Feminism is Destroying the Distinction Between Genders.

Feminism is Destroying the Distinction Between Genders.

If a woman can run for president, and a woman can be an astronaut, or a woman can be a doctor, or a lawyer, what makes a woman any different than a man?

If a woman works a full-time job while the man raises their kids, what makes a woman a woman?

If feminism says that women can do anything men can do, what does that mean?

If two women or two men can legally get married, then what is gender?


If we tell ourselves that women and men are the same, why do we even have different genders? What’s the point?

Or even, transgenderism. If a man feels that he’s really a woman in the “wrong” body, he can decide to be a she. So what’s the point of having two separate genders anyway?

Feminism is dangerous because it gives men and women the same roles. It completely disregards God’s design for masculinity and femininity and gives us all a choice where it is not our place to make it.

I’m not saying that a girl shouldn’t be able to work. I’m not implying that a guy shouldn’t be able to do housework.

But what I am saying is that when we forget the distinction between genders, and implant feminism into the way we think, we have a chance of crossing the lines of biblical femininity and masculinity. We discredit our self-worth and ascribe it to what we accomplish or prove.

I’m not saying men are better than women. We are absolutely 100% equal. However, we cannot make our roles identical, for to do so would be to discredit the uniqueness of each gender and therefore God’s design.

Let me back up a little bit. A minute ago, I asked the question, what makes a woman any different than a man?

And that’s the question of the century.

In this post along with two more, I hope to address some of these questions that we’ve all been asking. They’re really tough, I know.

The first thing I’d like to point out in all of this is that our worth and value does not come from proving ourselves. When we embrace feminism, we convince ourselves that women aren’t worth as much as men unless they’re treated the same.

Society says we have to have the same roles because we won’t be equal if we don’t.

Wait, what?

This is as ridiculous as arguing over whether eyes or ears are more important.

Come on, people. They’re both valuable. But they each have their own separate roles.

Just like men and women. God created men to be leaders and protectors, and women to be nurturers and supporters. By embracing feminism and confusing genders, we discredit our true worth.

As Christians, we can’t be confused by our culture’s marred view of gender. We have the Bible: the inspired word of God. Why don’t we use it?

Genesis 1:27

“So God created man in his own image,

in the image of God he created him;

male and female he created them.”

God created male and female in His image. We are separate. But that’s not something we should ever despise.

Psalm 139:13-15

“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works; my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately woven in the depths of the earth.”

We were formed with utmost care. Everything about us has been purposefully handcrafted by God. It’s not our place to look at ourselves and try to change how God created us. God created gender, and even though it doesn’t seem this simple a lot of times, He has a purpose in the way He created you.

And finally, verses on why we He saved us.

Titus 3:4-7

“But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”

How do these all connect? Well, for one, it shows that God made us all specifically. We are fearfully and wonderfully made. He made us to be either male or female, and neither is better than the other. And when He saved us from our sins, it wasn’t because of anything we’ve ever done. We don’t deserve salvation. We don’t deserve love. Still, that’s what we’ve been given.

And I think that it links back to our culture’s ever-present destructive feminism and gender confusion.

We as humans (incorrectly) see ourselves as worth something if we accomplish a feat or a destiny.

When women are seen as weak and the underdogs, they want to step up and say, “I can do this.” Ambition isn’t necessarily bad, but we all have to remember that our worth is not defined by our works. It is defined by the cross.

In the next two posts, I’m planning on discussing what it looks like to live in biblical femininity (if you’re a girl) and biblical masculinity (if you’re a guy).

I understand if you don’t agree with me. A lot of people won’t, and I’m not here to judge. But as Christians, we can’t stand idly by while our guidebook is right in front of us.

God loves all of us. Every single one. He’s created all of us with a purpose and a plan, and we can’t take that for granted.


28 Replies to “Feminism is Destroying the Distinction Between Genders.”

  1. You don’t understand feminism, probably because feminists are either confused about why they are feminists or they are just being honest about their movement’s true agenda. I will try to explain as best I can 🙂

    Feminism defines women as the weaker and inferior sex who are always ‘acted upon’ by the stronger and more superior sex (men).

    Feminism is a continuance of patriarchy. The patriarchy afforded women and children special treatment because both ARE physically weaker and more vulnerable compared to men. When life was harsh and most paid work involved manual labour of some kind (and without the aid of electricity, cars, tractors, cranes, machinery, decent protective clothing etc) it made sense for men’s role to be that of provider and protector to women and children. This might not have been ‘fair’, but neither is being born a man or a woman ‘fair’….. the bottom line was that traditional ‘patriarchal’ gender roles were simply *necessary* for the survival of the species.

    In the modern post industrial/ post technological age a lot of manual labour work is accomplished using machines, and the remaining manual work is much safer due to modern protective clothing, electric lighting etc. New technology also makes housework a breeze, and it provides many appealing opportunities for women to earn a wage in safe, comfortable environments like the modern office or mechanised factory…. rather that out in the fields, down a mine shaft, out at sea, in a shipyard or on a construction site. And new technology means greater productivity and efficiency, which leads to greater affluence in general, and greater affluence in society always means more lifestyle / career options for everyone.

    So there is really no longer any pressing *need* for traditional gender roles to be imposed – at least not for women’s sake. Traditional gender roles are still necessary for children’s sake. Women do not necessarily need men to provide them with resources and protection… but babies and children still DO need mothers and fathers to provide them with resources and protection (AKA parenting!).

    Most modern women enjoy the increased freedoms which new technology and affluence brings, and they accept the fact that they must give up certain female privileges which are legacies of the ‘patriarchal’ past, when life was tougher and day-to-day survival was more of an issue.

    But there is one group of women who still cling to those special privileges that women were entitled to in the past, simply for being female. This group is called ‘feminists’. Feminists still to enjoy all the benefits that technology offers women, while ALSO enjoying all the benefits of being ‘second class citizens’ who men are duty bound to protect and provide for (kind of like how a parent is duty bound to provide for their children, who are also second class citizens, relative to adults).

    Basically feminists want to occupy a status somewhere between children and adults…..enjoying the entitlements and special treatment that we give to children (on account of their vulnerability and weakness) but also enjoying all the freedoms and rights associated with being an adult.

    Feminists want men to treat them as equals AND they want men to treat them as ‘ladies’ at the same time, by being chivalrous, self sacrificing and paternalistic towards women (He for She).

    Feminism is traditionalism/ patriarchy/ chivalry but coated with a thin veil of political correctness to disguise this fact.

    Patriarchy’s slogan of “women and children first” has been replaced with feminism’s slogan of “He for She”. Notice how feminists have dropped the concern to children’s wellbeing – which was the whole point of traditional patriarchal gender roles!

    Traditionalism/ patriarchy places women – and by association children – at the heart of society and makes it men’s duty to provide and protect them. Feminism places feminists (who account for 20% of women) at the heart of society and make it everybody’s duty to cater to their needs and wants.

    Feminism does not disregard gender differences, it exploits them to the maximum for self serving gains.


    1. Thank you for that long and detailed response. 🙂 I suppose that we can both agree that feminism is a woman wanting to act like a man (being viewed with sameness, not just equality) but still wanting to be treated like a lady. As a Christian, I see this as very dangerous because if a woman can act however she pleases and still expect to be treated how she wants, it can cross the line of what gender should be. Biblically, we have separate roles as men and women (and I’m not talking about industrial work vs. housework), and if we cross the line of how we should act by way of embracing feminism, it can lead us to muddy the line between biblical manhood and womanhood.
      Does that make sense?


    2. I understand wanting to personally wear dresses and be feminine. But being a Christian to me is about selflessness and helping others. It comes from the inside not the outside. It comes by helping our neighbors not ourselves. I don’t think Jesus was so vain. Growing up in a world where there is more slavery than ever before in recorded history due to human trafficking most of the victims of which are female. In a world where women are killed for being born female or for practicing any self anatomy, where FGM is praticed. In a world where men are encouraged (not to be christlike) but violent instead. Where most crimes are committed by men. Did not God call on men to be the crown of Christ? Why should I follow the man who is unchristlike? Should I not expect a man to be good? To fight for others as I would myself? Is it really horrible that we’re asking man to be less violent and fight against female oppression worldwide? Would it be better to ask men to do nothing for anyone and simply pursue their own carnal desires? Is that christ like behavior? I thought woman were supposed to encourage their partner towards good and selflessness.

      Patriarchy if you recall from times passed, was used to sell daughters as property. Husbands could jail their sons for no reason and the wife would have no say. They had rules on how to properly beat a wife because remember a woman was property. You couldn’t rape a wife because a wife was property. A woman was not allowed to go to school, read, or write, (meaning they couldn’t even read the bible). They couldn’t vote. And weren’t allowed outside the house without a male escorting them. They werent allowed to join the military and for decades weren’t allowed to fight in combat (this was changed in 2013) In this society there were two types of women the wife, and the whore. The whole women and children first applies to situations like the Titanic -which by the way most of the people who survived were men. HeforShe is a different thing entirely.

      A good illustration of what the patriarchy looks like is to go online and look up porn and escorts/prostitues. See how they hit the women, make them cry, spit on them, and make them crawl on their knees. Patriarchy is devaluing the feminine – viewing it as inferior. It’s a man’s ability to buy a young girl or a women and have her be delivered to his door.

      Caring about femininity being devalued and commidified for sexual gratification is not self serving. It’s demanding respect and dignity.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. > Patriarchy if you recall from times passed, was used to sell daughters as property.

        Women were treated as half way between children and adults. They had many of the freedoms of adulthood, but also many of the protections usually associated with childhood. This ensured women were kept safe, comfortable, and above all else ALIVE (while the men often died like flies around them). Women are the limiting factor in human reproduction. In harsh environments dominated by scarcity and poor technology every society puts their women at the heart of society and makes it men;s role to provide protection and resources to women. It’s the reason we are still here as a species.

        It’s no surprise women only started to show an interest in equality with men AFTER modern technology made society a lot safer, more affluent, more comfortable and provided a whole range of new ways to earn an income which did NOT involve manual labour. Only AFTER the creation of comfortable office jobs (or their equivalent) did women collectively roll up their sleeves and decide paid work was something they wanted to try their hand at.

        > Husbands could jail their sons for no reason and the wife would have no say.

        I’ll b honest. I never heard that one before. I’m sure it was not as simplistic as you make it out to be.

        > They had rules on how to properly beat a wife because remember a woman was property.

        If you mean ‘rule of thumb’ that is a myth! Debunked many years ago. Women were not the property of men, they were the wards of men. This meant men were OBLIGATED to provide for their wives (and sisters, aunts etc).

        > You couldn’t rape a wife because a wife was property.

        Nope. Rape has been outlawed for men since the 12th century at least. In the past people viewed marriage primarily as a means to reproduce, therefore it was generally assumed that if you agreed to marry someone you were agreeing to have sex with them and bear/ sire children. This s not the same as saying rape was allowed in marriage, however sex was a marital right. Women could divorce men who ‘failed to perform’ or who were ‘unwilling to perform’ their manly duties!

        > A woman was not allowed to go to school, read, or write, (meaning they couldn’t even read the bible).

        This is because men were the ones obligated to provide for women and the family by having a paid career. It made no sense for women to spend money on an education, if they were going to then have to work around the house and bear children. It would be like living in the desert and paying for a scuba diving course. It benefited women for men to get the education seeing as how he was the one who was going to provide for them both financially. This means he can get a better job and better earnings which means more money for HER too.

        > They couldn’t vote.

        And neither could children. But neither women, nor men were obligated to go down mines, build the roads, build the factories, work in the factories, trade across continents in wooden boats and go to war. It would have been unfair for women to have the right to – for example – vote for a war and then have men as young as 18 forced (at gunpoint) to fight that war while the women stayed at home, wouln’t you agree?

        And yet for nearly a century that was what happened. Men had to agree to serve the state as cannon fodder in return for their right to vote. Women gained voting rights (thanks partly to acts of domestic terrorism which are still celebrated to day because female terrorism is good, apparently), but they had no corresponding social obligations like men had. That is female privilege, not gender equality.

        > And weren’t allowed outside the house without a male escorting them.

        Like royalty. Being treated like royalty can be frustrating and annoying, but it is not oppression.

        Even today men are far more likely to be the victim of assault, yet men are still socially obligated to walk a woman home at night. It’s just biology playing itself out. WOmen are the limiting factor in reproduction. We are all hard wired to treat men as disposable, and women like precious vases (vase = womb!).

        > They werent allowed to join the military and for decades weren’t allowed to fight in combat (this was changed in 2013).

        This is female privilege, not oppression. If women had been ‘allowed’ to get paid work when paid work meant mining with a pick axe, or building stone roads by hand this would have been seen as the oppression of women…… and if women had been ‘allowed’ to join the military a century ago when there was no GPS, no decent protective clothing, no decent radios, and no accomodation with pool tables, a decent canteen, skype, and widescreen TVs this would also have been regarded as oppression.

        In all areas of society men are obligated to work alone, often for centuries, in harsh and dangerous environments until modern technology makes the conditions comfortable and safe enough for women to be allowed to join in.

        > In this society there were two types of women the wife, and the whore.

        Well if we are going to reduce the sexes to over simplistic roles then we can say that men are either walking wallets or cannon fodder.

        Men adore women for being women. But women rarely have any interest in a man unless he is of some utility to her. This is why male pin ups always have some indicator of the man’s utility to women so that the woman can fantasise about the man being of service to her (a fireman, a lumberjack, a successful rich business man etc). Again, it’s just biology in action. Women are vulnerable during reproduction and are hard wired to seek out men who can provide for and protect them.

        > The whole women and children first applies to situations like the Titanic

        And wars, and fires, and natural disasters, and food, and clothing, and luxury items…..

        > which by the way most of the people who survived were men.

        Because men are stronger and more resilient. Which is why they are duty bound to put women and children into life boats.

        > HeforShe is a different thing entirely.

        Yes. I agree. In traditional chivalry women respect and heap praise onto men who are chivalrous…. in modern feminism (he for she) feminists shame men who do not serve them like slaves. The shift in emphasis is the result of women’s increased economic freedoms, resulting from modern technology.

        > A good illustration of what the patriarchy looks like is to go online and look up porn and escorts/prostitues. See how they hit the women, make them cry, spit on them, and make them crawl on their knees.

        So we should ignore all the ways men have protected and served women over the centuries (often sacrificing their lives along the way) and instead focus on men PAYING women to act out role plays?

        You do realise a lot of women enjoy role playing where they are treated like sexual objects, right? Not only do they act out these fantasies with their partners, they also consume TONS of porn and romantic literature where women are dominated by men. Ever heard of Fifty Shades of Grey?

        It is just biology playing out once again. All across the animal kingdom we see females being attracted to dominant males. Dominant males make the best providers and protectors. Go figure.

        > Patriarchy is devaluing the feminine – viewing it as inferior.

        Femininity IS inferior when it comes to surviving in harsh, unforgiving environments with a lack of technology where scarcity is a day-to-day issue. Women are physically mid way between children and men. This is why women traditionally occupied a social role that had attributes of both childhood and adulthood combined.

        And this is why wen technology came along and helped to make the physical differences between the sexes less of an issue (at least for the typical urban dweller working in an office – as most people today do) we saw patriarchal society become more relaxed. The exception being traditionalists who VOLUNTARILY CHOOSE to perpetuate patriarchal gender roles amongst themselves, and feminists who TRY TO FORCE patriarchal gender roles onto all of society by force (via the state – which is the most patriarchal institution that ever existed, alongside the church).

        If patriarchy really devalued women then throughout patriarchal history women would have been sent to war, down the mines, out to sea, into burning buildings and onto construction sites while the men got to stay in the relative comfort and safety of the home. We’d also have seen women wearing practical, utilitarian clothing, while the men get to adorn themselves with all manner of fine fabrics, frivolous designs and impractical outfits together with hairstyles and make up which make manual labour or changing a car tire impossible. And it would be women’s responsibility to ensure men standing helplessly at the roadside had their tires changed for them, that men had help carrying their shopping, or help negotiating steps with their heeled shoes.

        And no doubt these men would get together while their women were out at work earning a wage for them both, and they would complain about how much their lives were restricted.

        > It’s a man’s ability to buy a young girl or a women and have her be delivered to his door.

        You are stripping women of their agency and reducing women to the level of objects.

        I could do the same with men by saying “It’s also a woman’s ability to buy a young man and have him delivered to her door”

        You are talking about female prostitutes and I am talking about male plumbers or roofers, or gardeners, or garbage collectors or electricians, or chimney sweeps.

        What’s the difference? Why are women objects for providing a service and being paid for it, but men aren’t? That is a double standard.

        If a woman prostitute services another woman is she still being treated like an object?

        Men make up 95% of workplace deaths. Do you not think some men might prefer to be paid for having sex, rather than unblocking sewers, or building multi story car parks, or installing fibre optic cable all day long in all weathers?

        > Caring about femininity being devalued and commidified for sexual gratification is not self serving.

        Rape is devaluing femininity, but PAYING for sex with a woman is literally valuing women’s sexuality.

        In our society men always pay for the privilege of having sex with a woman. They either pay in hard cash left on the bedside table….. or they pay with drinks, meals, theatre tickets, and by offering those women a roof over their head, no bills and a share of his wages.

        One reason (there are several) why women ‘slut shame’ other women is because women who are promiscuous are lowering women’s collective sexual value in the sexual marketplace by essentially offering sex for free. The more men have access to ‘free sex’ the less leverage other women have over men, by way of withholding sex.

        This is why feminists (who are the most ‘patriarchal’ demographic amongst women) have started trying to ban ‘sex robots’ (but only the female ones of course). They fear that they can be replaced by synthetic vaginas….. which tell us just how much these women value themselves, and how insecure they are. It is interesting that within a week of the ‘sex robot’ outcry from feminists, they launched a new twitter hashtag #MasculinitySoFragile which is basically projection on their part. Just about everything feminists accuse men of is projection.

        > It’s demanding respect and dignity.

        Demanding respect and dignity just for being female reeks of female entitlement.

        We do not grant men respect and dignity just for being male, neither do males grant themselves or each other respect and dignity just for being males. That is one of the main differences between men and women.

        Most men feel – and all men are treated – as if they have to DO something of value (typically something that is of benefit to women or to society in general) before they can themselves worthy of respect or dignity.

        The fact that we do not grant men *automatic* respect and dignity is what drives men to prove themselves by climbing the career ladder and getting into positions where they can make a difference to society – and of course support women financially.

        If we valued men just for being men, even without any qualifications, skills, or ability to provide for women, then we’d see a lot more men acting like women, and aiming lower in their careers, and spending more time pampering themselves and generally enjoying the attention of women.

        Men could then choose a wife based on HER capacity to provide resources (an income) and protection to him.


  2. Yes, yes, yes. My thoughts exactly. And it also reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from A Wrinkle in Time: “Like and equal are not the same thing at all.” Men and women are different. but equal. Because we don’t have to be exactly the same to be equal. And feminism blurring the lines of genders, I’ve never thought about it that way, but it’s a really, really good point.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Wow, this is *really* great, Amanda! People don’t have the guts to say stuff like this. Way to go for standing up like that! You will be persecuted for your beliefs, but don’t surrender and don’t give in. Be strong and hold to your beliefs! This is some good stuff!


  4. You laid it all out so nicely. 🙂 It’s really just not that complicated, people…don’t get your “britches in a bind” over having differences–you’re still equal! No one’s trying to change that! Really, it’s just degrading to a woman to say, in essence, that she doesn’t have worth unless she’s the same as a man. It’s so…self-contradicting.

    I think the reason people get all hung up on about the “different roles” thing is stubbornness. They don’t like the idea of God having “decided for them” what they should do, so they rebel and try to do the opposite. That’s a whole other problem entirely. It’s not about equality at that point, it’s about pride.


    1. Amen! It totally is self-contradicting. Equal isn’t identical. And yeah, stubbornness and selfishness cause a lot of things…if we’d all just um, listen to the Bible, then maybe we’d be *ahem* a little better off. XD


  5. Truth be told, I know of nobody – man or woman – who wants to return to what the norms were before feminism. Nobody wants to put women in the same position as Scarlett O’Hara in ‘Gone With The Wind’ requiring them to marry and always be married in order to have a comfortable lifestyle. Nobody wants to limit the education of women to a high school level as the highest they can go. Nobody wants to return to Victorian manners and dress. Nobody wants to return to a time where a woman must have the countersignature of a man in order to take out a loan with the bank. Nobody wants to return a time where a woman receives less pay and works longer hours than a man for the same work. Nobody wants to live in a world where the opinions, advice, and thoughts of women are automatically worth less than those of men because of their gender. Nobody wants to turn back the dial on progress and ‘forget’ how to help women survive the process of having babies and return to a time where death claimed newborns almost as often as it claimed their mothers. Feminism has done a lot of good in the secular world. It’s given all of us considerable freedom that is difficult to want to give up. Some of the first Abolitionists were also among the earliest Feminists – it goes that far back! Feminism is a spectrum of beliefs – some of which are quite harmonious with Christianity – that women should not have to suffer domestic violence or be raped and that the men who do these things ought to be held accountable for their actions. It’s sometimes called Christian Feminism. Some of them, not so much – and these are the ones that conflict with many Christian interpretations where the front lines are drawn and both sides go to war to win hearts and minds. There is no unringing the bell, putting the genie back in the bottle, or ‘undo’ button that is going to take us back to a world without feminism. Like the strands of DNA, it’s intertwined with our future. It’s up to you if you want to destroy what generations of men and women fought to achieve or build upon their efforts to make a better world. Whatever you decide to do – is a right you have because generations of feminists, men and women alike, changed the rules so that you can have a choice the least you can do is honor them for it by reading up for yourself the facts about feminism and antifeminism – learning both sides will make you better informed, learning history and the world they lived in, looking at statistics to see what life is like for men and women in other countries that don’t have the same rights. If you do these things – it just might open your eyes as it has mine. After all, ten years ago, I would have completely agreed with you until I was challenged to do my own homework. I took that challenged and it changed everything.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for your long comments. (I’m going to respond to just this one and approve them all, because I think that’ll be more beneficial.)
      I totally agree with what you’re saying about women’s rights. God has created us equal, and we should treat each other and be treated equally. Please don’t think I’m saying that that’s wrong. Feminism – in its original sense – was a positive thing. Women were under oppression, and they shouldn’t have been. I agree with that 100%. However, I think that modern-day feminists can go too far with that line of thinking. “Women’s Rights” have been upgraded to mean that a woman can have abortions, be homosexual, be in leadership over her husband, etc. I don’t agree with that kind of feminism because the Bible says those things are wrong. What I’m trying to say in this post and series is not that we should give up our freedom and live like Pilgrims, but that we should consult the Bible and what God says on a subject (specifically feminism) before siding with it. I’m sorry if I offended you, that’s not what I meant to do. And if we don’t agree, than we can agree to disagree. Thanks again for your thoughts!


      1. I’m not offended. I’m actually more worried that I’m offending you. I keep on wanting to reply with a wall of text, but I’m afraid that I’ve already said too much. I’m more of a progressive Christian, most conservative Christians write me off as a heretic. I used to be against abortion – until my best friend got one when she was thirteen. I used to hate homosexuals – until one I knew from school committed suicide. I used to be all for men leading the family – until an abusive husband broke his wife’s wrist. It’s one thing to have a belief, but it’s another to be put through an experience that challenges everything you’ve been taught. For you, those days are coming soon. I guess I just wanted to say that if you end up believing in things that you used to disagree with, there’s plenty of company in this school of thought.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: