Addressing Feminism, Part 1

Christogenea Internet Radio, January 1st, 2016: Addressing Feminism, Part 1

It is probably long past time that we discussed the topic of feminism. Not that we have avoided it, because we think that we have already addressed many aspects of the problem in the weekly Bible commentaries that we have been conducting the past seven years. But perhaps we need specific programs laying out the evils of feminism in society. Notice that I said programs, in the plural. This is a huge topic with multiple layers of abstraction, and feminism has several forms which keep society locked into a dialectic, supporting one form or another, which is right where our enemies want us to be. On the one side we have the worship of the female form and the elevation of women to the status of goddess, which is an ancient pagan ideal that leads to all sorts of perversion. On the other side we have the Jewish Golem of the ugly woman who thinks she should be a man, which was also found in the ancient world, manifested in the Greek tales of the Amazons and other myths, and which is just as pagan. In the meantime, we have the rather consistent portrayal in the Jewish media of the traditional wife and mother as a battered and abused and oppressed creature, whereby the enemies of our God and our race do their best to reduce the important role of the woman in the traditional family to the status of merely an unattractive lifestyle choice.

A few months ago, while we were traveling in Arkansas, I took the occasion to critique a couple of Bertrand Comparet's sermons. I was going to present his wife, Inez's paper, Suppose We Are Israel, What Difference Does It Make? Now, there is nothing wrong with a pastor being helped in research and writing by his wife, as long as the pastor takes full responsibility for the work. If there is something wrong, he certainly cannot pass the buck to his wife! But I was taken aback when I played the recording to check the accuracy of something in the transcription, and found Bertrand Comparet introducing his wife so that she could present the paper in the regular assembly. That should be forbidden, and I am shocked that Comparet did not know better. So even the great Bertrand Comparet was influenced by what I must call feminist progressivism, as opposed to progressive feminism. Here we shall begin to examine why it is wrong for women to speak in public, although it is right for women to be of help to their husbands even if they speak in public.

Here is a digression, but it is actually quite integral to our discussion. If I wrote in a paper that “The Persians had black skin and gold teeth”, people may think I was nuts, and they would demand that I back up such nonsense with historical proofs. If I refused to, I would properly be accused of lying and inventing my own history. That would make me no better than the typical modern negro with gold teeth.

A few weeks ago I encountered a discussion at a popular social media website, and a woman made a statement concerning early American history and ethnography that seemed to me to be absolutely contrary to all reality. So I asked her to document it, to provide the sources for what she was asserting. She responded by attacking me, and when she did, I treated her in kind. I treated her as she deserved to be treated, and as I would have treated any male who tried to do the same thing. So it ended up that she never provided documentation, and a bunch of fools were insulted.

Another woman got involved in that discussion and tried to help the first one, not on the basis of the original discussion, but by immediately questioning my manhood, and accusing me of being a woman-hater simply because I was caught up in a dispute with a woman. She had absolutely no care for how the dispute began, or the simple resolution that it may have had. She was obviously a feminist herself, who has adopted all the weapons of the Jewish war against White men, and she is too stupid to know how wonderful a tool she is in the hands of the Jews. She would never say such things in person, and I would not think twice about slapping her silly if she tried.

[Update, October 1st, 2023: These women are Laurel Vance Jackson and Ginny Patchin. I have added this because after so many years, their behavior has never changed.]

But then some emasculated idiot, a life-long clown named Jake Parsons, joined the same discussion and he also tried to reproach me for mistreating women. I asked him why he was holding the panties of the woman that he thought he was defending, and I meant it, in an allegorical sort of way, because that is exactly what he was endeavoring to do. I told them all exactly how I felt, but none of them actually understood anything that I was saying, nor could they understand. That is because all three of these individuals are feminists, including the male (who is not worthy of being called a man).

If the original woman in the discussion had merely told me where she had gotten her information from, I would have thanked her and gone off to investigate. But she was challenged by my question, and attacked me instead, responding emotionally rather than academically, and tried to hide behind the fact that she was a woman when I confronted her.

The Nazis rightfully hung Rosa Luxemburg, and the Jews love to hold the communist bitch up as an idol and a victim today. This woman deserves the same fate which Rosa Luxemburg suffered.

When men allow women into the public discourse, and then fail to hold women accountable for their words, women easily become the lords of society because they can say anything they want and they cannot be criticized. It is the feminization of men that has led to the masculinization of women in our society today. When you see women in khakis, it is because the men should really be wearing dresses.

When a woman speaks in public, she is behaving as a man. She deserves to be confronted as a man. In our modern world, women think that they should be equal, so they want to wear pants. And once they are criticized, then they try to hide behind their skirts. That cannot be permitted. Women cannot have it both ways. If they want to be equal, they must be prepared to take punches like men. Men who insist upon letting women wear pants while at the same time they hide behind their skirts are weak men who, like Jake Parsons, have fallen into the worship of women. These men would be ruled over by women, reversing the natural order of God's Creation and leading to the societal breakdown which we witness today.

We read in Deuteronomy chapter 22: “5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto Yahweh thy God.” When we examine the role of clothing in the ancient world, we see that garments were used to mark a man's position and vocation in society. That is why Joseph's brethren got so upset about his many-colored coat. The Scriptures in Deuteronomy 22:5 were not necessarily describing the articles of clothing, but the roles in society that the articles of clothing represented. As an aside, I recently saw one clown abuse that same passage so as to insist that women should not wear blue jeans. He obviously did not realize that when the words were written, blue jeans did not exist, and men wore what we today may think of as dresses.

In 1 Corinthians chapter 7, Paul of Tarsus wrote “34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” Where the King James Version has church, the correct word is assembly or congregation, but Paul is referring to speaking as in questioning, answering, and teaching, since there are proper occasions where women can indeed sing psalms or offer prayers or other things while in the assembly, which we see in the context of other Scriptures.

This is not only a Christian principle, but it was also an ancient principle of Greek society, so it was the social norm of the New Testament period even among Greeks and Romans. Only men participated in the “democracy” of Athens. Only men were involved in politics in the Republic of Rome, and in the later empire. Women were excluded from politics, women did not speak publicly, and as Euripides’ character Aethra in his play Suppliant Women says at lines 40-41 “It is proper for women, if they are wise, to do everything through their men.”

Furthermore, the women of Eurpides' world were not even permitted to look upon men in public. In his play titled Hecuba at lines 974-75 the title character states that “custom ... ordains that women shall not look directly at men.” The word translated “custom” in the Loeb Library edition of Euripides is νόμος, a word translated as law everywhere in the New Testament.

Of course, the Euripides method, as we shall call it here only for the purposes of our discussion, can work two ways: a good woman seeking to do good can be a positive influence on her husband, and influence him to do good. But an evil woman can find a weak husband and drive him to perpetrate evil in that same manner. Where the Euripides method fails, is when an evil woman is married to a good husband, and such a marriage may not last if the evil woman does not submit to the Godly order. Likewise, a good woman married to an indolent husband may not be able to affect good in society, but she should have more patience with her marriage. This last example reminds us of the advice which Peter had given to Christian wives where he said that such women could win their husbands over with their own good conduct.

So when a woman ventures to speak in public she is assuming the natural role of the man, and she is actually wearing “that which pertaineth to man”, even if we no longer use clothing today in the stricter manner in which it was used in the ancient world. But there are even deeper reasons why women should not speak in public.

The first reason is chivalry. Men are accustomed to treating women with the respect that a woman who is fulfilling the natural and Godly role which is assigned to women certainly deserves. But while a woman who is attempting to fulfill the role of a man does not merit any expectation of chivalry, there are weak or unsuspecting men who are easily moved to defend women simply because they are women, and in spite of the actions of the women themselves. So the notions of chivalry are easily exploited by devious women and when women are permitted to speak publicly, those notions can be used against men in order to overturn society. The manifestation of this phenomenon is readily apparent over the past 150 years of our history, and it still exists today. That is why we say that most modern men are feminists just as much as most modern women.

The second reason is lust. Men from their youth naturally compete for the attention and favor of women. So there are many weak men who would support and compliment women regardless of their actual words, simply because they are women. These same men would then defend a woman against all critics simply because they seek the favor of that woman. The bottom line is this: women shouldn't speak, because men are weak. In many men, even in most men, the lust of the eyes stops the normal function of the ears and the brain. So women speakers may get away with all kinds of things that a man would never get away with, and evil women can be used to exploit weak men, easily corrupting the society that lets them have their way. This is how the enemies of Christ have operated ever since the Garden of Eden. This is why for the enemies of Christ, the liberation of women from the patriarchal family was the important first step in undermining Christian society.

So while we may have little choice but to continue to engage with women when we encounter them in social media, good Christians should not be offended when we treat them just as we would treat men. If women want to wear the pants and speak as men, they are asserting an equality which is unnatural, and therefore they cannot be allowed to hide behind their skirts as an attempt to deflect any criticism of their words.

With this we are going to move on to the recognition of the problem of the “liberation” of women in one specific area: that of politics. When women run for political office, societies are easily corrupted in the ways in which we have already discussed. But what is more subtle is when women are given the vote, because they are able to negate the voice of their husbands in the public arena, and very often they do just that.

The Protocols of Zion are real. We recently began a series on the Protocols, and it took us a series of seven programs just to begin establishing their legitimacy. We are soon going to begin presenting and discussing the Protocols themselves, and that will probably take much longer.

Critics of the Protocols attribute them to Maurice Joly and earlier political philosophers. But unless the protocols represent a concrete plan for the future of Europe put into place before Joly's own time, it makes no sense that the plans outlined in the Protocols concerning democracy have been fulfilled so soon after their publication. There was no democratic voting in Europe in the days of Machiavelli, and in most of Europe even in the days of Maurice Joly. Joly's Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu, the work to which the Protocols are usually attributed, was not published until 1864, but universal voting for men was not permanently established in France until 1848, and Germany did not have universal suffrage for men until 1871. With the exception of New Zealand (1893) and Finland (1906), no other nation had universal suffrage for women until the end of the First World War.

In his own time, Joly could not have foreseen the rapid attainment of universal suffrage across all of the formerly Christian nations by men or especially by women. But the 10th Protocol informs us that those who wrote the Protocols planned to implement universal suffrage and the destruction of the family as a means of maintaining their power. There, in reference to their maintaining world power, they wrote: “To secure this we must have everybody vote without distinction of classes and qualifications, in order to establish an absolute majority, which cannot be got from the educated propertied classes. In this way, by inculcating in all a sense of self-importance, we shall destroy among the goyim the importance of the family and its educational value and remove the possibility of individual minds splitting off, for the mob, handled by us, will not let them come to the front nor even give them a hearing; it is accustomed to listen to us only who pay it for obedience and attention.” So the destruction of the patriachal family unit goes hand-in-hand with universal suffrage and the ability of the enemies of Christ to wield control over all White nations through the deception of what they like to call democracy.

After the First World War, universal suffrage for women came to Germany as well as the other nations of Europe, and women in Germany began participating in the political process as candidates and office-holders as well as voters. National Socialists in Germany were among the first to note the adverse effects which this new-found power on the part women brought to society, and when they came to power in 1932, they promptly removed women from politics. After the First World War, Germany fell into decadence. Weimar Germany was like Sodom and Gomorrah. Women were elevated in society. Lesbianism and drugs such as Cocaine were promoted publicly. Pornography and prostitution were common, and syphilis was epidemic. The National Socialists understood that recovery could only be had with the restoration of the family to its proper place in society, and the restoration of the family was only possible when women were restored to their proper positions within the family.

While we do not agree with it in all points, and we shall discuss those points a little later, we are going to present a speech given by Joseph Goebbels on March 18^th, 1933, titled German Women. This is just six weeks after the National Socialists had come to power, which shows how important the rehabilitation of the family was to the National Socialist plans for Germany's recovery. In his speech, Goebbels explains what the National Socialists intended to do in order to change the role of women in society back to a traditional Christian role. Goebbels also refers to a woman's exhibition, as the speech was given on the occasion of the opening of such an exposition in Berlin.

This is German Women, by Joseph Goebbels:

German women, German men!

It is a happy accident that my first speech since taking charge of the Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda is to German women. Although I agree with Treitschke that men make history, I do not forget that women raise boys to manhood. You know that the National Socialist movement is the only party that keeps women out of daily politics. This arouses bitter criticism and hostility, all of it very unjustified. We have kept women out of the parliamentary-democratic intrigues of the past fourteen years in Germany not because we do not respect them, but because we respect them too much. We do not see the woman as inferior, but rather as having a different mission, a different value, than that of the man. Therefore we believed that the German woman, who more than any other in the world is a woman in the best sense of the word, should use her strength and abilities in other areas than the man.

The woman has always been not only the man’s sexual companion, but also his fellow worker. Long ago, she did heavy labor with the man in the field. She moved with him into the cities, entering the offices and factories, doing her share of the work for which she was best suited. She did this with all her abilities, her loyalty, her selfless devotion, her readiness to sacrifice.

The woman in public life today is no different than the women of the past. No one who understands the modern age would have the crazy idea of driving women from public life, from work, profession, and bread winning. But it must also be said that those things that belong to the man must remain his. That includes politics and the military. That is not to disparage women, only a recognition of how she can best use her talents and abilities.

Looking back over the past years of Germany’s decline, we come to the frightening, nearly terrifying, conclusion that the less German men were willing to act as men in public life, the more women succumbed to the temptation to fill the role of the man. The feminization of men always leads to the masculinization of women. An age in which all great ideas of virtue, of steadfastness, of hardness, and determination have been forgotten should not be surprised that the man gradually loses his leading role in life and politics and government to the woman.

It may be unpopular to say this to an audience of women, but it must be said, because it is true and because it will help make clear our attitude toward women.

The modern age, with all its vast revolutionary transformations in government, politics, economics, and social relations has not left women and their role in public life untouched. Things we thought impossible several years or decades ago are now everyday reality. Some good, noble, and commendable things have happened. But also things that are contemptible and humiliating. These revolutionary transformations have largely taken from women their proper tasks. Their eyes were set in directions that were not appropriate for them. The result was a distorted public view of German womanhood that had nothing to do with former ideals.

A fundamental change is necessary. At the risk of sounding reactionary and outdated, let me say this clearly: The first, best, and most suitable place for the women is in the family, and her most glorious duty is to give children to her people and nation, children who can continue the line of generations and who guarantee the immortality of the nation. The woman is the teacher of the youth, and therefore the builder of the foundation of the future. If the family is the nation’s source of strength, the woman is its core and center. The best place for the woman to serve her people is in her marriage, in the family, in motherhood. This is her highest mission. That does not mean that those women who are employed or who have no children have no role in the motherhood of the German people. They use their strength, their abilities, their sense of responsibility for the nation, in other ways. We are convinced, however, that the first task of a socially reformed nation must be to again give the woman the possibility to fulfill her real task, her mission in the family and as a mother.

The national revolutionary government is everything but reactionary. It does not want to stop the pace of our rapidly moving age. It has no intention of lagging behind the times. It wants to be the flag bearer and pathfinder of the future. We know the demands of the modern age. But that does not stop us from seeing that every age has its roots in motherhood, that there is nothing of greater importance than the living mother of a family who gives the state children.

German women have been transformed in recent years. They are beginning to see that they are not happier as a result of being given more rights but fewer duties. They now realize that the right to be elected to public office at the expense of the right to life, motherhood, and her daily bread is not a good trade.

A characteristic of the modern era is a rapidly declining birthrate in our big cities. In 1900, two million babies were born in Germany. Now the number has fallen to one million. This drastic decline is most evident in the nation’s capital. In the last fourteen years, Berlin’s birthrate has become the lowest of any European city. By 1955, without emigration, it will have only about three million inhabitants. The government is determined to halt this decline of the family and the resulting impoverishment of our blood. There must be a fundamental change. The liberal attitude toward the family and the child is responsible for Germany’s rapid decline. We today must begin worrying about an aging population. In 1900 there were seven children for each elderly person, today it is only four. If current trends continue, by 1988 the ratio will be 1 : 1. These statistics say it all. They are the best proof that if Germany continues along its current path, it will end in an abyss with breathtaking speed. We can almost determine the decade when Germany collapses because of depopulation.

We are not willing to stand aside and watch the collapse of our national life and the destruction of the blood we have inherited. The national revolutionary government has the duty to rebuild the nation on its original foundations, to transform the life and work of the woman so that it once again best serves the national good. It intends to eliminate the social inequalities so that once again the life of our people and the future of our people and the immortality of our blood is assured.

I welcome this exhibition, whose goal is to explain and teach, and to reduce or eliminate harm to the individual and the whole people. This serves the nation and popular enlightenment, and to support it is one of the happiest duties of the new government.

Perhaps this exhibition titled “The Woman” will represent a turning point. If the goal of the exhibition is to give an impression of women in contemporary society, it does so at a time when German society is undergoing the greatest changes in generations. I am aware of how difficult this is. I know the obstacles that had to be overcome to give this exhibition a clear theme and a firm structure. It should show the significance of the woman for the family, the people, and the whole nation. Displays will give an impression of the actual life of women today, and will provide the knowledge necessary to resolve today’s conflicting opinions, which were not primarily the result of the contemporary women’s movement.

But that is not all. The main purpose of the exhibition “The Woman” is not only to show the way things are, but to make proposals for improvement. It aims to show new ways and new opportunities. Clear and often drastic examples will give thousands of German women reason to think and consider. It is particularly pleasing to us men in the new government that families with many children are given particular attention, since we want to rescue the nation from decline. The importance of the family cannot be overestimated, especially in families without fathers that depend entirely upon the mother. In these families the woman has sole responsibility for the children, and she must realize the responsibility she has to her people and nation.

We do not believe that the German people is destined by fate to decline. We have blind confidence that Germany still has a great mission in the world. We have faith that we are not at the end of our history, but rather that a new, great and honorable period of our history is now beginning. This faith give us the strength to work and not despair. It enabled us to make great sacrifices over the past fourteen years. It gave millions of German women the strength to hope in Germany and its future, and to let their sons join in the reawakening of the nation. This faith was with the brave women who lost their husbands and breadwinners in the war, with those who gave their sons in the battle to renew their people. This faith kept us standing during the need and desperation of the past fourteen years. And this faith today fills us with new hope that Germany will again find its place in the sun.

Nothing makes one harder and more determined than struggle. Nothing gives more courage than to face resistance. During the years when Germany seemed destined to decline, a new kind of womanhood developed under the confused veneer of modern civilization. It is hard, determined, courageous, willing to sacrifice. During the four years of the great war and the fourteen years of German collapse that followed, German women and mothers proved themselves worthy companions of their men. They have borne all the bitterness, all the privation and danger, and did not fail when hit by misfortune, worry, and trouble. As long as a nation has such a proud and noble womanhood, it cannot perish. These women are the foundation of our race, of its blood, and of its future.

This is the beginning of a new German womanhood. If the nation once again has mothers who proudly and freely choose motherhood, it cannot perish. If the woman is healthy, the people will be healthy. Woe to the nation that neglects its women and mothers. It condemns itself.

We hope that the concept of the German woman will again earn the honor and respect of the entire world. The German woman will then take her pride in her land and her people, in thinking German and feeling German. The honor of her nation and her race will be most important to her. Only a nation that does not forget its honor will be able to guarantee its daily bread.

The German woman should never forget that.

I declare this exhibition open. May it reveal all the former errors and show the way to the future.

Then the world will once again respect us, and we will be able to affirm the words of Walther von der Vogelweide, who had this to say about the German woman in his famous poem:

He who seeks

Virtue and proper love,

Should come to our land.

There is much joy.

Long may I live there.

[This speech by Joseph Goebbels, German Women, is from the German Propaganda Archive at Calvin.edu and is reproduced here for non-commercial educational and critical purposes permitted by the Fair Use Act.]

Note that where Joseph Goebbels said that “the woman has always been not only the man’s sexual companion, but also his fellow worker”, he is also making a direct reference to the traditional role of women as it is described in the Christian Bible. We see this expressed as the intent for the creation of women in Genesis chapter 2, and we shall elaborate upon it later in this series. It is a Christian ideal, and I have not seen it expressed in those terms in pagan writings.

However while we agree wholeheartedly with nearly everything Joseph Goebbels said in this speech, we cannot agree with Goebbels where he said that, along with the man, the woman “moved with him into the cities, entering the offices and factories, doing her share of the work for which she was best suited.” Now, this is factually true, but we should not accept it as righteously inevitable. By saying this and not protesting against it, Goebbels expressed agreement that this transformation to urban life and corporate employment was inevitable, and that it was good. We would contend that it certainly was not good.

The traditional role of women was within the household of the man, and the traditional work of women was to magnify the estate of the family. Traditionally, the family was the center of life for the man and the woman, and the estate of the family was the central focus of the economy. With the rise of Jewish Capitalism, in the Germany of Goebbels as well as throughout the entire world, the corporation has become the central focus of both the man and the woman, and the family has taken a backseat, getting attention mostly as a leisure activity. We may accept our enslavement a a fact, but we must recognize it, and we should not consider it to be good. Women belong in the home. In past times, that meant that women worked for the betterment of the home and also helped her husband in his vocation. That helped to keep the family unit together. So in the capitalist system, the family AS THE CENTER has been replaced by the corporation, and has become secondary to the interests of those so employed.

According to the Communist Manifesto: “The less the skill and exertion of strength implied in manual labour, in other words, the more modern industry becomes developed, the more is the labour of men superseded by that of women. Differences of age and sex have no longer any distinctive social validity for the working class. All are instruments of labour, more or less expensive to use, according to their age and sex.” Today this Jewish principle, which is both capitalist and communist, has even been taken so far as the execution of war. Women that can press buttons rather than fight in actual hand-to-hand combat consider themselves warriors, and wear the garments of warriors. The ultimate result is the further feminization of men.

Now, we do not want women to quit their jobs. There are many women who work because the current economy has forced them to work in order to survive, or to help support their families, and we sympathize with them. Likewise, there are many older women who work or have careers because of the circumstances of their lives where modern society offered them no valid choices for fulfillment, and we sympathize with them as well. But we must understand that as a people, the children of Israel are in captivity. Therefore we must also understand that while we are in captivity, the things which we do are not necessarily the way things should be done. It can be established, that those who control our society long ago planned to force women into the workplace, by creating inflation and oppressing the wages of men. That plan has been very effective, and has in turn helped to destroy the family unit, as well as attributing to plummeting birthrates amongst Whites. So we should see that while many women work out of necessity, it is not the model for society which we should uphold.

So if a woman is compelled to work outside of the home out of necessity, we sympathize with her. Older women, because of our fractured society, may work outside the home for a lack of anything else which is meaningful to do, and we sympathize with them. All White Christians families should be landed, and men and women working for their own estates, but that is not the case today. But if you think that women should, or even must, work outside of the hime for the sake of working, then you are a feminist just as much as women who insist on working are feminists, and you have accepted the Marxist-Capitalist dialectic.

Many Christians who have only studied the Scripture on its surface refer to Proverbs chapter 31 and assert that the Bible approves of women working outside of the household. Yet nothing can be further from the truth. In actuality, Proverbs chapter 31 describes a woman working for the advancement of her own household, and fulfilling the traditional role as mistress of the household: “10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. 11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. 12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. 13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. 14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar. 15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. 16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. 17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. 18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night. 19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. 20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. 21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. 22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple. 23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. 24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. 25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. 26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. 27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. 28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. 29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. 30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. 31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.”

In Joshua chapter 2 we see the account of Rahab working as an inn-keeper, but we must note that Rahab was working in a pagan society and not a Christian one. Likewise, in Acts chapter 16 we encounter Lydia as a seller of purple, who was also a woman in a pagan society. Many Christians also mention Ruth chapter 2 in connection with women and employment, but in Ruth chapter 2 we see the young woman was sent to “lglean and gather after the reapers among the sheaves” and along with the other “maidens of Boaz to glean unto the end of barley harvest and of wheat harvest”. What is missed is this: that Boaz was near kin to Naomi, that Naomi, whose husband had died, had joined herself to the household of Boaz, and that Ruth along with the other young men and women of the household of Boaz were working the fields which belonged to Boaz. The women in Ruth were working for the increase of their own household and family, and not for some Jewish factory owner. So these passages cannot be used as an excuse to force women into the corporate workplace.

We do not mean to say that there are not circumstances by which women can work and own their own businesses. But young women should be married and having and raising children instead. We must distinguish what is in compliance with God's law and Word against what it is that we must do because we must exist in an evil world. Our Christian hope is, of course, that one day men and women can once again work together as families for themselves on their own estates. The current system of Jewish capitalism is not inevitable, and shall not endure.

Feminism is Jewish. From a 1966 meeting of the National Organization for Women, found at the Jewish Women's Archive