It has recently become more noteworthy just how utterly destructive feminism is. For a while, as people began to notice the destructive effects of feminism, they would moderately critique it by saying it was not always this bad. However, there was never any true virtue in feminism. Of course, this is not to say that the equal moral concern of women is not of importance – emphatically no. Rather, this is to say that feminism has contributed more harm than good, and even the good it is associated with has diabolical and concerning origins. And so, today, we light to address this in light of the diametrically opposed relationship between feminism and social cohesion.

THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT: WHY EVEN EARLY FEMINISM IS NOT INHERENTLY GOOD

So, let’s begin with some historical context, and this aimed at refuting the often moderate critique of feminism, which claims that ealy feminism was good and mild, while recent waves of feminism have birthed extreme feminist inclinations that are the problem. And I should state categorically (in this portion of our discussion) that the history of feminism is quite notably skewed, in that it has been written with a presumption of correctness and necessity throughout history. It is narrated to problematise men, and curate a justification for the existence of feminism.

So, first, feminism is generally the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. Although largely originating in the West, feminism is manifested worldwide and is represented by various institutions committed to activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests. Throughout most of Western history, women were limited to the domestic sphere, while public life was reserved for men. In mediaeval Europe, women were denied the right to own property, to study, or to participate in public life. At the end of the 19th century in France, they were still compelled to cover their heads in public, and, in parts of Germany, a husband still had the right to sell his wife.

Even as late as the early 20th century, women could neither vote nor hold elective office in Europe and in most of the United States (where several territories and states granted women’s suffrage long before the federal government did so). Women were prevented from conducting business without a male representative, be it father, brother, husband, legal agent, or even son.

It was against this social context that the first wave of feminism is largely said to have come – but that is not entirely true and we’ll proceed to address this. In any case, the dominant narrative is that the first wave of feminism emerged as a response to the just alluded social content, which was largely restrictive on women and what they could accomplish. And this entrance of the first wave of feminism culminated in what was called the ‘Suffrage Movement’; and in the US, it was seen with the first women’s rights convention, held in July 1848 in the small town of Seneca Falls, New York. It was a spur-of-the-moment idea that sprang up during a social gathering of Lucretia Mott, a Quaker preacher and veteran social activist, Martha Wright (Mott’s sister), Mary Ann McClintock, Jane Hunt, and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the wife of an abolitionist and the only non-Quaker in the group. The convention was planned with five days’ notice, publicised only by a small unsigned advertisement in a local newspaper.

Stanton drew up the “Declaration of Sentiments” that guided the Seneca Falls Convention. Using the Declaration of Independence as her guide to proclaim that “all men and women [had been] created equal,” she drafted 11 resolutions, including the most radical demand—the right to the vote. With Frederick Douglass, a former slave, arguing eloquently on their behalf, all 11 resolutions passed, and Mott even won approval of a final declaration “for the overthrowing of the monopoly of the pulpit, and for the securing to woman equal participation with men in the various trades, professions and commerce.”

And yet, by emphasising education and political rights that were the privileges of the upper classes, the embryonic feminist movement had little connection with ordinary women cleaning houses in Liverpool or picking cotton in Georgia. The single nonwhite woman’s voice heard at this time—that of Sojourner Truth, a former slave—symbolised the distance between the ordinary and the distance between white women and black women. This gap persisted as a gaping irony in the accomplishments of the suffrage movement and first wave of feminism. This is to say that while the first wave is credited with the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution granting women the right to vote in 1920 by stipulating that the right to vote could not be denied because of sex; and even with winning a complete victory in Britain when the Equal Franchise Act of 1928 allowed all adult women over 21 to vote, this development occurred exclusively for white women, despite the presence of black women in the suffrage movement.

FEMINISM WAS BORN OUT OF SATANIC WISDOM

Here’s why this historical perspective of the backdrop against which the first wave of feminism emerged is utterly disingenuous. In essence, feminism was not a new phenomenon aimed at advocating for equality that was established by women. Feminism is enmity between men and women, through the corruption of women – and it is not a new occurrence at all.

First, we see this when we study Exodus 1:16. This portion of the Bible reveals the devil’s plan to destroy masculinity and corrupt femininity. In essence, when the Israelites were in Egypt they were treated with cruelty. In verse 16, the Pharaoh at that time gave a decree that “When the midwives help the Hebrew women give birth,” he said to them, “kill the baby if it is a boy; but if it is a girl, let it live.” But, based on the context, it is not difficult to understand that the plan was that the devil wanted boys killed because when they grew to become men they would become an army and fight the oppression. This is why masculinity today is being targeted. This destruction of masculinity is also destroying children.

Furthermore, there was a specific reason that Pharoah wanted female babies kept. In Exodus 10:7-10, Pharaoh made it known that wanted to keep the Hebrew women, saying Moses is planning a revolt. But, he wanted to keep them, and make them have relations with Egyptian men, thus birthing Egyptian-Hebrew children, who would be taught Egyptian ways. Why? Because this would result in the corruption of the Hebrew society through Hebrew! This is satanic wisdom (so to speak), that can be traced back to what the fallen angels did in Genesis 6, where these fallen angels called the “sons of God, were taking women, called “daughters of men,” for sexual relationships and a corruption of their knowledge.

THE SECOND WAVE OF FEMINISM, AND THE IMPOSITION OF A FEMALE IDENTITY

Well, the women’s movement of the 1960s and ’70s, the so-called “second wave” of feminism, represented a seemingly abrupt break with the tranquil suburban life pictured in American popular culture. Yet the roots of the new rebellion were buried in the frustrations of college-educated mothers whose discontent impelled their daughters in a new direction. If first-wave feminists were inspired by the abolition movement, their great-granddaughters were swept into feminism by the civil rights movement, the attendant discussion of principles such as equality and justice, and inspiration from the protests against the Vietnam War.

Meanwhile, women’s concerns were on Pres. John F. Kennedy’s agenda even before this public discussion began. In 1961 he created the President’s Commission on the Status of Women and appointed Eleanor Roosevelt to lead it. Its report, issued in 1963, firmly supported the nuclear family and preparing women for motherhood. But it also documented a national pattern of employment discrimination, unequal pay, legal inequality, and meagre support services for working women that needed to be corrected through legislative guarantees of equal pay for equal work, equal job opportunities, and expanded child-care services. The Equal Pay Act of 1963 offered the first guarantee, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was amended to bar employers from discriminating on the basis of sex.

WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE WAS ALSO NOT BIRTHED OUT OF “EMPOWERMENT”

But, if you’re wondering how women in the workplace came into the conversation to begin with, well this is a portion of feminist history that feminists do not give much detail about. And let me state categorically that it had nothing to do with the liberation of women, and a lot to do with disrupting the family unit. This is not to say that women cannot and should not work; in fact, it is celebrated when all people discover their pre-ordained purpose and contribute good to the world. Rather, it is to say that feminism was weaponised by diabolical organisations to disrupt the family as part of a broader plan to disrupt society. In particular, speaking in 2007, the late Aaron Russo—a former friend of Nick Rockefeller—recounts being told how women’s liberation was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, in order to get women in the workplace, break up the family unit, and indoctrinate children from an early age.

On the other hand, and unlike the first wave, second-wave feminism provoked extensive theoretical discussion about the origins of women’s oppression, the nature of gender, and the role of the family. Kate Millett’s Sexual Politics made the best-seller list in 1970, and in it she broadened the term politics to include all “power-structured relationships” and posited that the personal was actually political. Shulamith Firestone, a founder of the New York Radical Feminists, published The Dialectic of Sex in the same year, insisting that love disadvantaged women by creating intimate shackles between them and the men they loved—men who were also their oppressors.

One year later, Germaine Greer, an Australian living in London, published The Female Eunuch, in which she argued that the sexual repression of women cuts them off from the creative energy they need to be independent and self-fulfilled; which as you would have observed, is among the influences of the hypersexualised culture today that ironically objectifies women in the guise of empowerment. But, like I said earlier on, things mostly went downhill in the second wave of feminism. And perhaps one of the moments reflective of this in history is when Germaine Greer, in defending Kaye Millett’s work, argued that women can problematise men without making a clear case for why men are a problem in society.

THE FEMINIST’S SENSATIONALISATION OF OPPRESSION AND INTERSECTIONALITY

But, of course, we cannot complete this discussion on feminism without addressing how it has created a class of women who think it is enlightened to create videos of themselves screeching and shaving their heads at the slightest inconvenience, or when the political changes they tried to prevent actually prevail, such the Trump election victory in November 2024. And so, let’s talk about the third and fourth waves of feminism, and their associations with intersectionality and transgenderism, and undermining family values? Now, the third wave of feminism emerged in the mid-1990s. It was led by so-called Generation Xers who, born in the 1960s and ’70s in the developed world, came of age in a media-saturated and culturally and economically diverse milieu. Although they benefited significantly from the legal rights and protections that had been obtained by first- and second-wave feminists, they also critiqued the positions and what they felt was unfinished work of second-wave feminism. Notable from the third wave is the idea of intersectionality playing out.

Intersectionality is, in social theory, the interaction and cumulative effects of multiple forms of discrimination affecting the daily lives of individuals, particularly women of colour, and the idea is credited to Kimberlé Crenshaw. The term also refers more broadly to an intellectual framework for understanding how various aspects of individual identity—including race, gender, social class, and sexuality—interact to create unique experiences of privilege or oppression. Intersectionality, had the unfortunate effect of providing structured language for what would become a victim economy where proving that a person is oppressed on multiple fronts becomes a currency of sorts, that further grants a person legitimacy to speak up or the status of an activist.

Then, although debated by some, many claim that a fourth wave of feminism began about 2012, with a focus on sexual harassment, body shaming, and rape culture, among other issues. A key component was the use of social media to highlight and address these concerns. Notable in this wave was the Me Too movement, which was launched in 2006 in the United States to assist survivors of sexual violence, especially females of colour. The campaign gained widespread attention beginning in 2017, after it was revealed that film mogul Harvey Weinstein had for years sexually harassed and assaulted women in the industry with impunity. Victims of sexual harassment or assault around the world—and of all ethnicities—began sharing their experiences on social media, using the hashtag #MeToo. The movement grew over the coming months to bring condemnation to dozens of powerful men in politics, business, entertainment, and the news media.

The problem with the #MeToo or #BelieveWomen movements, is that although they seemingly were based on a noble cause of exposing sexual abuse, they were, however, premised on the assumption that women do not lie, and thus should always be given the presumption of correctness when they accuse a man of sexual assault. This is disturbing and indicative of a problem with essentialism, where the character of women was standardised to an extreme assumption of correctness; so much so that for the longest time, being accused of sexual assault or abuse by a woman was equally as bad in ramification ans being found guilty! And so, once again, feminists fail to contribute to a just and equitable society, and only create one where a benefited class enjoys said benefits at the expense of the other – much like we saw with the first wave of feminism. In addition, some of these ideas have come at the expense of traditional values like being a mother who takes care of their children (possibly even while working), and the women who embrace these ideas; while trying to emasculate men.

The contributions of feminism worsened with the stance most feminists took on transgenderism. First, the doctrine of intersectionality coerced biological women to see trans-women (who are biological men) as the more oppressed class in comparison to biological women. But, then secondly, because feminists largely argued that the differences between men and women were mere constructs since the first wave of feminism, it became difficult for them to refute the possibility of biological men becoming women (and vice versa). As a result, on the heels of feminism, the transgender movement gained traction. And so, in comical irony, the work feminists put in to gain an advantage is now not an exclusive benefit they enjoy because men who claim to be women or even non-binary are often given similar entitlements.

Written By Lindokuhle Mabaso