Showing posts with label feminazi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminazi. Show all posts

Thursday, February 12, 2015

Does the Bible forbid women from wearing pants?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about feminine clothing. This follows this post about the gay agenda. This follows this post about Valentine's Day. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.



Does the Bible forbid women from wearing pants?



What does the biblical statute about a woman not wearing anything that pertains to a man mean today?


Answer: Deuteronomy:22:5 says: "A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman's garment, for all who do so are an abomination to the Lord your God." Like many of the statutes, this law had to do with pagan customs of the time, and as we will see, does not refer to women wearing pants. The Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary explains:
"Disguises were assumed at certain times in pagan temples. Maimonides...mentions that a man attired in a coloured female dress, in honour of Venus, Ashtaroth, or Astarte, and a woman equipped in armour, worshipped at the shrine of the statue of Mars...
"Asiatics, when they engaged in the worship of Ashtaroth, were accustomed, according to Philocorus, quoted by Townley (in his edition of Maimonides, note 33), to exchange the male and female dresses. In fact, all idolators confounded the sexes of their deities—representing them sometimes as male, at other times as female; and hence, their worshippers, male and female, fell gradually into the custom, which became extensively prevalent, of changing their attire in adaptation to the sex of a particular divinity."
God's command to Israel forbade the people from incorporating pagan religious rites into true worship. In spite of this instruction, today's Christianity commonly mixes paganism in with the worship of Christ.
Does Deuteronomy:22:5 forbid women from wearing pants? No, it doesn't. In fact, even men in the Middle East through the history of the Old and New Testaments did not wear pants; they wore a robelike garment. However, there is an underlying principle that applies today. Men should dress in an appropriately masculine manner and women should dress in an appropriately feminine manner. Clothing manufacturers make pants designed for men and pants designed for women.
For more insight, please read our article The Modesty Question: How Far is Too Far?


Thursday, April 3, 2014

A War on Men

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the War on Men that is going on. This follows this post about the failure of democracy in Middle East and other parts of the world. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632. You can follow me at blogspot here and at twitter here https://twitter.com/brianleesblog. Please consider following both in case one goes down!






A War on Men

Printer-friendly version



Source: kieferpix/istock/thinkstock
Many people say today’s Western culture is an unrelenting war on men. Is this true? Most often, yes. Here’s a word of advice to ladies: Don’t let yourselves get duped into carrying water for those pushing a feminist agenda. Take control of your life, and plan for your happiness.
Susan Patton, author of the book Marry Smart advocates that young women should begin looking for a man to marry while still in college. In an interview with The Wall Street Journal Patton says they shouldn’t let the opportunity pass by thinking that “there will be plenty of time to marry and have children, but first my career!”
“Educated women, if you want children and a good husband you will need to plan your personal happiness in the same way you plan for your business and financial success” ( The Wall Street Journal “Opinion,” March 11, 2014). This is Patton’s advice to young women who are not ignoring their biological makeup and needs. Women, she says, are different than men and should reject any feminist agenda that says women can go it alone without a man. The feminist lie says a woman should not aspire to marriage and motherhood. Doing so betrays “the cause.” Feminism says to young women, “You need what we tell you that you need.”
Reviews of Patton’s book indicate her intended audience is getting the message and waking up. They should. Their biological clocks are ticking, and the number of eligible men decreases as their years go by. The feminist myth that a woman does not need a man has caused many women to waste a lot of years.
Ladies, know what you want in life and plan for it–early. We are created male and female not to compete, but to complement. God said in Genesis:2:24, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” This is the way it was designed, and it works best when applied at the right time and in the right way.

Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Feminism and the Pinkification of Professional Football

A timely post about from www.badeagle.com about the U.S. game of football. This follows this post about George Soros and Mark Zuckerberg attempting to manipulate the U.S. Congress. In the meantime, you can get more involved if you like here and read an interesting book HERE.

Feminism and the Pinkification of Professional Football


by David Yeagley   Everyone has seen the pink footgear, pink body flags, and pink gloves being paraded on the NFL fields all over the country. Everyone knows that it’s about breast cancer awareness, and that it is a woman’s campaign.   Hardly a more worthy or important campaign could be thus launched. Yet, this ominous intrusion into the man’s world is tainted by raw feminism of the recent past which put women reporters in men’s locker rooms. Something is deeply amiss, despite the equality of death and spousal commitment.   While it is true that what affects one spouse intimately affects the other; while men’s prostate cancer has been ‘advertised’ by women as though women get prostate cancer also (by proxy, by spousal affectation in the conjugal, physical relation); the fact is, as Limbaugh pointed out, there is no campaign for men’s testicular cancer, or anything about particularly masculine forms of cancer. (Fact is, men sometimes get breast cancer also, rarely.)   Strong men are always the target of all women. Women are abjectly attracted to strong men, of any color, usually. The women generally looks to the man as the provider and protector, one way or another. But feminism as a political movement hates men. It is attracted to the man as an enemy, as something to be degraded, despised, and emasculated. (This is what the anti-Indian warrior image is all about. The strongest image of all must be removed unquestionably!)

Women simply cannot leave men alone. Something like professional football is irresistible–by any woman, of any political brand or hormonal condition. It is almost as if the women must participate in the strength of a man, be like him (like Xena), or attack him for being a man, for being stronger than her.

Perhaps my view here is itself tainted by my earlier experience of raw feminism at Yale Divinity. One of the last bastions of the male profession, the ministry was invaded by very aggressive woman who, for the most part, were not considered the generally attractive type of woman, and could never market themselves as objects of sexual attraction. In other words, there was a lot of resentment and hurt in most of the female seminarians. They wanted to compete with men on an equal basis. After all, there were half of the image of God, and expected to be regarded as such. It was a kind of reaction, from anger. They couldn’t be regarded as beautiful, but they were determined to be regarded as equal.


It was a sad and disappointing experience for me, personally, and affected me ever after.
I note also that, in the recent edition (not yet on line), Fall 2013, of Reflections (a YDS quarterly) is on “the art of aging,” and features old women, in articles, by women authors, and in female photography. Of course, what could be a more natural loss of marketable beauty than aging? Liberalism, of course, wants all to be equal, always, at the cost of every natural inclination.

The photo featured in the first article in the YDS Reflections, Fall 2013 edition. From the Marianne Gontarz York collection

Female homosexuality is a major element of feminist “equality,” of course. In an environment like Yale Divinity, it can be very aggressively advocated, as homosexuality in general. It isn’t always the case, but one dare not protest it any too loudly when it is the case. It would be the epitome of un-Christian behavior, to condemn anyone for anything so personal.




So American professional football is going to have to take it on the chin, so to speak. It is a feminist tackle from behind. A devastating blow, leaving a professional concussion on the game, indeed.



Note that move of the kick-off line from the 20 to the 30 yard line. There are no more kick-off returns now. It is a wasted gesture. This is one of the first, most notable emasculations of the game. Why was this exciting, dramatic play cut out? The injuries occur during punt returns, where there is little blocking available. What are the stats on kick-off return injuries? Some stats do show that there are more injuries on the kick-off returns, but they don’t say what kind of injuries. Why, it’s a full 2%! And the reduction of injuries is a full 0.2%. Great accomplishment.



It is liberalism invading another American cultural tradition, trying to destroy it, or to at least control it with tyranny. Unfortunately, the breast cancer campaign is their front line offense now. True, there are many men on the field and in the crowd whose lives have been affected by their wives’ breast cancer. That is undeniable. It’s just a shame that such a sincere concern must be ‘infected’ and inappropriately injected into the men’s sports world. It is a most egregious inpropriety.



But, propriety has never been a principle of liberalism. Only coercion. Only tyranny. Only oppression and control.



Men wear pink now. Men must bow to women–mean, angry women, who are using normal, feminine women as their offensive line.



And so this is the new mascot for all professional football: a pink ribbon. It’s all about women’s breasts now, the female protrusions. It’s like some primitive goddess worship on the front line. Save the breasts! Bow to the breast!


Thursday, October 2, 2008

Feminism: Then and Now

I wanted to let you know about this article about a part of feminism that hasn't been covered that thoroughly. The article does talk of some early feminists and contrasts their views with current feminists. This also covers an issue about one of the reasons for the decline of the Western nations. I hope you find this timely and interesting.

Revisiting Abortion
Armstrong Williams
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Although the abortion debate has largely been cast in terms of a woman’s right to choose whether or not to give birth to a fetus, based on a set of lifestyle and health-related factors, the alarming number of abortions performed each year suggests a different story altogether. With well over a million abortions performed annually in the United States alone, more than 50 million abortions performed in America since the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade decision 35 years ago, it might appear that abortion has become little more than a routine medical procedure, undertaking little or no real consideration of its true consequences.
Surely, some of the causal factors behind such a choice are understandable within the context of the world we find ourselves facing. With fatherhood and male role models increasingly absent, and rapidly disintegrating family and community networks, it is no wonder that many women feel they cannot raise a child on their own. While, in many countries, pregnancy is considered an honorable contribution to society, in our modern Western civilization, childbirth, especially among women of prime child-bearing age, is seen through the lens of constricted lifestyle and career choices. Women with children are seen as less valuable in the workplace and less likely to succeed in life. Children are viewed, not as our greatest resource leading to a better future for our civilization and the world at large, but as a burden on our individuality and l ifestyle.
This choice stems from a prism of values that distort the true nature of God-given equality. This view is not restricted to the Western world, but is surprising given the strides we have made over the past century in upholding and advancing the rights of women. The earliest American feminists, Elizabeth Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, equated abortion with slavery as barbaric practices. Stanton was quoted as saying, "When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit." Anthony went as far as to refer to abortion as "child-murder." These early pioneers of civil rights and women’s suffrage found it abominable that either unborn or fully formed human beings could be considered property, to be used and discarded like animals. In fact, when animals are used in a similar manner, PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) goes berserk trying to defend the rights of animals. The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) often boasts about advocating those without a voice, yet they sided with the women, who once upon a time had no voice, but who has less of a voice than a baby i nside her mother’s womb? Somewhere along the way, feminism became distorted and turned on the very values that gave rise to it. Somehow “convenience” and “comfort” became values more important than the right to life, where a woman can exterminate any chance at life on a whim. Is that where we want to be as a society, where lives can be used as leverage or in some tragic cases, as revenge?
Equality, whether in gender or societal terms, has been falsely equated with sameness. When America’s founders evoked the principle that people are created equal, they did not mean that all people are the same. Rather, they implied that all are equal in the sight of God; that our diversity of talents and perspectives as individuals should be properly valued as contributions to the growth of a great civilization. One need not be the same in order to be treated equally under the law. But this view has been distorted in modern feminism: rather than urging a re-valuing of the value of motherhood, modern feminists merely sought to become men in dresses, and some seem intent on doing away with those dresses too. In doing so they overlooked the value of the sacrifice associated with motherhood. It should be noted that even under the best circumstances childbirth is an arduous ordeal, fraught with danger. On the other hand, it is perhaps one of the noblest forms of sacrifice that a person can offer to society, and potentially the most rewarding. We ought not to forget that half of society is incapable of undergoing this sacrifice and having the honor of bringing new life into the world. Yes, bearing children is a privilege that half of us are not afforded, and when people who have power use it to oppress others in order to gain more comfort for themselves we usually call them tyrannical. It’s highly dubious that the intent of the feminist movement was to create tyrants out of teenagers and young women or their families who force them to vanquish an unborn baby. Motherhood and fatherhood are not a useless burden: they are the basic building blocks of a great nation. Without the sacrifice of parents, nations could not exist.
http://townhall.com/columnists/ArmstrongWilliams/2008/09/30/revisiting_abortion

Thursday, September 4, 2008

Politically Incorrect Guide to Women

In regards to current events, I wanted to recommend a book that you can get from the library or bookstore. One of the interesting points that it brings up is that when men link up with "liberated" women, then they feel that they no longer have any responsibilities themselves, like fatherhood, providing for a family, and fidelity. Anyway, I do think that you will find it interesting. Also, another interesting book to reread at this time is our book Marriage and Family that you can link to here http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/FM/ .


http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/67236834&referer=brief_results

BOOK LINK HERE:

http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-Women-Feminism/dp/1596980036/ref=pd_ybh_9?pf_rd_p=280800601&pf_rd_s=center-2&pf_rd_t=1501&pf_rd_i=ybh&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0PF4F9QH0CHG2BEMKY90
Product DescriptionThe latest in the New York Times bestselling series! The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex and Feminism is the perfect antidote to the lies told in boardrooms, locker rooms, and universities that are brainwashing young women every day. From the Back CoverWe’ve been duped.
We were raised to think we could have it all. In college we were told that men weren’t necessary. Pop culture told us that career—not family—came first. The idea of being a stay-at-home mom was for losers. And yet are we happier than our mothers or grandmothers, who grew up before women were "liberated" by the sexual revolution? For many women, the answer is no. In The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Women, Sex, and Feminism, Carrie Lukas, a young career woman and new mother, sets the record straight: correcting the lies women have been told and slamming the door on the screaming harpies of NOW, feminist professors, and the rest of the bra-burners who have done so much to wreck women’s lives.
Bet your feminist teacher never told you:
* Women’s lib has "liberated" men from having to commit, "freed" women from marriage, and often "unshackled" women from having a family. * More than ever, women in their twenties and thirties live alone, are discarded by boyfriends after "living together," and are watching their biological clocks tick past the point of no return. * Women still prefer men who are breadwinners and can protect them physically. See all Editorial Reviews