A true biblical “feminist” embraces the ontological reality of male and female, submits to the authority of Scripture, and the authority of her father or husband, and adheres to the biblically outlined roles of men, women, and children in the marriage, family, church, and society. This is a feminism that builds up rather than tears down. It is time for women to reclaim their power of femininity, venerate motherhood, and permit men to be masculine again.  

The feminist movement has for decades propagated the myth that historically, and almost universally, women have been uniquely oppressed and confined to the domestic sphere, leaving the power, wealth and public life for the men.
Over the past 170 years, the feminist movement has undergone multiple waves of change, however, a consistent thread within this ideology has been the suppression of traditionally feminine traits with the promotion of masculine traits within women. The movement which originally pledged to fight for equality between men and women bestowed upon them by their Creator (Seneca Falls Declaration 1848) has progressively abandoned the biblical distinctions between male and female genders and roles for the fictitious idea of sameness.
Within any ideological “-ism” a grain of good can be found, but within feminism, the grain of truth has mutated into a vulgar and abusive ideology. The feminist movement has been hurting and enslaving many women for decades all the while purporting to be liberating them from the alleged evils of patriarchy. Now many women are waking up to the reality that the promises of liberation and equality from the feminist movement come at a great personal cost.
God has given women the keys to the future of any society—motherhood—and if we are going to pass on a good legacy to our children true feminine feminists must take the lead within our personal spheres of influence by adhering to the authority of the Scriptures in our understanding of male and female identity and roles within the marriage, family, church, and society.
Anti-Femininity
Classical feminism advocated for the recognition of the basic equal humanity, dignity, intelligence, and competence of the female sex (e.g. Olympus de Gourge, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Jane Austen). However this is not a new or revolutionary concept, it was embedded within the creation account of mankind by their Creator, “So God created man [humankind] in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Gen. 1:27)
In this verse, both males and females are included under the heading of “man” and are granted equal status as sharing in God’s image. The Bible has provided clear teaching regarding gender roles and distinctions while upholding an inalienable equality between men and women. A woman who embraces her femininity and biblical gender role is no less than a man–they are distinct yet equal.
However, the feminist movement has consistently sought to undermine gender distinctions of any kind and subsequently proven to be quite disingenuous in its claim of being advocates for women’s rights. They have not been advocates for the many women who uphold the binary definitions of gender and the God-given roles within the marriage, family, and the church. On the contrary, they have promoted women adorning masculinity and viewed femininity as a facilitator of oppression.
The feminist movement has been significantly influenced, if not highjacked, by Marxism, another -“ism” with a grain of truth, which focused on the power struggle between business owners and the working class. As the feminist movement intersected with Marxism the practical result was women being demoted from wife, mother, and matriarch to join the ranks of the labour force for the marketplace.
The feminist movement pressured women to enter the workforce in order to gain economic equality with men. However, if these women were going to compete with men within a male-dominated workplace they were called upon to shed any stereotypical femininity and female gender roles.
No longer was it acceptable for a woman to find her value in being, “created in the image of God,” now it was calculated by her ability to dominate within her life and work spheres like a man. Biblical femininity and female gender roles were typecast as weak and a relic of the oppressive patriarchal system.
The feminist movement subsequently crafted a toxic caricature of male masculinity that vilified strong and successful men. Therefore if true equality were to be attained the feminist movement required both genders to become neutered. Herein lies the real rub, the feminist movement is not pro-women it is pro-masculine women. The modern feminist, in practice, disdains feminine-women and despises masculine-men.
Embracing Transgenderism
It should not be surprising to anyone that a feminist movement that is so anti-feminine would evolve into a quagmire of perversions. The new 21st-century feminist is defined as such, “Quite simply, feminism is about all genders having equal rights and opportunities.” (International Women’s Development Agency)
The feminist movement does not exclusively promote women’s rights but includes “all genders,” and ironically transgender-women. Quite absurdly, the feminist movement has trumpeted the valour of men winning women’s athletic competitions, beauty pageants, and laughably Woman of the Year awards.
For a female to speak out against such perversions and inequalities is considered a transgression against the feminist ideology and is met with incensed anger and disapproval. An article from the ACLU titled “Banning Trans Girls from School Sports Is Neither Feminist nor Legal” by Shayna Medley and Galen Sherwin makes the argument that, “The politicians who introduce these anti-trans bills are not concerned with the integrity of girls’ athletics, any more than proponents of bathroom bans are concerned about preventing gender-based violence. We must see these efforts for what they are: fear-mongering intended to push transgender and non-binary people out of public spaces.”
In turn, the men and women who do speak up to protect the equal rights and opportunities for these girls are vilified as transphobic oppressors of women. The response to such crusaders for female rights is met by a disproportionate level of anger and cancellation from the very people claiming to advocate for women’s rights–witness the backlash JK Rowling is receiving for having the audacity to stand up for women’s (female) rights.
This begs the question: why are feminists embracing transgender women? For decades the feminist movement has tirelessly worked to undermine gender distinctions and transgenders personify the ultimate degradation of gender. Perhaps transgender women are the logical end of the modern feminist movement. Where does this leave the female girls on the college swim team? They have become losers dominated by men in lipstick and high heels. The feminist movement is replete with people who refuse to address the real assaults on female rights and equality, like transgenderism and Islam, while also minimising the real-world success of countless women in the public sphere. This leaves many women (and men) feeling unable to relate to or work with the loud angry mob of feminists in the west.
Angry Women
The feminists display disproportionate levels of anger about perceived inequalities and reproduction laws which they allege are oppressing women, while they pay little regard to the reality that they are living in societies brimming with successful, wealthy, and powerful women (many of whom are also mothers). A disconnect with reality is exemplified in this quote from Martha Rampton, professor of history and director of the Center for Gender Equality at Pacific University, “the realisation that gains in female representation in politics and business, for example, are very slight.” Compare this assessment of “very slight” with the following facts:
In 1965 2.3% of the US House of Representatives were women compared to 2021 at 27.3%; In 1971 4.5% of the state legislators were women compared to 2021 at 30.8%; In 1995 0% of Fortune 500 CEO’s in the USA were women compared to 2020 at 7.4%; in 1995 9.6% of Fortune 500 board members were women compared to 2019 at 27%; In 1986 9.5% of University and College presidents were women compared to 2016 at 30.1%.
For feminists to make the claim that women have had very slight gains in representation is confounding and disingenuous. Individuals will always face challenges and need to sacrifice in order to gain success in politics and business, but the grievances of the relatively few angry feminists are not shared by the majority of females. Most women are content to rely upon men, in varying degrees, financially, socially, emotionally, and sexually and do not consider themselves oppressed and enslaved.
Many women do not feel the need to have a 50/50 representation within all areas of the public sphere. In our Western world women have equal status, rights, and opportunities as men, so why aren’t the feminists heralding their success? Though the feminist movement has for decades actively marginalised and vilified gender-based distinctions they have been unable to change the ontological realities of gender. Thus, those women who legitimise gender-based divisions of labour, appreciate the value of masculine men and feminine women, oppose abortion, and find personal worth and value in their role as wives and mothers are not considered success stories.
Read More
Related Posts:

Creating an environment of doing life with others is how friendships are made and kept, not just spending time together but also sharing interests, activities, and ideas. It seems as though we’ve forgotten how even to function without the screen and nurture life with other humans. Try actually living with others, inviting them into your life, and asking to be part of theirs.

How does a person make and keep friends? Well, there are at least two parts to this. First you have to meet someone, and second you have to become part of that person’s life.
After you say hello, what’s next?
One of the things I remember being difficult as a child was introducing myself to other strange children. It was very uncomfortable. Probably many adults can relate to this feeling. After you say hello, what’s next? Thankfully, I had parents who encouraged me in this skill and later in the skill of making “small talk.” And even before our family had lessons in conversation, God used an occurrence to encourage me to at least step out of my comfort zone and say “hello.”
I remember visiting a church as a child with my family, and none of the children talked to me. It was the worst feeling ever. Afterward I determined that I would not let that happen to others who visited my church. The Lord used that terrible experience to give me compassion for others and the courage to introduce myself to new people.
Looking for the “lost” and seeking them out is what Christ does to us.
Meeting someone is the first step in making a friend. If you are shy or uncomfortable around new people, sometimes a good starting point is finding someone else who looks left out and lonely and focusing on serving them. This can help you forget how awkward you feel. Looking for the “lost” and seeking them out is what Christ does to us. He came from his place of comfort to serve the lost and make them friends of God.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Forrest L. Marion |
Monday, May 9, 2022
But the Finnish military members of 1939-40 have not been the only ones to exhibit exemplary valor in the Scandinavian “land of forests.” In a moral sense, in recent years up to the present day the high courage of two Finnish Christians – Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola and Member of Parliament Dr. Päivi Räsänen – has been the equal of their forebears in the Winter War. The two have been charged with hate crimes for teaching what the Bible says about homosexuality.

At the end of November 1939, during a period many Europeans and Americans considered a “phoney war” after the invading, dividing, and absorbing of Poland in September 1939 by Hitler’s Germany and Stalin’s Soviet Union, the U.S.S.R. attacked its small northern neighbor, Finland. The hardy Finns had enjoyed independence for barely two decades, having been under Russian sovereignty for a century until the 1917 Russian Revolution which gave them the chance to secure their liberty, by force of arms, in 1918. On the surface, the fight in the winter of 1939-40 appeared more uneven than today’s Russo-Ukrainian war, with results equally inspiring to those pulling for the smaller nation.
In 1939, the Soviet Union held more than 100 million subjects; Finland’s population was 4 million. The Soviets had about 3,000 tanks at the outset (the war cost them 1,600); most Finnish soldiers – mostly citizen-soldiers – had never seen a tank. The Soviet air force had some 2,500 aircraft (nearly 1,000 were lost); the Finnish Air Force had not quite 100 machines at the outset, but acquired dozens more from friendly powers during the war, losing about 60 total. Stalin preferred to have a legal pretext for his planned invasion – and following Hitler’s example in Poland – manufactured a border incident intended to depict the Finns as the aggressors. Never mind that the only firing of guns came from the eastern side of the border. Diplomatic initiatives leading up to the unprovoked attack had, unfortunately, dampened the Finns’ preparations for war. When the attack came, a new government was formed immediately, one clearly committed to the nation’s defense.[1]
Ten days after the Soviet attack, foreign minister Molotov – his name soon linked with a homemade, anti-tank explosive later known as the Molotov Cocktail (quite popular in Ukraine nowadays) – claimed in a telegram, with breathtaking dishonesty:
The Soviet Union is not at war with Finland, nor does it threaten the people of Finland with war. . . . The Soviet Union maintains peaceful relations with the Finnish Democratic Republic, whose government on December 2nd concluded with the Soviet Union a treaty of friendship and mutual assistance. This treaty settles all the questions with regard to which the Soviet government had negotiated fruitlessly with the representatives of the former government of Finland, now ejected from office.[2]
If readers are somewhat confused by the treaty of friendship reference, think Donetsk or Luhansk today.
Perhaps the most brazen portion of Molotov’s missive, however, was his reference to Finland’s government being “ejected from office.” As the saying goes, neither Finnish Marshal Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, nor his soldiers, got that memo. Although Mannerheim fought against Russians, first in 1918 and again in 1939-40, he had served thirty years as an officer under Tsarist Russia, including participating in the coronation of Tsar Nicholas II in 1896, of which he remained proud all his life.
Under Mannerheim’s leadership in 1939, following the initial shock of seeing tanks in battle for the first time in addition to overwhelming numbers of enemy troops, the Finns fought like tigers, helped by their familiarity with the forests in which many of them worked as loggers and trappers; and their native skills with firearms, severely cold weather, and skiing. In addition, the Finns had the incalculable moral advantage of defending their homeland. Molotov’s communication was revealing, too, in that it presumed the “former government” had fallen – a faulty prediction echoed by a Russian news announcement in late February 2022.[3]
The telegram further illustrated what the noted 20th-century British military historian, Major-General J.F.C. Fuller, wrote concerning the Marxist use of language:
A fundamental principle in Marxian dialectics is verbal inversion. When the accepted meaning of a word or an idea is turned upside down, not only are Communist intentions obscured [to the unsuspecting], but the mind of the non-Communist is misled, and mental confusion leads to a semantic nightmare in which things appear to be firmly planted on their feet, but actually are standing on their heads.
. . . Disarmament to one means one thing, to the other another thing; so also does peace. While to the non-Communist peace is a state of international harmony, to the Communist it is a state of international discord. . . . Communists hold that peace and war are reciprocal terms for a conflict which can only end when the Marxian Beatitude is established; since their final aim is pacific, they are peace lovers.[4]
Thus could Molotov claim unblinkingly that the invading Soviets were not “at war” with Finland, rather, they maintained “peaceful relations” with their neighbor’s government; similar to Russian denials of being at war today. Even closer to home for Americans, however, Fuller’s warning brings to mind the “verbal inversion” and “semantic nightmare” of terms like “systemic racism” that characterizes the madness of neo-Marxist, so-called Critical Race Theory (CRT) – a juvenile, secular religion, not a theory – and its fraudulent, destructive offshoot, Diversity-Equity-Inclusion (DEI). As eminent Professor Thomas Sowell writes, “The mystical benefits of diversity are non-existent, however politically correct it is to proclaim such benefits.” Simply put, if your loved one is to have surgery, do you want the surgeon to have graduated from a medical degree program that pursued diversity or meritocracy? One must choose.[5]
In the Winter War, the Finns held off the Russians during December 1939 and January 1940, during which they achieved stunning, overwhelming victories at difficult-to-spell-and-pronounce place names – at least for English speakers – such as Lake Tolvajärvi (mid-December) and Suomussalmi-Raate (late December-early January).
Tolvajärvi was north of Lake Ladoga which formed the northern border of the strategic Karelian Isthmus. The Finnish commander there, Colonel Talvela, later commented: “In situations like this, as in all confused and hopeless situations, an energetic attack against the nearest enemy was and is the only way to improve the spirits of the men and to get control of the situation.” No wonder Mannerheim thought so highly of him. Talvela was promoted to Major-General.
North of Tolvajärvi, the roughly west-to-east Suomussalmi-Raate Road (Raate was near the Finnish-Russian border), ran across the narrow “waist” of Finland where the Soviets hoped to cut the country in two. In that battle the Russians suffered from temperatures as low as minus 25 degrees C. (likely much lower), to which they were unaccustomed, limited food supplies, and aggressive harassing attacks by the Finns. Russian losses there were estimated at 30,000. News from the Finnish front captured the world’s attention and was the cause célèbre of the day.
Churchill, four months away from becoming prime minister, made a broadcast, stating: “Only Finland – superb, nay, sublime – in the jaws of peril – Finland shows what free men can do. The service rendered by Finland to mankind is magnificent. . . . If the light of freedom which still burns so brightly in the frozen North should be finally quenched, it might well herald a return to the Dark Ages. . . .”[6]
February and early March 1940 were a much different story, however. A new Russian commander, Semyon Konstantinovich Timoshenko, was named and given almost unlimited resources in men and materiel. In his memoirs, Mannerheim described the difference from December-January to February-March: “The enemy’s attacks in December could be compared with a badly-conducted orchestra,” as infantry, armor, and artillery were uncoordinated. By February, experienced and under Timoshenko’s leadership, they had learned to orchestrate their arms. Such improvements, in addition to the willingness to accept massive losses which the Russians could replace but the Finns could not, forced the Finnish government to sign a severe settlement in March, according to which they lost 12 percent of their population and some 25,000 square miles of territory including the Karelian Isthmus. But Finland survived and was to prosper again in years to come.[7]
But the Finnish military members of 1939-40 have not been the only ones to exhibit exemplary valor in the Scandinavian “land of forests.” In a moral sense, in recent years up to the present day the high courage of two Finnish Christians – Lutheran Bishop Juhana Pohjola and Member of Parliament Dr. Päivi Räsänen – has been the equal of their forebears in the Winter War. The two have been charged with hate crimes for teaching what the Bible says about homosexuality.
In 2004, Dr. Räsänen, a physician and former Minister of the Interior, wrote a short booklet on the Bible’s teachings regarding sexuality, including a section on homosexuality. Bishop Pohjola’s church published the booklet. In addition, Dr. Räsänen was charged with tweeting a Bible verse in response to the liberal state church’s sponsorship of an LGBTQ parade and for taking part in a debate on the subject in 2019.
Gene Veith writes, “Three years ago, over a decade and a half after the publication of the booklet, the two were charged for inciting hatred against homosexuals,” despite the fact that Finland did not legalize same-sex unions – I will not call it marriage – until 2017. In 2022, finally their case has been brought to trial. By the way, Finland claims to guarantee freedom of speech and religion. If found guilty, the two could face fines and up to two years in prison.[8]
To turn a bizarre case into an even stranger dystopian, yet evangelistic, event, in January the prosecution elected to shift attention away from the two defendants. As Joy Pullmann of the Federalist writes, “Finnish prosecutors described quotations from the Bible as ‘hate speech.’ Finland’s top prosecutor’s office essentially put the Bible on trial, an unprecedented move for a secular court.” In scenes that Bible readers of the Apostle Paul before the likes of Felix and Agrippa (Acts 24-26) might recall, the lead Finnish prosecutor actually read out Old Testament verses, quoting them to the court. When prosecutors then proceeded to question Pohjola and Räsänen concerning their beliefs, the two had the opportunity to proclaim the gospel in the courtroom. Bishop Pohjola and Dr. Räsänen have on multiple occasions “publicly affirmed that they are not motivated by hate, but by love in stating the historic, orthodox Christian faith.” Outside the court, Räsänen spoke to reporters with faithfulness and winsomeness: “The saving gospel of Jesus Christ has been given to us in the Bible. . . . The cross of Christ shows the greatest love for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.”[9]
How ironic that a miniscule number – in this case, only two – spiritual descendants of those outnumbered and outgunned patriots who, for 105 days during the fearful Scandinavian winter of 1939-40, fought heroically to preserve Finland’s independence should, in 2022, find themselves the subject of naked state-sponsored persecution fairly reeking of the very tyranny against which nearly 25,000 Finns gave all against the invading enemy.
Sadly, today Finland is only one of many Western nations, including the United States, in which the few – but steadily increasing – morally courageous stand in contrast to the cowardly majority that embrace, knowingly or otherwise, Fuller’s Marxian Beatitude in its current CRT/DEI/cancel-culture iteration, revealing a weak, sickly body politic and a culture unworthy of their forefathers’ courage and sacrifices.[10]
As the afflictions of aggressive, compulsive, humanistic ideologies are manifested irrespective of locale, tradition, or historical precedent, more and more erstwhile quiet Christians and other principled individuals are determining to “live not by lies.” Rod Dreher writes, “Under the guise of ‘diversity,’ ‘inclusivity,’ ‘equity,’ and other egalitarian jargon, the Left creates powerful mechanisms for controlling thought and discourse and marginalizes dissenters as evil.”[11] As my senior pastor says, the Lord is “gloriously unpredictable.” Moreover, David in the 11th Psalm writes, “If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?” The next verse answers: “The LORD is in His holy temple; the LORD’s throne is in heaven.” His sovereignty rules over all (Psalm 103:19). May today’s followers of Jesus Christ lift hearts in prayer for the upholding of true righteousness, beginning in their own little spheres, in their own little corners of Zion, and ultimately to the ends of the earth. As the prophet Zechariah writes, “These are the things which you should do: speak the truth to one another; judge with truth and judgment for peace in your gates” (8:16).
On 1 April 2022, the Center for Religious Liberty reported that on 30 March a Helsinki court dismissed all charges against Dr. Räsänen. (The brief report did not mention Bishop Pohjola.) While this was only one spiritual battle in a long conflict, let us give thanks to God. . . .
Forrest Marion is a ruling elder in Eastwood Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Montgomery, Ala.

[1] Eric Lewenhaupt, trans., The Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim (London: Cassell and Company, Ltd, 1953), 365, 369.
[2] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 328; Robert Edwards, The Winter War: Russia’s Invasion of Finland, 1939-40 (New York: Pegasus Books, 2008), 139-40 (Molotov quoted by Edwards), 192. Mannerheim wrote, “In-fighting with tanks was to provide some of the most heroic incidents of the Winter War, for to attack them with only this bottle in one’s hand required skill as well as courage” (328).
[3] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 366; Edwards, Winter War, 157.
[4] J.F.C. Fuller, The Conduct of War, 1789-1961: A Study of the Impact of the French, Industrial, and Russian Revolutions on War and Its Conduct (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1961), 211-12.
[5] Thomas Sowell, Dismantling America: and Other Controversial Essays (New York: Basic Books, 2010 [2002]), chap. 20 (audiobook).
[6] Edwards, Winter War, 152-85 (Talvela quoted by Edwards), 223 (Churchill quoted by Edwards); Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 334-40.
[7] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 350-53; Edwards, Winter War, 204, 228.
[8] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 366; Gene Veith, “Finland Explicitly Puts the Bible on Trial,” The Aquila Report, 4 Feb 2022 (originally in patheos.com, 26 Jan 2022).
[9] Veith, “Finland Explicitly Puts the Bible on Trial,” 26 Jan 2022 (Pullmann quoted by Veith). For additional reading on this case, see Joy Pullmann, “In Case With Global Implications, Finland Puts Christians on Trial for Their Faith,” The Aquila Report, 30 Nov 2021 (originally in thefederalist.com, 23 Nov 2021); [Mathew] Block, “Finnish Bishop Elect Charged Over Historic Christian Teachings On Human Sexuality,” The Aquila Report, 6 May 2021 (originally in ilc-online.org [International Lutheran Council]), 30 Apr 2021; Kiley Crossland, “Finnish Church Embraces Gay Marriage, Loses 12,000 Members,” The Aquila Report, 30 Dec 2014 (originally in wng.org, 4 Dec 2014).
[10] Lewenhaupt, trans., Memoirs of Marshal Mannerheim, 365, 370.
[11] Rod Dreher, Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents (New York: Sentinel, 2020), xii. Dreher took his book’s title from a letter of famed Soviet dissident and author, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Related Posts: