The new wave of feminism is nothing to do with love, life or liberation.
On Wednesday of next week (8 March), it will be International Women’s Day.
Coinciding with this, some 673 protest marches are being planned in cities around the world – 35 countries have expressed interest so far – and a ‘general strike’ is being called, that women everywhere might express their resentment about inequality by walking out of their jobs and onto the street, placards held high. It’s being called ‘A Day Without a Woman’.
This strike and the marches are the latest in an apparent ‘new wave’ of feminist activism since Trump took the US presidency – though actually it started before this and elsewhere, with protests against gender violence in Argentina and a mass revolt in Poland against a proposed abortion ban.
But, as with the many other increasingly militant manifestations of liberal protest, this new wave of feminist demonstration deserves some closer analysis.
Boycotting What?
So, what is Wednesday’s march all about?
Last month, several prominent female academics and activists introduced ‘A Day Without a Woman’ in The Guardian, as “a day of striking, marching, blocking roads, bridges, and squares, abstaining from domestic, care and sex work, boycotting, calling out misogynistic politicians and companies, striking in educational institutions.”1
The article presents a stirring call to women to stand up against wage inequalities, job insecurity and male violence. It seems attractive at first – indeed, for many decades the feminist movement has been inviting, even for Christian women. It is hard to argue against recognising the contribution that women make to national economies, or the need to protest against domestic violence.
A new wave of increasingly militant feminist activism is beginning.
However, there is more to it than this. Further down the manifesto, the group ally themselves with a “new, more expansive feminist movement” that not only protests the usual inequalities, but also radically pushes the LGBT agenda and rails against “xenophobic immigration policies”.2
The National Review criticises the planned demonstrations as representing “a standard, vague list of clichéd left-wing hobbyhorses, not a principled protest engaging current policy problems.”3
So what is really going on – and why are these protests being described as more ‘militant’4 than ever before?
Behind the Scenes
Co-organisers of Wednesday’s march (the US variant) include Rasmea Yousef Odeh, a convicted Palestinian terrorist who spent 10 years in prison for her part in two bombings of Israeli students, and Angela Davis, former leader of the Communist Party USA and long-time supporter of the violent Black Panther movement. This kind of leadership alone suggests that more is going on here than merely a groundswell of popular concern for the welfare of women.
Despite this, the campaign is being presented in a very positive, accessible light. The website is pleasant to look at (with more than a hint of pink in the colour scheme – surely not!) and encourages women to join a movement happening “In the same spirit of love and liberation that inspired the Women's March” of January.5
The problem with this statement is that it’s simply not true; news coverage of the January march made it clear that it was far from loving and liberating – from Madonna’s virulent and vulgar speech to the hate and rejection directed at pro-life women trying to join the proceedings. In fact, it rapidly became clear that only one brand of feminism is welcome in this new ‘movement’: that which accepts ultra-left-wing attitudes towards life and liberty.
There is more going on here than merely a groundswell of popular concern for the welfare of women.
It should come as no surprise, then, that one quarter of the feminist groups that took part in the January march owe some $90 million in funding to ultra-left-wing billionaire George Soros.6 Soros, a former Clinton supporter, is well-known for using his fortune to fund groups around the world that promote (among other things) abortion, the destruction of biblical gender roles and relations, and the globalist vision of broken-down national borders, too often by seeding anarchic protests.
Selective Campaigning
Women's march in Washington, January 2017. See Photo Credits.So, despite appearances, these protests are not just popping out of the ground spontaneously, but represent some deeper and more insidious agendas. Meanwhile, back on the surface, the fact that these agendas fail to translate into genuine concern for women is drawing accusations of hypocrisy.
For instance, commentators are lamenting that thousands of women are somehow being mobilised to shout about perceived gender inequalities in the Western world (where women have more freedoms and opportunities than anywhere else on earth) whilst completely ignoring situations of far worse oppression elsewhere (e.g. much of the Middle East, where women are prohibited from walking unaccompanied down a street, for example).
Instead, critics are suggesting, the feminism currently taking to our streets seeks to stir up anger amongst thousands of normal and well-meaning citizens, against vague and easily warped ideas of ‘oppression’, whilst turning a blind eye to genuine issues of real inequality.
In other words, it seems more concerned with fomenting anarchy than with solving real problems.
LGBT Agenda
As such, these marches and protests are not the place to go if you’re looking for a constructive definition of femininity or womanhood. In fact, the entire movement fails to offer a concrete, helpful vision for what being a woman actually means – largely because it isn’t concerned with that.
The Guardian manifesto pitches the movement as “anti-racist, anti-imperialist, anti-heterosexist and anti-neoliberal”7 – but this long list of ‘antis’ revealingly leaves out any ‘fors’. The entire movement is negative and destructive - and as such, risks leaving women feeling confused about what they are actually fighting for.
However, a key part of what the campaign is really for is hidden in the term ‘anti-heterosexist’, above. Rather than being about the welfare of all women, regardless of sexual orientation, this campaign is more about pushing LGBT ‘rights’ and challenging heterosexual norms, in the guise of protest against ‘gender oppression’.
The campaign is less about the welfare of all women and more about pushing LGBT rights.
The manifesto deliberately pitches the purposes of Wednesday’s strike and marches as “to mobilize women, including trans women, and all who support them in an international day of struggle”.8
This positions the whole movement as part of the much bigger sexual revolution that has been going on since the 1960s, seeking to ‘liberate’ people from the perceived ‘shackles’ of heteronormativity - that is, the established, biblical norms of heterosexual family life. In other words, it is simply the latest manifestation of revolt against the boundaries set by God, in direct rebellion against our Creator.
Don’t be fooled by the use of Donald Trump as a focus for anger and protest on Wednesday. This is not one bit about Trump – it’s about God.
Ugly Anarchy
At the risk of sounding melodramatic, I believe this entire movement is actually satanic in origin, because it involves such clear and orchestrated rebellion against biblical principles. Personally, I am delighted that God made me female – but I am equally passionate about promoting his vision for womanhood (and all that this entails, including femininity, sexuality, marriage, motherhood), not the morally relative vision of postmodern feminism, which is already a long way down a very slippery slope.
Whilst thousands of women are being mobilised by vague talk of ‘inequality’ and ‘injustice’, inspired to march by a confusing mixture of causes, by its fruits shall this new movement be known. Nobody is being ‘liberated’ by the protests, which are increasingly angry, vulgar and violent. They seem to be more of a Trojan horse for anti-establishment anarchy than for genuine democratic protest – the enemy thrashing his tail, as we noted last week.
But the word says “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!” (Isa 5:20-21).
The latest 'feminist' protests are a Trojan horse for anti-establishment anarchy, not genuine democratic protest.
What Can We Do?
It’s time for Christians everywhere – men and women – to turn to the word and ask God to open our eyes afresh to a positive, scriptural definition of femininity and womanhood (and masculinity and manhood!). It is this biblical vision alone that can offer a living, breathing, soul-quenching alternative to modern feminism.
If you were considering joining the strike on Wednesday (apparently 15 cities and towns in the UK will host a march of some kind), I would urge you to abstain – and perhaps instead to consider hosting some kind of alternative event in the near future, to help others near you explore the Lord’s vision for the two genders.
Let’s also respond to the ‘new wave’ of feminism with a ‘new wave’ of prayer. Today happens to be the Women’s World Day of Prayer, and women (and men) all around the world will be gathering to hold a special service celebrating God’s creation of women and thanking him for his blessings.
Why not use this as a reminder to pray over Wednesday’s marches: that they will fail to foment violence, and actually cause disillusionment amongst women, prompting them to question what they are getting involved with and the kind of vision for gender, sexuality, life and liberty that it promotes. Pray that God will turn the enemy’s plans for good.
References
1 Alcoff, LM, Arruzza, C, Bhattacharya, T et al. Women of America: we're going on strike. Join us so Trump will see our power. The Guardian, 6 February 2017.
2 Ibid.
3 Wilhelm, H. The embarrassing confusion of the 'women's strike'. The National Review, 22 February 2017.
4 See note 1.
6 Soros gave $90m to feminist anti-Trump protest groups. Liberty Headlines, 17 January 2017.
7 See note 1.
8 See note 1.
