Tuesday, 10 January 2017


In this 7 part series, we will see the origins of the feminist movement and how it goes against God and His teachings on the ministry of wife and mother... and we will see how the seeds of discontent were sown for women and why the abortion industry has flourished..

Jane Mansbridge studies the theory and practice of democracy, paying special attention to the position in different democratic schemes of members of disadvantaged groups. Her forthcoming book, “Everyday Feminism,” examines the role in social movements of “everyday activists,” those who do not participate in formal activities such as demonstrations or organizations of a social movement.

At the Radcliffe Institute, Mansbridge will address current “democratic deficits” by arguing against too great a focus on electoral democracy, accountability, transparency, and reduced delegation. She advocates selection systems that favor integrity in public office and allow considerable discretion to representatives. Such selection, she believes, should be combined with institutions of direct citizen participation that provide new incentives for representatives to increase communication between representatives and constituents and to follow the considered wishes of their constituents.

Mansbridge graduated from Wellesley College in 1961 and earned her MA from Harvard’s history department in 1966 and her PhD from its government department in 1971. She has been a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences (1997–1998 and 2001–2002), the Russell Sage Foundation (1991–1992), and the Institute for Advanced Study (1985–1986), as well as a Rockefeller Foundation Humanities Fellow (1982–1983), Institute for Policy Studies Associate Fellow (1972–1973), and National Science Foundation Postdoctoral Research Fellow (1971–1972). 

She was elected a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1994. Her second book, Why We Lost the ERA (University of Chicago Press, 1986), was a corecipient of the American Political Science Association’s Victoria Schuck Award (1988) and Gladys M. Kammerer Award (1987).

Here is a snippet of this child-hating woman:  "If women disproportionately take time off from their careers to have children, or if they work less hard than men at their careers while their children are young, this will put them at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis men, particularly men whose wives do all the homemaking and child care…. This means that no matter how any individual feminist might feel about child care and housework, the movement as a whole had reasons to discourage full-time homemaking.” — Why We Lost the ERA, 1986.
Here this woman is denigrating motherhood and full-time homemaking and encouraging society to see children and careers as two separate poles... what she fails to see is that full-time homemaking and motherhood is a career in itself, and she thus forces the woman who chooses this path to feel inferior to the childless woman with a career...

© Glenys Robyn Hicks

Isaiah 3:11-13 Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him. As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths. The LORD standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people.


  1. Feminism certainly has done a lot of damage to the family and to the culture's view of homemaking and motherhood. But I thank God that so many young women have embraced God's view and are seeking to live it out. Blessings!

    1. Yes, I think a lot of young women have memories of being latch-key children and want better for their own children... Blessings!


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...