How Feminism Was Tricked into Increasing State Power

This Corollary Should Never be Forgotten:
State Always Acts to  Increase Its Power

In the beginning there was a man and a woman. The woman was to be protected by the man. A trickster entered the screen and tricked the woman into taking an independent action that he claimed would make her independent. She did; it did not. The man saw the event, allowed it to occur, participated himself as he liked the outward result but when confronted by his superior he took no responsibility seeking to make the woman totally responsible. Sound familiar? Story of sin!

Unfortunately, it is also the story of modern feminism. With the enfranchisement of the slaves after the Civil War {15th Amendment-1870} the political establishment saw a growing need to offset their votes (specifically the Democratic party which had held them in slavery for so long and afterward with its various legal manipulations such as “Jim Crow” laws}. There was a growing movement toward increasing the power of the federal government since the end of the Civil War but there was a problem – money. These two streams came to fruition at nearly the same time. The ratification of the 16th, authority to levy income taxes, (1913) and 19th, woman’s enfranchisement, (1920) Amendments gave the federal government access to wealth limited only by the number of workers available to tax and the power to make further laws favorable to itself by offsetting the votes of the former slaves. It took time to learn to wield these two forces together and that becomes the history of the 20th century.

Modern Feminism Sisterhood and
Power of the Nation-State: War

My post, Goal of Feminism – NonFeminism, touched on the roots of the modern feminist movement and the achievement of its inevitable but unintended goal of equality: interchangeability between women and men. The feminist movement also had other unintended consequences: increasing the number of women in the workplace. In other words, increasing the tax base which enriched the federal government which increased the power of the federal government in all areas. The rise of American adventurism increased dramatically after the 16th Amendment and has not stopped. But violence also began erupting at home and directly attributable to both feminism and the willingness of men to turn from protecting women to plundering them.

Welfare of Nations is Eye Opening
Pun on Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations

Mr. Bartholomew discusses the result of worldwide research studies on various topics usually associated with the rise of the welfare state. His conclusions are illuminating but not hopeful. Indeed, I believe that he has documented the reasons why the nation-state is declining and globalization is closer to reality: need for funds to fuel the welfare state and the votes necessary to grant itself power until votes become unnecessary; but, I digress. Chapter Six (In Our Liberal Society, There Is a Group of Staunchly Conservative People-Children) he discusses several inconvenient truths about parenting. The belief of John Stuart Mill (On Liberty. London: Penguin. [1859] 1985. p.176.) still held sway in my youth: “To bring a child into existence without a fair prospect of being able not only to provide food for its body, but instruction…for its mind is a moral crime…against the unfortunate offspring and against society.” This concept is incomprehensible to people today because of the collusion of feminism and the nation-state. Sweden most clearly embodies the priority of values between feminism and children; “Anything that might interfere with the independence of women is regarded as automatically unconscionable.” This certainly is the guiding principle of abortion and now has been extended to children as well. This concept has taken root in nearly every modern culture {though to differing degrees as the book clearly discusses}. Thus, anything that interferes with the freedom of women must be bad; morally reprehensible and therefore eliminated {State’s perspective: Anything that keeps women from either voting or working or both is immoral}.

Huho Harkonen, a Finnish sociologist, was quoted by Mr. Bartholomew, “Human beings have a tendency to believe that behavior that is endorsed by their government and is widespread must be all right. They also, of course, resist any suggestion that they are doing anything wrong themselves (p.161).” His studies show that children do not do well in divorced families, single parent families, or step families; in fact, the environment best for children according to children is the original biological parent family (p.167) {Study by Gundi Knies in which children themselves were interviewed}. This is also the finding of several meta-studies {studies that study other studies testing their validity} conducted by Paul Amato of Pennsylvania State University. Children raised by people who cohabitant fare no better, and often worse since the partners may change frequently {rarity for two adults to remain in the same relationship}. British study reported that, “The most damaging thing for children appears to be a series of changes in who looks after them. The more changes, the worse the outcome (p. 171).”

What about childcare? Jay Belsky published a review on the effects of daycare on children. At the time of this study (1970s) he wrote a glowing report about the positive effects of daycare on children; however, by 1986, he could no longer write the same story. He concluded, “…that childcare in the first year of life should be regarded as a ‘risk factor'” (p.174). He was demonized in the press and academically. The government launched a huge study that determined, “Damage…was identified”. “Extensive childcare emerged as a ‘significant predictor’ of ‘problem behaviors’… (p. 175).” You have to ask yourself why the federal government needed such a study? Conclusive results from such a study could drive women back into the homes depriving the government revenue from their taxes. Finally, Mr. Bartholomew writes, “…welfare states may be influencing the incidence of both single parenting and day care…they may be affecting the…well being of…children and parents (p.179).” There are also studies in this chapter linking behavioral issues at least up to 15 years old if not well into adulthood when prison inmates (past and present) are researched.

Conclusion best stated by Barack Obama (2008) when he postulated, “that children who grow up without a father are 5 times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; 9 times more likely to drop out of school; and 20 times more likely to end up in prison (p.183).” Yet, his policies only further the development and power of the American welfare state while weakening America, the nation-state. Government knows very well what it is doing. It’s the citizens who do not understand the consequences: loss of independence {speaking in the parlance of the reader} in exchange for a “few beans” {Jack and the Beanstalk}!

Women were duped into believing a lie of independence apart from the family by the very force that was to protect her: men, whom she rejected, and the government, who was the trickster. The poor are used for their votes and those with jobs for their taxes and votes. Children, increasingly becoming behavior problems, are either drugged and or jailed; this is especially true of those ethnicities that have been encouraged, via government programs, to be single parent families {a rotating series of “lovers” that care nothing about the children except not having any more}.

The Bible speaks of Molech, an idol which was heated red hot and then a child sacrifice was placed in its hands to “cook” while music played and prayers offered. God said His people were not to offer children to Molech (Le 18:21) and King Solomon built an altar to Molech for one of his wives to use (1Ki 11:7) when the penalty for such an action was death (Le 20:2). The state should have protected its people but instead allowed harm to come to its people, especially its children, for its own ends. Western nation-state governments have followed the same example. The increase in “mental illness” {pseudoscience} is nothing more than diagnosis to disguise the harm the government has encouraged to increase its own power. Medicating children is not a substitute for parenting but it is for keeping mom working and voting. Leaving the protection of the home women lost their protection and became the hunted; preyed on by worthless men raised in broken, dysfunction families, and foster homes {really foster farms that collect state money}.  Strangers from daycare centers to schools to prisons, no matter how well intended, are no substitute for mom and dad family which is the very antithesis of globalization. Feminism has been successful but while the band played on, the screams of those sacrificed children rise up as a wall of outrage. And, we are still in the very early stages of globalization!

Author: LeeS

Retired naval nurse, Dad, Husband, Christian who seeks to share the Bible with those who want more than the superficial milk given out in the majority of today's churches. God has taught me through hard experiences as well as through book learning (Master's of Ministry, Doctor of Ministry).