Yesterday I came across something that I kind of wish I hadn't seen, something that had me confused about what it was at first and then, later, skimming past it and wanting to just put it out of my mind. I'm not sure what to call it, a poster...a flyer...a headline, I don't even know if it was a headline for an article or if what I saw was all their was to it but either way, hours after reading it I wanted to find it again. What I had seen was some kind of...I'll just call it a poster...for feminism.
Before I go any further, let me say that I have no idea what the feminists claim their movement is about. I don't know their goals or agendas. And I don't want to know. What I know about feminism is all I need to know. I know that feminism stands against what Scripture says a woman should be and I know that feminists in the past have ruined what I consider to be a good thing for women. Because of feminists and whatever agenda they were pushing women, as a whole, are not expected to be, nor can they be in a lot of cases, anywhere close to what Scripture says a woman should be.
All my life I wanted to be a wife and a mother. In typical childish fashion there were times I fell heavier on the side of wanting to be a wife and times I fell heavier on the side of wanting to be a mother but somewhere deep inside I always wanted to be both of those things. Trouble was I grew up in a time when it was encouraged for women to be more than a wife or a mother. When I was 19 I met a woman that was very motherly toward me. Our acquaintance was short but she was one of those women that just naturally mothered younger people, I suppose. I recall very well a conversation I had with her. I don't remember how it started or even who started it but at the time I had someone pushing me to go to college and I did not want to go. This person was very insistent that I should go and was willing to pay for me to go.
It was over that situation in my life that I had that conversation with the woman that kind of mothered me for the short time I knew her. I told her that I did not want to go to college, that I wanted only to be a wife and mother. Her answer was to tell me that I should go to college, that I could do both, college/career and be a wife and mother. Looking back, it seems to me that this woman may have been a struggling single mother, or at least had been at some point in her life, but I can't remember for sure. I do know that was why she encouraged me to go to college while it was being offered, because even if I became a wife the marriage may not last and I might wind up on my own, possibly with kids to raise, and a college education would help a whole lot.
She had a point, I suppose, but she missed the point I was trying to make. I wanted nothing but to be a wife and a mother. That was all. I didn't want to have a career while I was a wife and a mother. I didn't want to be in college and be a wife. I didn't want a JOB. I wanted to be a WIFE and a MOTHER. I wanted to be a stay at home wife. That was all I wanted. Nothing else held interest for me, at least not in the college/career lifestyle.
And somewhere along the way, in years long gone, women had ideas, ideas that may or may not have been labeled as feminism at the time, that women should be equal to men. They had the not-so-bright idea that women would be better off working than being a wife and a mother.
Those are my opinions but Titus 2 3-5 states very clearly what women should be and what they should do and nowhere in there does it say that a woman should work in the workplace, go to college, or be equal to men. Although at 19 I didn't know that, all I knew was that something inside me did not want to go the college/career route, even though I had been working off and on since I was 12 and pretty steady since I was 17. I was working but it wasn't what I wanted for my life and it wasn't because I didn't like working. As with everyone I had some jobs I liked and some I didn't. My reasoning went far deeper than a dislike of work, which I did not have, it was like something inside me longed for the chance to be a wife and a mother.
And that was in direct opposition to what feminists have worked for for who knows how many years.
When I was a teenager I had no idea there even was such a thing as a feminist but somewhere along the way I discovered that women in history had a fit over women not being allowed to work and ruined life for women for all time. Today people ask little girls what they want to be when they grow up and expect and answer like doctor, lawyer, or teacher. I'm pretty sure that I have told strangers not to ask my children that very question. Why can't kids be kids and little girls have dreams of being a wife and a mother and nothing else?
Because somewhere along the way someone got ideas about what women should be and those ideas are not what Scripture says they should be and now here we are with all these expectations for women based off 'women's rights' and feminism that directly oppose Scripture.
Which is what I came across yesterday. This poster that I saw was a list of things women do not have to be, I suppose but it simply said, 'women do not have to' followed by this list, in this order:
be thin
give birth
cook for you
have long hair
wear makeup
have sex with you
be feminine
be graceful
shave
diet
be fashionable
wear pink
love men
be the media's idea of perfection
Whew! That's some list and when I first saw it I couldn't figure out what in the world it was even about. So much of what that list says women don't have to do is the very essence of what women are. It wasn't until I saw that it was made by feminists that I began to understand what it was about. At that point I just wanted it out of my sight and I went on with my business but as the hours passed I began to think of that list and to wish I could see it again. I wanted to look with more attention to the things it said 'women don't' and I wanted to write about it. I really wanted to point out the problems with that list to the person who inadvertently brought it to my attention. Instead I found the list again and I'm writing about it. I will probably never say a word about it to the person who is responsible for me seeing that list. Because that person could not be swayed by anything I say on this topic. Not that I'm trying to sway anyone to my way of thinking but to point out the differences between what this poster said 'women don't' and what Scripture says women are.
And so, for my own piece of mind, I'm going to take this list, one 'women don't' at a time...
be thin...Women don't have to be thin. No, I suppose they don't. Women can and are many sizes for many reasons but Proverbs 23:20-21 speaks against being a glutton. I personally know women that have gained weight for medical reasons, as a result of medication they take, and for some reason simply cannot keep from gaining weight no matter how hard they try.
give birth... Women weren't specifically created to have children, although they were created for that reason too. Women were created first to be a wife, a help meet to her husband, and a side 'job', if you want to call it that, is to be a mother. I don't suppose women have to give birth but it is a huge part of being a woman. There are women in Scripture for whom being childless was an awful thing in their own eyes, women for whom barrenness is something akin to a curse, and in fact their are places in Scripture where the Lord does curse a person or nation by making the woman/women barren.
So, no, I don't suppose a woman must give birth to be a woman, not by any definition of the word, but part of being a woman is to have children, and most women, no matter what their beliefs are, want to have babies. There's just something inside women, something that can be seen in most little girls that go all soft at the sight of a baby, that just makes them want to have babies. I have a one year old niece and a one year old granddaughter both of whom get all happy and excited over seeing a baby in any form, even a doll that bears little resemblance to a real live baby. It's just built into females to like babies and most females begin to want a baby somewhere around the time they go through puberty. It is an inborn, or God given, trait of being a girl.
So what happens to make feminists say giving birth is something you don't have to do to be a woman. I don't imagine they are speaking of women who are infertile, and by the way speaking with infertile women, even women who can have babies but their husband cannot, would be eye opening for some. The desire to have a baby and be unable to do so for any reason is a horrible pain to bear and makes women go to great length and spend unending amounts of money to have a child. But I don't think that's what feminists are talking about, they don't seem to be affirming a woman's womanhood in cases where the woman is unable to have a baby, they seem to be saying that women can chose not to have a child and that is fine.
I'm going to hazard a guess here...I also think they are saying that if a woman has an abortion...which by the way, is giving birth...in order to not 'give birth' or have a child then that is perfectly fine and she is still a woman. I am, however, assuming that based on the fact that feminists seem to support murdering babies before birth all in support of women having the 'freedom' to chose to be what they want to be, to chose to experience what they want to experience, and to chose freedom from parenthood over the sanctity of life. And so they say a woman doesn't have to give birth to be a woman.
Well, yes. A woman isn't a woman based on the fact that she has had a child. She is a woman based on the fact that she was created female and she has grown through the childhood years into the adult years and is now a woman and not a little girl. In the beginning He created them male and female...(Matthew 19:4, Genesis 5:2). Women are women because they were created female and not for any other reason.
But Scripture does say that we are to be fruitful and multiply. Now I know that that is taken out of context a lot, when the Lord said that, he said it to a particular people not to all people throughout all of time, but we can look at that and see that it was His intention for babies to be born and we can see in His creation of people and animals that it was his intention for females to have the babies. He also said...children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward (Psalm 127:3).
If children are a heritage and a reward, and if the Lord used barreness as a punishment in Scripture (which we know he did) than what does it say for women who are going around eagerly flaunting the fact that women (presumably the one's that can have babies) don't have to give birth to be a woman?
cook for you...Presumably this means that a woman doesn't have to cook for a man to be a woman.
Umm...I would guess that that would go without saying. Again, a woman isn't a woman because of something she does, she is a woman because she was CREATED as a female. There is no other reason why she is a woman.
She does, however, have certain roles as a woman whether she likes it or not, whether she believes in the Lord, believes in Scripture, or not. Women don't have to cook for men to be women but as a whole, not just among Christians, women tend to be more hands on with household chores and child raising than men. That is the nature of our society, although it is a society that has already changed to almost beyond recognition and one that will continue to change far more than it already has.
But, that being said, the very nature of this statement and of this entire list of what women aren't is in direct defiance to what the Lord says a woman is. I don't know if the person that made this list, someone that presumably is a woman, realizes that just about everything in this list of what women aren't is in direct opposition of what their, most likely unacknowledged, Creator made them to be.
Titus 2 tells us what women should be, more specifically Titus 2:3-5 tells us what women should be...
Older women likewise are to be reverent in behavior, not slanderers or slaves to much wine. They are to teach what is good, 4 and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled,pure, working at home, kind, and submissive to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be reviled.
THAT is what a woman is, what she should be. If we take that, or rather if we start with Genesis 5:2, they were created FEMALE and add to it Titus 2:3-5...women (female) are to be reverent, not slanderers, not drunks. They are to teach what is good to younger women, to love their husbands and children, be self controlled, pure, working at home (or in the home) kind, and submissive to their husband...we see what women should be. And well, that all seems to be the direct opposite of what this list of what women aren't is.
And in keeping with that direct opposition to Scripture...if a woman to to work at home, which should naturally take in cooking, than the opposite is that she doesn't have to cook.
have long hair...There's only one way to respond to this...
but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? 1 Corinthians 11:15
Again, direct opposition to Scripture. Now, I know there are many reasons why a woman might not have long hair. I have personally known two girls, they were kids, that simply could not get their hair to grow past their shoulders no matter how hard they tried. I have also known women that had no hair due to medication for illness, usually cancer. I understand their is a disease that causes hair to simply fall out. I have also known women who have had to cut their hair due to having headaches from the weight of their hair. I know their are extenuating reasons why a woman might have short hair or even no hair, but I also know the majority of women that have short hair do it for their own personal reasons which have nothing to do with health.
And I highly doubt the objection to long hair in this list is speaking of medical reasons why a woman might have short hair. This list is speaking purely of a woman's CHOICE to have short hair or even to shave their heads.
A while back I read something that said you can often tell feminist women by simply looking at the way their hair is cut and styled. After that I began to kind of notice women's hair. And I did notice that there are some hair cuts that women wear that if you spend any time around that woman, even in a passing way in the grocery store, it's not hard to notice that they do have a way about them that defies what womanhood should be.
wear makeup...Honestly, I can't recall ever seeing anything that says that a woman has to wear makeup to be a woman. In a strictly secular way, makeup is not required to be considered a woman. I have never been able to tell a difference in the way people treat me from the times I wear makeup and the times I do not. Most people don't really seem to care.
It's kind of like our shoes, unless someone happens to like our shoes and takes the time to comment, or if they really don't like our shoes and either comment or think those comments to themselves, no one really cares what shoes we wear.
In the same manner, no one really cares if a woman wears makup or not. As a woman you aren't treated differently based on whether or not you wear makeup. Now, I have noticed that certain groups of people tend to wear more makeup, or wear it in a certain way and I guess among those circles they might get treated a certain way based off their makeup, but since I have never run in those circles I really can't say for sure.
I do think the point behind this particular item being on this list is the fact that men, as a whole, tend to favor the look of women wearing makeup. And since feminists seem to be very anti-man I would assume that this was added to the list to be in defiance of men that like to see women in makeup.
As for Scripture...As far as I know there is nothing in it that specifically says a woman should not wear makeup. There are many verses that speak against adorning ourselves in gold, pearls, costly array , of putting on of apparel, or of loving the things of the world, all of which I would assume could take in makeup. There are, however some verses that do speak of makeup in a less than favorable light...
And [when] thou [art] spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; [thy] lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life. Jeremiah 4:30 KJV
2 Kings 9:30 speaks of Jezebel painting her face and well, Jezebel wasn't exactly a woman that is to be looked up to.
But again, It would seem that putting women not having to wear makeup on this list seems to be more of a defiance thing than anything else. In our society makeup has been traditionally seen as a woman thing and men have been known to appreciate that thing in a woman. It's more about the role of women, as in women wear makeup because they are women, than anything else. Or so it seems to me.
have sex with you... Oh, boy. Do I even want to touch on this one. The answer is No, I do not want to touch this but since it's on the list...here goes.
Let's start with...Women should not be having sex with 'you', whoever 'you' happens to be. Here is another perfect example of how feminists have ruined womanhood for everyone. Gone are the days when purity was prized. Gone are the days when men expected, and demanded, to marry women that were virgins, when they prized having a woman that was untouched by any man but them.
Today men are happy to have a woman that will have sex with them and they are more than happy to get what, in many cases, amounts to an unpaid prostitute. When I was in high school I went to school with a girl that at 16 or 17 announced to the entire class that she had already had sex with 8 different boys. There was no shame in her announcement, no disgust in those that heard her announce it. It was simply accepted as matter of fact, as normal, and nothing was said against it.
There was a time when purity was prized, valued, and women that were chaste were considered to be upstanding women while women that were not virgins at the time of marriage were fallen women, ruined. If a woman lost, through any means, her virginity before marriage than most men did not want her. In some cases she would have no choice but to resort to prostitution to support herself because she was not seen as a woman of morals, a woman of value.
Today, there almost seems to be some kind of pride in women jumping from man to man, having sex with all of them. And the men, for the most part, see nothing wrong with having a woman that has been with innumerable men before them.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and make the assumption that the 'you' in this statement could also refer to other women, since it seems that most feminists support and even encourage homosexuality, although, due to the feminist anti-man agenda, I would guess it applies more to men than to women. But even that...how many men or women put a value on the 'innocence' of their partner? And even for those that do value that...do they value it to the exclusion of women that have been with multiple partners (of either sex)?
All that said...Scripture says that women are to be chaste, to be pure. It does not specifically say that that refers to sex but generally speaking those two words are applied to virgins. We do know from Scripture, though, that being pure of heart is a sign of the elect. Still...could a woman that jumps from man to man, or, from woman to woman for that matter, possibly be pure in any sense of the word?
Does a woman have to have sex with anyone? No, Paul says that it is good for the unmarried to remain that way so long as they can do so without sexually desiring anyone but because most people are unable to do that he says that people should marry. Why? To avoid sexual immorality. So that they don't sin in their desire.
Sex is a beautiful thing. A wonderful thing. And I doubt even the feminists can deny that it has it's place in the continuation of the human population. But...it is only beautiful, only wonderful, when it is between one man and one woman inside the bonds of marriage.
Sex was created by the Lord to be used among a certain people, married couples consisting of one man and one woman. It fulfills certain physical needs, placed in us by the Lord, and is the means through which the Lord brings a new person into the earth.
So no, women do not have to have sex with 'you' and they should not have sex with 'you'. Not unless the 'you' spoken of is a woman's husband in which case 1 Corinthians 7 says that a woman's body is not her own and that she should have sex with her husband.
be feminine...This is another one of those that makes me almost want to cringe as I look at it and attempt to counter it. No, we don't HAVE to be feminine. Scripture does not say a woman should be feminine. But the Lord made us as females and as females we already are feminine unless a woman is trying to be something other than what she was created to be. There are certain traits that make women more feminine. A woman in a modest dress or skirt is much more feminine than a woman in pants or shorts. A woman with long hair is more feminine than a woman with short hair. A woman with a clean vocabulary is much more feminine than a woman with vulgar speech.
Just the other day my husband was commenting on the recent so-called women's march in Washington. He spoke of the conversation that President Trump had, a private conversation, in which he spoke in very vulgar terms about women. That conversation sparked much outraged among the so-called women that took to the streets to protest the statements, and the man that made them, that spoke of women with such vulgarity. The thing is that those women were just as vulgar, and in fact, to me, more so, than President Trump ever was. I'm not saying what Trump said was right, not by a long shot, but a man, in what was a private conversation, saying something is not nearly as bad as thousands of women taking to the streets to scream out the same vulgarities while wearing costumes depicting female genitalia.
Is that what it means to not be feminine?
My husband's final comments on that so-called women's march was to say that he'd heard many women speak just as vulgar as Trump did in his private conversation. That they aren't any better in their thoughts or their speech than the men are. And yet the women protest something that one man said, something that is no different that things most men say every day, if possibly in slightly different context.
And the same women that took to the streets dressed as women's genitals, the same women that screamed vulgar words, the same women that waved signs with vulgar sayings on them and claimed to be 'nasty' women...those very same women say that women don't have to be feminine. And the women that supported those vulgar women being about as nasty as a woman can get say the same thing from their computers at home.
If that's what it means to be not feminine...why would any decent, self respecting woman not want to be feminine. And what Christian woman would not want to be feminine?
I honestly don't know how feminists define feminine. I don't know what they consider to be feminine and what they don't but I do know there are some things that are classically seen as being feminine. I enjoy my long hair. I like to wear long skirts, there's just something...fun about feeling them swirl against my legs. I like flowers. I like pretty things. I like not having vulgar words coming from my mouth or vulgar gestures from my hands. I like dainty things.
And...
I like being the weaker vessel to my husband. I like being held in his arms. I like feeling safe and protected when he hugs me. I like hearing him say sweet things to me, things only a girl would appreciate. I like being the feminine to his masculine.
be graceful...I know there was a time when being graceful was a part of being a woman. Actually, it was part of being a lady because there was, and still is, a big difference in being a lady and being a woman. There are very few ladies left in America. They are endangered to the point of being extinct. And being graceful is just a small part of being a lady.
I don't know in what context the feminists consider being graceful. When I was a kid I took ballet for a number of years. We were taught to be graceful in those classes. Being graceful in ballet means moving your body in a certain kind of slow deliberate way, even when you're twirling across the floor so fast the world around you is a blur. But that is a certain kind of gracefulness that isn't easily applied to life outside the dance of ballet.
In times past girls were taught how to be ladies. There were even schools to teach them the art of being a lady. Believe it or not their were also classes that taught 'the art of courting'. They were taught things like how to glide into a room, how to hold a tea cup, and how to bat their eyes at a man.
We no longer learn things like how to walk, how to glide, or how to bat our eyes. We don't even teach our little girls to sit like a lady anymore, something I can remember being told numerous times buy numerous people when I was a kid. Back then little girls, and women, did not turn a chair backwards and straddle it to sit, that was only for boys. Girls were expected to sit with their legs folded under them a certain way when they wore a dress. I can even remember when a female sitting with her knees apart was considered and invitation to men. Yes, I was actually taught that as a kid. And no, I'm not an elderly woman.
So, what exactly does it mean to be graceful? I can't combat a statement that I don't fully understand the meaning of the person making it. I do believe that any female not living in defiance of what she was created to be has a certain gracefulness about her, especially once she leaves childhood behind. There is just a way about females that males to not have, and there is a way about males that females to not have. It's the way it should be. Women act and move a certain way...or maybe I should say ladies move and act a certain way because the kind of adult female I am referring to cannot be compared with the kind of women that marched in that protest in Washington or write lists like the one that prompted this post. So...Ladies have a natural way about them that has a gracefulness to it that men simply cannot emulate.
We are graceful because we were created female. And it takes some work to get that gracefulness out of a female. Girls walk different than boys. Women walk different than men. If a woman doesn't want to walk as a woman she must work hard to remove the gracefulness of being a female from her walk. Women move differently than men do. To move like a man a woman must try hard to remove the female from her movements.
There is a television show that used to come on t.v. when I was in my teens. One episode, that I have seen in the last year, has the woman trying to enter a horse race that is for men only. To be in the race she must pretend to be a man. There is a scene in that movie where the woman's adopted son's and her husband-to-be are trying to help her act more like a man. They instruct her on everything from how to walk to how to hold her head and hide her hands. The woman not only had to change from her clothes to men's clothes, she had to have a shadow of a 'beard' painted on her face, chew tobacco, learn to spit like a man, hold her body a certain way, tilt her head a certain way, and to change the very way she walked because women just walk differently than men.
That woman had to go to extreme lengths to not be feminine. It is simply built into who and what a female is. We can no more remove the gracefulness of being female from who we are than we can remove the more delicate features of our bodies that girls tend to naturally have.
shave...um, okay. Scripture doesn't say that we should shave so there is no Scriptural response to this one. In fact, I believe their is no more Scriptural responses to most of the rest of this list beyond the simple fact of what it appears the list stands for and that it defies Scripture.
Shaving hasn't always been something women did. As I understand it women started shaving their legs in the 1920's when shorter dresses came into fashion. It was more of a fashion statement than anything else. And...I'm just guessing here but I believe that this particular fashion statement came in more under the so-called enlightened women, possibly the feminists, that wanted to dress and act in a more risky way than most women of the time did. As I understand it, all through word of mouth from older generations, the flapper style dresses, the short skirts, and whatever else went along with the women of that time dressing and acting in the manner that they did wasn't a popularly accepted thing of the time. I don't know for certain, and I can't find out even with an internet search, but I would guess that the feminists of the 1910-1920s era encouraged women to shave. It would seem to fit with the general agenda of the way feminists have acted throughout history. Which is to basically protest whatever is natural about womanhood and to encourage living in defiance of that nature.
I did find it odd that when trying to research women shaving and the feminist movement, or beliefs, at any given time all I could find was what the feminists are doing now. Granted, I did not try too hard to find this information, just a quick internet search which brought up only current feminist trends.
But I did find something interesting on shaving...
As far as armpits are concerned, we can pinpoint it almost to the day. In May of 1915, the upscale magazine Harper’s Bazaar ran an ad featuring a young model in a sleeveless, slip-like dress posing with both arms over her head.
You may be thinking, “So what?” Well, up until that time, fashion – and propriety – dictated that women were covered to the wrist and to the ankle. A dress that exposed the underarms was nothing short of revolutionary. In fact, just the utterance of the word “underarm” out loud was enough to call for the smelling salts mere weeks earlier. Now, it was becoming perfectly acceptable. It also meant since underarms were body parts that had always been covered, whether or not they needed shaving had been a moot point and little discussed. If it didn’t show, why bother? And yet, here was an ad cajoling women that it was necessary to remove “objectionable” hair. To think just days earlier women had no idea such a problem even existed!...
The leg shaving phenomenon was a lot slower to catch on. It’s true that during the 1920s the flappers brought with them a decade of much shorter dresses coming into vogue, but by the 1930s hemlines became much longer again. There were some fashion and beauty writers loudly proclaiming that leg hair was on a par with leprosy, boldly referring to it as a “curse”. Regardless, it seemed that the majority of women were content to leave well enough alone and not worry about shaving their legs. The fashion mavens just couldn’t stir up the same frenzy this time around as they had with armpit hair. It seems that most women were a tad more hesitant when it came to shaving and therefore drawing attention to their legs, as opposed to their underarms. After all, the leg’s closest neighbors are the “private” bits. You wouldn’t want anyone to think you were that kind of girl, or give men any kind of wrong impression.
Then World War II erupted, and that iconic pin-up picture of Betty Grable became part of popular culture almost overnight. It’s only a slight exaggeration to say that the women of America have been shaving their legs ever since. Why, you ask? Because Betty’s legs looked amazing, and to emulate that look, you had to wear a short skirt and sheer stockings. You also had to shave your legs, as nothing killed the effect you were trying to create more than leg hair poking through your silky stockings. (http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/04/the-history-of-shaving/)
So it would seem that the very notion of women shaving wasn't always embraced by the more reserved, and it might be said, upstanding women of their time. Women shaving was something that had to be pushed and encouraged, much as the ideals of the feminists today. I don't know where the feminists stood on the matter during those years when women shaving was scandalous and not for the 'good' women but the very act of women shaving does appear to have come about through less than upstanding means and wasn't embraced by the majority of women at the time.
And today we have women, under the guise of feminists, trying to tell women that they shouldn't shave. I can only ask...why?
Presumably because men appreciate a clean shaven leg and armpit. In fact, those very things, it would seem, have always been considered sexy to men. Something that appears to have been both desirable and undesirable when women shaving first took hold.
diet...Again, I have no Scripture to refute this. We can look to the same verses about gluttony to support the concept of dieting but then again...dieting isn't something that would have always been needed, for women or men either one.
It's our modern food and our modern sedentary lifestyles that have created the biggest need to diet. And from having watched my grandmother spend the better part of her life dieting...I can tell you that no diet truly works. Those that diet may loose a few pounds but as soon as they come off, or more often, fall off of their diet...back on go the pounds.
But...why would feminists be opposed to women dieting? Or are they opposed? Maybe they're just saying a woman doesn't have to diet and I've never heard of anyone thinking all women should diet. Women themselves have put the idea into people's minds that dieting is a woman thing and that most, if not all, do it. I, for one, have never been on a diet.
So, is dieting another one of the anti-men movement...er, belief, that is feminism where these women that don't really want to be women think in their made up worlds that all men believe that all women should diet?
be fashionable...I simply have to ask, who is it that is pushing so-called fashion on women? My husband could care less about fashion and would probably object if I started trying to dress in what modern America is calling fashion for women. I have a sister that has always valued 'in-style' clothing but as far as I can tell her husband could care less. I don't know exactly what his feelings on her clothing choices are but I do know that he valued sensible clothes when she was expecting their first child over current trendy maternity clothes. He told her it would be better to buy clothes that she could wear after the baby arrived than clothes that were only usable for a few months.
I know there are men, young and old, that appreciate women wearing 'fashionable' clothes but I also know that there are men that could care less and from what I've seen it's usually the women desiring the 'fashionable' clothes to impress the men.
wear pink...Again, who said women have to do this? I get that pink is, in America, a traditionally female color. Pink is for girls, blue is for boys. I tell my husband often that boys should not wear pink because it's a girl color. But I don't know of any rule, written or unwritten, that says girls of any age have to wear pink.
I do know, through seeing news headlines, that the color pink was somehow used in that so-called women's march in Washington. I do not know in what context they used the color, and I don't want to know any more about that sickening display of 'women' so I'm not going to research it to find out, but I do know that women that were against that march said that because of it they would never wear pink again.
So somehow, those that line up on the feminist side, must have supported the color pink in some way during that march.
It does amaze me that the feminists are against certain things one day and promote them another. Much like that so-called women's march...they marched for women, I guess for the right to be women and to be treated...what....better...equal, I don't know because I deliberately tried not to know what took place in that disgrace of a march. But those same women that wanted women to have whatever it was they were protesting are the same women that want men who think they are women to be treated as equal to men. And yet those women promoted female genitals in their protest, something men, no matter how much they may dress, act, or even mutilate their bodies, can never have except in the most superficial, unnatural way.
love men...I get this one...
sort of.
Well, maybe not.
I understand that feminists are anti-men and therefore they stand in objection to everything that is for men in any way. They are saying here that women don't have to love men. But...what does that mean? Are they saying women can live out their lives single? Ever talked to a woman that has done just that? 99% of them will tell you it's a lonely life. Are they saying that women can be in relationships, even marriages, without loving the man they are with? Society is showing us that a good portion of women are doing just that. They use and discard men like fast food to-go cups. Or are they saying that women can skip men altogether and have sexual relationships with women?
I suspect they are saying, or implying, all of the above. And I suspect that they are saying that a woman shouldn't be 'tied' to a marriage with a man.
Scripture says otherwise to all of that and more. So much more. Women were CREATED...made...designed...to be wives. Their sole reason for being put on this earth is because 'it is not good that man should be alone'. But the feminists don't want to hear that. Because they live in defiance of God. They abhor Scripture. And they do not want to be corrected in any way.
The women that marched in that disgusting example of what they want womanhood to be refused to allow pro-life women to join them. Why? Because being pro-life defies what those women stand for. They are for the rights of each individual woman to the exclusion of all else...even the life of a tiny, unborn baby.
Women were put on this earth for the purpose of being wives. They are here to help men. Scripture says that a woman is to marry, or rather to remarry, if she's widowed under the age of 60. It says that she is to be subject to her husband.
That same television show I saw where the woman was entering a men's race had a scene in it where a man asked that woman if she was married. When she said she was not the man told her that was what her problem was and to 'get a husband'.
That was a fictional t.v. show set in the 1800's when society was different. When men were different. When women were different. But there is so much truth in what that man told that woman. And much to understand in the scene where the woman tried to turn herself into what would pass for a man.
Scripture tells us that women were created to be wives. It is our number one reason for existence. We are on this earth because it wasn't good for men to be alone and so that we can be a helper for him. Now we should take note that God did not create even 2 men when he made Eve. He had made only one man at the time that he said man should not be alone and made Eve to alleviate that aloneness in Adam. Eve was created EXCLUSIVELY for Adam. She was his wife and his alone. She was there to help him, to be his best friend, his help, his everything on earth. It was to Eve that he was to cling to and it was with Eve that he was to go through life with.
That was a specific man and woman in Scripture but they are the original example of marriage. They are what marriage is. Eve was made for Adam. A wife was made for her husband. We were put on earth for a reason. We are not to love men but to love a man, our husband.
I can tell you from experience that a woman is a different kind of person in this world when she is alone than when she has a husband. Women without husband's must face everything alone. And yes, they are alone. No amount of friends or family can give a woman what a husband can.
A couple of years ago a married friend of mine told me that there is lots of security in having a husband. She then kind of stumbled over her explanation but I understood what she was saying. This friend is a Christian. She believes that women should have husbands, that girls were born to become women who should become wives. She believes that a family is incomplete without a husband and a dad in the home. And when she said there is much security in having a husband she said so much.
And before anyone thinks I'm speaking of financial security...I'm not, although that does factor in also. I don't recall the exact numbers but statistics on divorce say that divorced women become much poorer after divorce and divorced men actually rise in income level. There is a financial security in being married. At least there is in a Christian marriage. Scripture lays out the responsibilities of a husband and a wife. I have already given the summary of a wife in Titus 2 and 1 Corinthians 7 but husband's also have a role and a good part of that role is to provide for and protect his family, that would include his wife.
In fact Ephesians 5 says that a husbands role is to love his wife and to sacrifice for her. There is much security in having a man that follows Scripture and tries to be what a man, what a husband, should be. But it goes so far beyond finances that money is just a drop in the bucket of that security.
But an unmarried woman, particularly an unmarried feminist, could never understand that.
You see, they live in defiance of the Lord and do not embrace Scripture. Therefore they would laugh at anyone woman that tried to tell them their is security in marriage. Or that they should not love men...only one man. Their man. Their husband.
Years ago I saw an online conversation between several women where they were discussing something about how the married stay-at-home wives did not understand why the married (or not) working women could not just take off for a day out with their friends, shopping and dining, or even to go on girls only vacations the way the stay at home wives could. I remember quite well that one of the working women made the statement that the stay at home wives didn't mind taking those shopping trips or vacations because they were spending someone else's money, meaning the someone else was their husband.
I have had a relative tell me that my husband's money is not my money. I guess that relative was correct in some ways but the thing is they were wrong in other ways. My husband is the one that earns the income in our family. He is the one that works and makes the money that provides for us. It is, by virtue of him earning it, his money. However he does not consider it to be such. He never says 'my' money, he always says 'our' money.
I am a stay at home wife. I am what those women in that online conversation all those years ago would have spoken against because the money I spend comes to me through my husband. I have also seen some women refer to wives like me as prostitutes because we accept money from our husbands.
They all miss the point.
A man and woman are not individuals once they are married. Marriage makes them one body, two people that go through life together. And Scripture says that women are to stay home and men are to provide for and protect the family.
A woman becomes her husband's responsibility the moment they marry. She is his to care for, his to look after, his to provide for, his to love, his to enjoy. She was CREATED for him.
I belong to my husband.
I can hear the feminists gasping now. The idea of a woman belonging to a man is in direct opposition of everything they stand for. But it is in direct obedience of everything Scripture says.
I do not love men. I love my husband. I understand that men have a role in life and women have a role in life. I happily live in the role I was appointed to by the Lord. And I have great security in my husband. Not because he provides for me financially but because there is security in simply being his wife.
I belong to my husband.
My identity is swallowed up in his. I have a place in this life. I have a role as his wife. I know my husband will do his best to take care of me in all ways but even that isn't all of the security that I have in being married. And that is where my friend stumbled in her explanation and where I understood what she was trying to say even though it's very hard to put into words.
You see...
There is, quite simply, a security in being what I was created to be. There is security in being...
Wife.
And no feminist would ever embrace that. They cannot embrace anything that is light, or of the Lord. They live in darkness. Wallowing in it. Wrapping themselves in it. Grabbing hold of it and flaunting it before all. And to say that women do not have to love men...is in direct opposition to what Scripture tells us women are.
be the media's idea of perfection...and here's the last of what the feminists say a woman doesn't have to be. Which, to me, is another example of something they imagine someone is telling them they should be. For as long as we have had an entertainment industry there has been this idea that perfection, in male or female, in family, in jobs, in homes and possessions, in everything.
I once wrote fictional books and understand well that when you're creating something for entertainment purposes you must give people the ideal of what they wish their lives were. Romance books must make the male character out to be the kind of man their intended audience wants to marry. Bad guys in a book, or movie, must seem like bad guys, they shouldn't come across as the kind of man a woman wants for a husband or the dependable man next door. There is a perfection to be achieved to create the 'dream' world that the audience wants to escape into.
And I'm guessing it's this made up world that the feminists say women don't have to be like.
But overall, this entire list is an anti-man list that the women behind it probably think is what they are against. They want to be whatever it is that men say they can't be. If men want pretty skinny women, with shaved legs in flowing dresses then they want to be ugly women, covered in body hair, wearing men's clothes. But beneath all of that the feminists are living in direct opposition to their Creator. They do not want to be the females they were created to be.
