Richard Hollerman

I am in possession of a popular encyclopedia set and I recently read one of the articles quite thoroughly. I think that it can be said that this was an evil article that is available to anyone who owns this encyclopedia set.

The article was entitled “Women’s Movement” and it was written by an unknown writer by the name of Melanie S, Gustafson. Where shall I start? The whole article, by Gustafson, was evil from start to the finish. The piece covers this wicked movement and I made so many notes that I hardly know what to refer to. I placed so many notes, question marks, and made underlining throughout for I hardly knew what to say or how to respond.

Let’s begin (or try to) here. The article begins by referring to “the best known women’s movements” that “involve political efforts to change the roles and status of women in society.” What? There seems to be no effort to refer to men here, but we know that God-given roles were granted in the beginning (Genesis 1-3). Yes, if these needed to be changed because of the selfishness and belligerence of men, that is one thing, but if women are seeking to “take over” a man’s role, that is something else and is offensive to God.

There is so much here and this involves many page of text, but we continue to read. We read: “Throughout history, women have usually had fewer rights and a lower social status than men. A woman’s traditional role was that of wife and mother, and most women’s lives centered around the household.” Some of this would be good and some would be lies. But we doubt that Gustafson really cares.

Here we read that women had fewer “rights” but this carries an evil connotation. There is no such thing as a “right” and it is often used regarding a woman’s “right” to kill her baby. The “traditional role” that we read of here was that of a “wife and mother,” but this is absolutely what God Himself (as our Creator) wanted. The woman is to be a “wife” and Mother” of children, the dear ones that God has granted.

Whether it be zero, or one, or ten, the women is to bear children and this is her God-given task (1 Timothy 2:13-15). To quote the words of the excerpt that we have noted, is it wrong or unjust to say (as the Bible does) that her duty is to center her life around the household?

The article then goes on to say: “The industrial age brought about greater economic and political changes. Those changes altered women’s traditional roles and caused women to question their status. The first wave of women’s movements concentrated on gaining voting rights for women.” We (as Christians) would question some of this. A change in “status”? We question this. And “voting rights”? From a Christian standpoint, we question the voting (John 18:36). Yes, there is so much about this that we would question from a believer’s standpoint! Of course, this matter of “rights” has come up again and we find this not only distasteful but evil.

As we continue to read, we see this: “A second wave of women’s movements emerged during the 1960s, another period of great political and social change in many areas of the world. These movements sought greater equality for women in the family, in the workplace, and in political life.” We must question this, from a Christian perspective. For instance, the 1960s was called “the decade of rebellion,” as one book has it. Yes, it was a rebellion against established ways of doing things, including the place and work of women. Equality? No, a woman is not equal to the man (but, of course, we know that not all men are worthy, as you know). Just go to Genesis 1 through 3.

But equal to the man in the family? No. The woman is to be submissive and under a man. The woman is also not to be “equal” to the man in the “workplace.” In fact, the woman is not to be in the workplace at all. No, a woman is not to be “equal” to the man in political life. In fact, of course, the woman is not to be in political life. She is a woman, under God, and will always be such.

As we continue in this encyclopedia article, we read, “in almost every case, women’s movements have greater freedom for women to act as self-sufficient individuals, rather than as dependent wives or daughters.” Oh, so sad this is. Although we assume that Gustafson meant this as a positive statement, the Christian takes it as a sad affront to the will of God.

We know that women must be treated with fairness and kindness, this article seems to say that they are not to be sufficient in God but, rather, are to be “self-sufficient” which is what God hates. They definitely are to be “dependent” as God says and not as this feminist writer says. They are to be truly God-centered “wives and daughters” and not what Gustafson might imagine.

Page after page this article continues, with so much that we dare not continue and pursue this matter. We think that the reader will see that this is a feminist article, in the extreme, and although it surely was meant to glorify women it failed to accomplish this task. It was wickedly written and was evil from beginning to end. It was purely feminist (this is mean to be a negative term) in view and was Radical in the extreme!

Be careful how you read and what you read. As Jesus said, “Take care what you listen to” (Mark 4:24). Although this encyclopedia article was mean to be a liberating experience for women, it ended up being enslaving and wicked in many ways. I should have known. There was a picture at the beginning of the “female gender sign” and the depiction of a massive pro-female sign.

Let us determine (as Christians) to pursue holiness and God’s will, including what He says about the relationship of male and females.