The insidious Gnosticism in Feminism

This title may be a little confusing because it is strange concept; yet I believe it is correct.  Now what Do I mean?  Let me explain: 

Preliminary thought

While what can be called "classical feminism" had an aim; no matter how misguided it may have been as what it was trying to fight for was a good thing just that it never needed to do such a thing; in the first place.  There had always been equality for the sexes due to the Christian faith-- just not identical rights-- for both men and women were equal before God in all thing pertaining to the faith. However, this equality did not rule  distinctive trait that defined each sex rather worked to enhance those wonderful points. 

let me ask this:  did women gaining the vote ever do any good to society?  my answer is simple: NO.  the good it may have done was far overshadowed by the evils that were to seep through because of it being a slippery slope. for example: the vote was the catalyst to the dysfunction and utter break-down of the the structure of the family and in turn, the whole of society. How?   think for the moment about the fact that the Father being the head of the House (and this is true of every family) who ultimately would be the one to vote on behalf of his family. This is the way thing should be. ONLY THE FATHER VOTES He has final say on the family and how it should live. 

The real point explored

Now with this being a thing in the past-- enter in the new wave of feminism which has a completely different objective:  This is also known as intersectional feminism which is simply undefined thing which takes shape of what ever thing it decides.  

First,  this cult has the aim of absolutely alienating women from men-- and they do this by means of demonising all men. there is a clear hatred of men running through this modern variant that was never there before.  Just look at what this movement have turned the courts into lately with its "hate all men2 mentality.  the recent Johnny Depp vs Amber Herd case is the clearest example of a women; a feminist at that, twisting and manipulating the system in order have her day. She start with a rather blatent oped piece that though it never mentioned names clearly and unambiguously pointed to Depp as an abusive husband. However, her own testimony proved to be worst enemy as she could produce any viable evidence (simply hearsay and speculation) 

That is the first step: which was on the back of a campaign which may have had noble intentions  but it did not mean that all women had the same intent; and she is a clear example of it. I refer to "believe all women" or "me too" (And I would like the term "woman" to be held in mind for the moment.) 

Second, the clear misnomers being applied to groups in society. What do I mean? I am glad you asked. let me give two of the most blatant excuses:  (a) women's reproductive rights or Abortion.  (b) trans-gender or sexual.  Now we should consider each.  the first one is a misnomer because just like the term falsely applied to the act it does not mean what we think.  Abortion does not mean to murder through forced mean nor through dismembering a human in early stages of pregnancy it means to wipe something from all existence such as you see in computering world. And the term reproductive is misleading as it does not mean to end life but to bring life into being.   If to murder someone through dismemberment is a crime when its some outside the womb; then it is just as much a crime to do it in the womb. To hold one as acceptable while not the other shows the illogical nature of thing. 

As to the second-- we will look at it under the next main point, but I will say this much. Human canot transition from one species to another or one sex to another. And to do so with aid of another human (medical) show that it is not possible. 

Third,  here is where the real gnostic tendency lies:  in one form of this teaching it said that for women to be saved they had to turned into men to acceptable. (perhaps show a sexist side to things) Women in much of the ancient societies were look down upon as second class citizen-- Christianity changed this for the better as it teaches that both men and women are equal value dignity worth and respect because they both are created in the image of God.  However, Gnosticism in this form seems to hold to the pre-Christian ideals on the matter.  Why is this important to our discussion?  It is on two fronts:  one, the supposed liberation that feminism proclaims is nothing but a misguided attempt to make women into sexualised beings. That was the point in the sixties when the sexual revolution and women liberation become identically driven. They morphed into one movement.

Two,  because in the "intersectional" side of this movement has allowed "trans" women who are nothing more than biological males to enter the debate-- so to has their ideology.  And this has a detrimental effect on all women. Because for the last number of years, being a women has been about how some one identifies rather what one is biologically and genetically. In other words,  women can no longer say that they love being a women.  there are clear examples of this: in a recent awards ceremony Adele was given an award for best new (female removed) artist. And her response was good but frowned upon as she said  "I love being a women."  And the radical feminazi came out in spades lambasting her for simply saying what is true. This is a long list females who have been lambasted for the same thing: J.K. Rowling was one. 

And so you see that modern society that once fought for women's right now cannot tell us what a woman is. Can you?  Hence why I am seeing an new form of Gnosticism in this whole ideology And that is a shame for a "enlightened" society. Not so enlightened is it? 

Conclusion

When will this nonsense end?  Let us come back to reality and celebrate both our sexes for all they are.  Creatures created in the image of God.