Toxic Feminism: A Blight on Our Society, Part I

Welcome everyone to another episode of Be the Light. I’m your host Rita Phillips, and today our topic is toxic feminism.

You know much has been made in recent years of a fake syndrome called toxic masculinity. According to feminists, toxic masculinity includes traits such as avoidance of emotional expression, a desire for physical, sexual, and intellectual dominance, and the methodical devaluation of women’s opinions, bodies, and sense of self. Boy that’s a mouthful. In other words, what is being described is what used to be known as a boor or a cad. You know, knuckle dragging neanderthals who grunt, find a woman they want, and drag her by the hair to their den for aggressive sex. I’m exaggerating of course, but there are always bad apples in every group and men are not immune to this.

That said, most women do not want the new version of men that feminists tout as exemplars. Most women want a man who is confident, strong, verile, and gentlemanly. And yes, we don’t mind when men cry when appropriate, but we don’t want a weak, man-bun wearing, pajama boy who just takes orders when the nearest female tells him to jump. That, too, is a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the picture.

Regardless, we are here today to discuss toxic feminism, so let’s go. Interestingly, I noticed there were many videos on Youtube about toxic femininity after the Gillette commercial aired recently on toxic masculinity. However, I don’t think acting too ladylike is the problem. I think a radical form of feminism is the problem.

a little history

As I generally do, I want to go back in time a bit. In the 1960s, I was in grade school, and I remember watching on our little black and white TV women burn their bras as a protest to what they viewed as things impeding their freedom. Those who didn’t burn their bras, refused to wear them, claiming they were not natural and were a device men had made to curtail their freedom. Other items thrown in trash cans (also known as freedom cans) were curlers, girdles, tweezers, and high heels. This helps explain why so many feminists appeared unattractive. Just saying.

Now keep in mind, I was in 3rd, 4th, or 5th grade while this turmoil was going on and I recall thinking, “This is stupid.” I actually agreed with equal rights and equal pay. I still do, and I don’t think any woman or man, for that matter, in the 21st century disagrees with this. Women today have both. We have female wrestlers, female football players and referees, female combat pilots, and female welders just to name a few occupations formerly reserved solely for men. Fantastic! That’s what women want, right?

equal opportunity or equal outcome?

And regarding equal pay, women do get equal pay for equal work. However, the reason stats don’t show that is because many women, admirably, decide to take maternity leave when they have children, or work part time, once again admirably, to spend more time raising their kids. It generally is not an evil scheme by men to hold women back. What these radical women want is not equality, they want equal outcome. You know as a high school teacher, I had a sign above my door that I would constantly point to. It read: equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Students had the same opportunity in class to learn from me and to get help from me. Some used this opportunity well and some squandered it. Therefore, the outcome was not the same for each student.

Let’s apply this silly feminist notion of equal outcome to society. At this point I am going to introduce you to Jordan Peterson, a Canadian clinical psychologist and professor of psychology at the University of Toronto. In recent years, he has been making a lot of waves because he rebuts feminism succinctly and is urging men to reclaim their power. Let’s listen to Peterson destroy the notion of equal outcome in society. (Peterson audio 1)

So, do women really want to artificially change that so that there are equal numbers of women working dangerous jobs, an equal number of women in prison, an equal number of female plumbers, and an equal number of women working outside jobs? I think not. I read a quote recently which really applies here. “Feminists want the power of men, the privilege of women, and the responsibility of neither.” I think that about sums it up.

4 toxic feminist demands

All that having been said, I simply have to ask: What in the world are these feminists screaming about? Well, as I see it, here are their main issues. They want abortion on demand. They want to get rid of the patriarchal society. They want free birth control and tampons. And, they want the freedom to not marry and still have children because in their view, a man is only needed as a sperm donor.

abortion on demand

Okay, let’s begin by discussing abortion on demand. Roe v Wade was a Supreme Court decision, wrongly decided, in 1973, which put the rights of the mother above the rights of the unborn child. Initially after the decision there were no restrictions placed on abortion, but thankfully today we have a few. Some of those include requiring a woman seeking an abortion to view a sonogram prior to the procedure, requiring abortion providers to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, and restricting abortions to the first and second trimester (in some states). Unfortunately, it is these restrictions and requirements that so anger the feminists. They and Planned Parenthood are at the forefront of the yearly women’s marches where you will see women hoisting up signs with the following sentiments: Keep Your Laws Away From My Uterus, We Will Not Be Marginalized, GOP: Get Your Hands Off Our Women, and Probe Banks, Not Women. Leave it to leftists. They do everything with class, don’t they? They will not be satisfied until they are able to kill their own babies at any stage of development. Some on the left have even advocated post birth abortion which will will discuss in another podcast.

Of course we know that God creates life and we can find these words in Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart…” Life is precious and is a gift from God, but these delusional feminists still want to destroy a baby that they feel, that’s kicking inside them, and they tell themselves the lie that the baby is just a clump of cells and tissue. I wonder if this is the reason Planned Parenthood and feminists don’t want those entering abortion facilities to view a sonogram of the miracle happening inside their bodies. Hmmm….

the patriarchy

All right, let’s take on the patriarchal society. You know, the way these feminists come unhinged about this topic, one would think we were living in the 1950s. Nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s begin with the definition of patriarchal society. It is defined by feminists as a system that consists of a male-dominated power structure throughout organized society and in individual relationships. It’s true that most western societies began this way, but today I believe the notion that men are in charge of everything and have all the power is hyperbole.

I recently watched a Jordan Peterson interview, and I love the guy. He is fearless, unapologetic, factual, and correct. That’s why the left hates him. Let’s listen to him take on the so-called patriarchy in society today. (Peterson audio 2) I have to repeat his final sentiment: Where’s the patriarchy? We also need to see what the word of God has to say about this thorny subject. Ephesians 5:23-25 tells us, “For a husband is the head of his wife as Christ is the head of the church. He is the Savior of his body, the church. As the church submits to Christ, so you wives should submit to your husbands in everything. For husbands, this means love your wives, just as Christ loved the church. He gave up his life for her.”

Those are powerful words and to some fighting words. I remember I used to bristle about this passage and its meaning because it wasn’t clear to me. And, I believe it has been misused by some men to lord power over their wives. But it all boils down to pride and humility. Jesus who was God humbled himself and went willingly to the cross to save us from our sins. He submitted himself to his Father for our sake. The word submit doesn’t mean obey; it means to defer respectfully. It’s sad to hear how toxic feminists view marriage. Let’s listen to toxic feminist Julie Bindel discuss her views of marriage. (Bindel audio)

And, as far as dominance goes, let’s remember what Genesis 1 tells us about man, woman and dominance. Verse 27 says, “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created him; male and female created he them.” So, God created both men and women in his image; that seems equal. Further, regarding dominance verse 28 explains, “And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” I believe God intended from the beginning that both man and woman have dominion or dominance, if you will, over the earth to subdue it from the enemy, Satan. The fruitfulness, of course, meant to produce children, but I also believe it meant to produce the fruit of the Spirit, which is rooted in love.

Looks look at some other powerful verses that help to explain why so often men and women seem to be vying for dominance. Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, thus negating God’s intention that husband and wife live harmoniously. There are always consequences for sin, so God explained the result of their sins to the two. To Adam he said, “And I will cause hostility between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring…” Then in Genesis 3:16, God revealed to Eve, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.” Once again, this was not what God had originally intended, so this verse is not a prescription for how to behave in marriage; it is simply the direct consequence of sin.

As I’ve said before, I’m not a theologian, so if you are wiser than I am and have some insight here, please send me a voicemail which you can easily do on my website I’d be happy to play your comments.

birth control & taxes on feminine products

Moving on, another toxic feminist complaint is that insurance companies do not pay for their birth control and that their tampons are taxed. Okay, let’s break this down. According to Planned Parenthood, birth control pills cost between $15 to $50 a month. So yearly, one could expect to pay between $160-$600 a year for the privilege of having sex without the consequences of pregnancy. Does that seem like a burden to you? Does that sound like something an insurance company should pay for? Let’s listen to Sandra Fluke, attorney and women’s rights activist, explain the horrible plight of not being able to afford birth control pills because insurance companies are not paying for them. (Fluke audio) After listening to Ms. Fluke, I’m sure you’ll agree with me that she tends to exaggerate about the cost of birth control, and provides examples of hardships that most women just don’t face.

Now regarding the so-called tampon tax. Feminists claim it is unfair to tax something females need like feminine pads and tampons because they are not luxury items; they are necessities. I hate to break it to these toxic fems but many states tax both necessities and luxury items. Once states start exempting certain necessities like feminine hygiene items, you can expect other groups to seek exemptions for what they deem necessities. In addition, feminists seem to be suggesting that there is a special tampon tax on feminine products, but that is absolutely not the case. They are simply a product like every other product which is subject to a sales tax in states that have such taxes. Assuming feminists get their way and feminine products become exempt from sales taxes, it would mean a loss in revenue to the given states, making the tax base smaller and leading to an increase in sales tax rates to generate the same amount of revenue. So, let’s say you live in a state that has a 7% sales tax and now feminine products have an exemption, to retrieve the lost revenue, said state would now have to raise the tax rate to a 7.5% or 8% sales tax. That doesn’t sound appealing to most fiscally concerned citizens or those who think we are already overtaxed.

no fathers needed

What about the proposition by many feminists that children don’t need fathers, and in fact, that they would be better off being raised by a single mom or a lesbian couple? Think this sounds crazy? Me too, that’s why I call this toxic feminism. Peggy Drexler, an assistant professor of psychology and psychiatry at Cornell University, is a fervent advocate for “normalizing single motherhood and lesbian parenting.” Her 2005 book is entitled Raising Boys Without Men: How Maverick Moms are Creating the Next Generation of Exceptional Men.

Here’s a gem from her book: “An increasingly large number of children are being raised by mothers who are single and who have not divorced a husband or been abandoned by a man; these mothers are single by choice and have made a conscious decision to have a baby and find a sperm donor to do it. Lesbian couples and single mothers by choice are pioneering new ways of getting pregnant via donor insemination.” You see that folks! Men are not needed as fathers, just as sperm donors. Celebrities like Melissa Etheridge popularized this notion when she had two kids fathered by rocker David Crosby.

Author Drexler claims there are as many as five million lesbian mothers currently raising children in the United States. Obviously for her book, Drexler spent hours on research including interviewing moms and their sons. Unfortunately, however, her research seems tainted in that she is a proponent of lesbian marriages and “the transformation of gender roles.” Research is supposed to be scientific, without bias and opinion. That’s not the case with Ms. Drexler’s so-called research. Her bias is striking. In fact, she argues that single moms whether heterosexual or lesbian couples are actually superior to heterosexual couples in raising boys.

And, as most toxic fems are prone to do, Drexler snubs traditional marriage arguing that it’s preferable for children to be raised by a single mother than by parents who constantly fight. That’s some conclusion. Yes, two people sometimes have conflicts, and it’s impossible for a single mother to have a verbal conflict with herself. This doesn’t appear to be sound research.

Here’s another pearl of wisdom from Drexler. She claims these new maverick moms are “producing a new and vastly improved understanding of manhood and masculinity.” That explains all the man buns on young men these days. Just kidding. This is a serious topic, and nothing to laugh about as it is not Biblical and has serious implications for our culture and society. In fact, let’s hear what Pastor Ken Hutcherson has to say about boys being raised in single mother homes. (Hutch audio here) Those are some scary statistics, friends. God intended for both mothers and fathers to raise their children. To believe otherwise is foolish.

being vulgar is empowering?

It seems to me that so many of these feminist issues could be solved amicably by applying the word of God. Unfortunately, however, feminists have become hyper aggressive, loud, foul-mouthed, vulgar, and abusive, somehow believing this will change people’s minds about their issues. Let’s listen to a few examples of this. We’ll start with Ashley Judd, actress and toxic feminist. (Judd audio) I don’t know what to say here folks. This is the epitome of toxic feminism. I couldn’t play the whole clip because it got way too graphic. Why must these women wear hats that mimic female genitalia? They will tell you their power is in their vagina. What? Really? I could understand if someone said their power came from their intelligence or their ability to debate or their wisdom. But their female parts? This is the type of stuff that would get you committed to a loony bin a few decades ago.

end of part i; for the rest of this topic, go to part ii
Share this post: