Modern Radical Feminist Movement: Torchbearing or Torching History?

I recently read a popular article entitled “You are not equal. I’m Sorry”, by a woman named Dina Leygerman. In the article, Dina first urges me to “Say thank you” to all the women who fought tirelessly, faced extreme persecution, yet refused to back down. All so that I can have a voice, the right to vote, the right to work, the right to an identity outside of my husband, the right to prenatal care and birth control, the right to humane working conditions, etc. She then points out that I am not equal, even if I feel that I am. She goes on to label those of us who proclaim #notmymarch, to be fighters for complacency, acceptors of what we have been given, , deniers of facts, who are wrapped up in our delusion of equality.

My first inclination was to laugh, but then I realized that it’s not funny- it’s horrific. It’s horrific because these women claim to be the torchbearers of these historic women whom they mention by name: Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Stanton, Alice Paul, Maud Wood Park, Rosa Parks, Margaret Sanger, on and on and on. Then they invoke these powerful names to deceive other women into full support of their deranged agendas by insinuating that these pillars of history would have approved. What a farce! Do they even know how these women went about affecting change and what they believed in? Let’s see…


Let’s compare Alice Paul (pictured above top) to these participants in the Women’s March of 2017 (pictured above bottom). Anyone noticing any differences? This is Alice in the procession that took place the day before Woodrow Wilson’s inauguration in 1913. The New York Times described this as, “One of the most impressively beautiful spectacles ever staged in this country.” If I could caption the picture on the bottom I would simply say, “You’re doing it wrong.”

Susan B. Anthony brought attention to her cause by voting (which was illegal for her at the time). She refused to pay the fine imposed, so she was arrested, which led to a widely publicized trial bringing national attention to her cause (the good kind of attention). Susan was not one to conform, so she began wearing the controversial “bloomer” dress instead of the traditional dresses that dragged the ground. After a year, however, she returned to conventional dress stating that it gave her opponents the opportunity to focus on her apparel rather than her ideas. Interesting concept.

Maud Wood Park fought for our right to prenatal care and our right to our identity outside of our husbands. Maud had this to say in a statement regarding the aim of her League of Women Voters, “It has chosen to be a middle of the road organization in which persons of widely differing political views might work together a program of definite advance on which they could agree.” Admirable indeed, yet not a view shared by today’s version of “suffragettes”. As a matter of fact, pro-life marchers were not allowed to participate.

What about Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood? She has got to be the poster woman for today’s feminist movement- right? Not so fast. Margaret has been purported to be a heroin by the left and a racist by the right. According to my research she’s neither. Margaret was primarily a birth control activist and we are all in debt to her for her successful fight to legalize birth control. However, Planned Parenthood supporters will be surprised to learn that she strongly condemned the practice of abortion referring to it as “vicious.” Furthermore, she believed abortion was an evil that would become obsolete once birth control was practiced and understood. (source- The Sanger Papers- non-profit org hosted by NYU) Ironically, the organization she founded, has become most notable for the very practice she sought to make obsolete. You probably won’t see that on any posters or listed on the PP website. You have rendered her life’s work a failure.

What else did Margaret Sanger hope to achieve through the advent of birth control? Apparently social engineering. YIKES! Margaret was a well known proponent of “negative eugenics”, which aims to improve human heredity traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered “unfit”. Who was considered “unfit”? This is where some claim that Margaret used race as a determining factor, but I have found very little evidence to support that. Instead she sought to improve the “genetic stock” by discouraging those with undesirable traits to “breed”. (Yes, she referred to people like livestock) So does anyone have a history of birth defects or mental illness in your family? Margaret doesn’t advise you to procreate. Still loving Margaret? The left will probably be shocked to find that she stressed limiting the number of births to live within one’s economic ability to raise and support healthy children. (Not a belief shared by the left) The left will be even more shocked to learn that Margaret firmly believed that the responsibility for birth control should remain in the hands of the able-minded individual parents instead of the state. Say what!? That’s right- Margaret would tell you if you want the government out of your uterus, stop inviting them in by demanding their funding.

Well, if these women are NOT the “mothers” of the modern feminist movement, who gets the credit? I’ve got three that are all yours! Gloria Steinem who has always been a proponent for abortion on demand. These are Gloria’s words describing her experience with abortion, “It (abortion) is supposed to make us a bad person. But I must say, I never felt that. I used to sit and try to figure out how old the child would be, trying to make myself feel guilty. But I never could!” This is the very definition of depravity. Angela Davis is an advocate for your brand of change. She is a Marxist and associated with the Black Panther Party. She was also a candidate for vice president on the Communist Party USA ticket twice in the 80’s. Angela was prosecuted for her involvement in an armed takeover over a CA courtroom in which 4 people were killed. Third, your cause is lauded by Ruth Bader Ginsberg. In a 2009 interview with Emily Brazelton of The New York Times, Ginsberg gave this quote regarding Roe v Wade, “Frankly, I had thought at the time Roe was decided, there was a concern about population growth in populations that we don’t care to have too many of.” In other words, “socially undesirable”. Today’s feminists are the legacy of these women- the Gloria Steinems, Angela Davises, Ginsbergs. They are not the legacy of the women who fought so valiantly and selflessly for our rights.

My goal is to strip away the veil of decency today’s feminists hide behind and expose them for what they are. They are activists for abortion on demand that they insist be funded by our government, activists for the right to objectify themselves in any obscene manner they choose. Today’s feminists recruit unwitting supporters by claiming they stand for the right of abortion for those who have been raped or those who’s health is endangered by the child they carry- and it works. I hear people all the time say, “But what about______ circumstance?” To that I say- if that is your only barrier to a pro-life stance, then get out and lobby for it! Lobby for safe abortion options available to those individuals, only under certain circumstances. Do anything but cast in your lot and march next to the lady in the “I love abortion” shirt! Another despicable tactic is deliberately confusing women’s safely and women’s rights. The fact that there are women who are victims of domestic violence, who must take precautions when traveling alone, who may run into an instance where a boss discriminates against them on the basis of gender are not issues for women’s sufferage! These are examples of criminal behavior in our society! Women’s sufferage does NOTHING to affect these types of changes. These are rights that you already have. If they are denied to you- you are a victim of a crime and as such may prosecute! This is how you affect change in these areas. Prosecute! Regarding women’s safety- how about you take off your vagina hat and go march in support of our law enforcement!

Young Earth vs. Old Earth: Does it even matter?

Creation science v/s secular science. There was a battle, but we’re all too young to remember it. Does the age of the earth even matter? To some people it really doesn’t. For a long time I was one of those people. I mean, nobody’s eternal salvation hangs on whether or not they believe the earth is billions of years old or somewhere in the neighborhood of 6000ish. Personally, I’ve always loved science. It was my favorite subject in school and I believed everything that was presented to me as the ONLY correct interpretation of evidence and beyond reproach. Did that erode my faith in the Bible? Um…no- because I always believed that God created everything. He could have done so through the Big Bang and evolution as far as I was concerned. Viola’- no contradiction. If this describes how you feel about the issue, I totally get it. My goal here is not to necessarily change your mind, but to expand your understanding of the issues so that when you hear someone say they believe in a young earth your first response isn’t a massive eye roll followed by an immediate nosedive in your estimation of said person’s intelligence. As I have come to understand, the evidence for a young earth is extremely compelling- not just from a Biblical standpoint, but from a scientific standpoint as well.

So what caused my views to make an about face? Well, it wasn’t MY inquiring scientific mind. I didn’t change my mind until I was pushed into research by someone much more intelligent and much more “sciency” than I will ever be- my oldest son Kane. It all started with dinosaurs. From the time Kane was 18 months old he could identify, and clearly and correctly pronounce an astonishing number of dinosaurs. We’re not talking T-rex and Triceratops here…more like: Parasauralophus, Ornitholestes, Lambeosaurus, Giganotosaurus…As he got older, he could tell you anything you wanted to know about any dinosaur- what it ate, its size, what period it lived in (Cretaceous, Jurassic, etc.), even its scientific name. By the time he was in the first grade Kane was sure that he was going to be a Paleontologist and was asking me to research what colleges he could attend to follow that career path. Seriously. Here is an example of a “free time doodle” he made in the 3rd grade when he finished a test and was allowed to draw on the back. 

Don’t know what “arthroplura” is? Neither did I. When I asked, he responded with a sigh that it was “an extinct genus of millipede that lived in the Carboniferous period, but I think I misspelled it- I think it should have an “e” in there.” I looked it up. He was right. Right about everything- even the “e”. It should be spelled arthropleura.

By now you’re thinking, “I get it- your kid is really smart. What does this have to do with the Bible, science, and young earth?” Questions. Constant questions. That is what it has to do with the Bible, science, and young earth. Questions that I could not answer without creating new questions in his little mind. Questions about Genesis, the creation story, Adam and Eve, sin, Noah’s Ark and how these events correspond to the geologic time scale, origin of species, fossils, on and on andonandonandonandon… Let me tell you, my worn out response of “God could have done it that way if He wanted” was NOT cutting it! In his amazing little mind, he wanted (needed) to believe in both the Bible and science. Science is verifiable fact, right? The Bible is the inspired Word of our all sovereign Creator, God, right? They SHOULD corroborate each other! That didn’t seem to be happening. Even though he never said it out loud, I could see it all over his little face- he could see the “proof” science displayed, so Genesis must not be historically accurate. Well, what logically follows that assumption? If Genesis isn’t historically accurate, how can anyone claim that the rest of the Bible is? Here is the ultimate question that should give you pause and prompt you to look into the validity of the evidence for a young earth:

If sin entered the earth through Adam, and death through sin (Romans 5:12), where in the world does this scientifically documented prehistoric era in which death runs rampant fit in?

The point I am making is that you (like the old me) may not need to connect these particular dots, but for so many others out there this is literally the difference between believing and not believing. Needless to say I embarked on my mission of leaving no stone unturned to provide Kane’s answers. That’s when I stumbled upon the Answers in Genesis site and books by Ken Ham. Ken Ham and his team of scientists do a fabulous job of presenting the shockingly compelling case for a young earth. The evidence is compelling on its own merit and shocking because we are literally never made aware that such evidence exists! I feel like I should clarify before I go on, that all creation scientists do not agree on all issues across the board (of course!) For example, Ham uses a chronological Biblical timeline introduced by Archbishop James Ussher circa the year 1650. While it was cutting edge in its day, we are now privy to information that allows us to make some much needed changes in this chronology that result in a much more logical alignment with secular history. But, that’s a whole separate blog post- stay tuned.

Getting down to the brass tacks of this young earth vs old earth argument we come to a central truth: we must consider and weigh our sources. Secular scientists would have us discount some interpretations derived by scientists who believe in God on the basis of an inherent “Bible bias”. These same scientists would claim to operate under no bias, when in fact the opposite is true. Atheism creates at minimum the same amount of bias in interpretation on the opposite swing of the pendulum. These scientists can and have thrown out sound theory simply because it would corroborate the Bible. Zero bias doesn’t care what the religious implications of a sound theory may be, and this is NOT what secular scientists practice. A fabulous argument can be made that atheism in itself IS its own religion.

So where has that left us? The fact of the matter is that scientists who are atheist or agnostic outnumber scientists who do believe in God. Another fact is that our society sees science with a Biblical bias to be unacceptable, while secular or atheistic scientific findings are revered- even when they are logically deficient in their explanations. For example, secular science makes no disclosure of the horrific inadequacies of the relied upon dating systems that are foundational to the old earth narrative. (Another future post)These factors have had catastrophic effects on our education system. Prior to the Scopes Trial in 1925, students were given both sides of the scientific argument. (The Scopes Trial, that centered primarily around evolution, is an incredible story-by the way-and a whole separate forthcoming post) Post Scopes decision education looks entirely different. Secular science was declared the winner (by means of now debunked evidence and people not qualified to make the declaration) and creation science was relegated to quackery status. The brilliant scientists in the field of creation science and the scientists in all fields who are led by their belief in God and who ascribe to the Biblical account of creation are definitely not quacks. Check out the credentials of this list of current scientists who cast their lot in for a young earth: If you are a young earth creationist, rest assured you are in good company. SO, back to my original question- young earth vs old earth, does it even matter? That can be answered in a couple of ways. As it relates to your individual eternal salvation- no. But if you are are a scientifically oriented individual or have an opportunity to discuss creation science with a scientifically minded atheist or agnostic- it may be the difference between belief and unbelief.

In closing, I would like to encourage anyone who has an interest to investigate the amazing findings of creation scientists and the more than possibility,but probability, of a young earth. Prior to delving into this arena for the sake of my son, I had absolutely no idea of the excitement and awe that the findings of these brilliant scientists would incite. As so often happens with our children, I have found that Kane has taught me a more important lesson than I taught him. Kane has been the instigator for my discovery of an entirely new level of faith in , appreciation for, and sheer amazement of the God we serve.