wife or one of the millions of young college girls serving as prostitutes to financially successful men in exchange for educational and living expenses. The college girls are selling sexual services, but the wife is also enjoying rewards. For example, her pay is her authority in family decision making. She decides where they go on vacation. What house they live in, the schools the children go to, when the kitchen and bathrooms are renovated, who their friends are. The feminist woman is a cold wife.

Feminists have so damaged the relationship between men and women that the institution of marriage seems to be faltering. Marriage is one of the essential glues of social cohesion. There is no gain to either gender from a breakdown in social cohesion.

Feminism, large scale third world immigration, and corrupt politics are destroying social sanity throughout the Western world. The civilization is really falling apart at the seams. People have some awareness of this but are without leaders to inform people against postmodern godlessness in the educational, political, and entertainment systems that are enculturating the young with socially destructive attitudes.

For the entirety of the Western world, the end seems near in many respects.
Post Reply