When I was a child, mother was the heart and soul of the home. All of its warmth and comfort stemmed from her. She was polite, cheerful and rarely raised her voice. She was always there when you needed hugs, kisses, encouragement or support, which was nearly every minute of the day.
During the day, mothers provided a safe haven for childhood daydreams and play schemes. Mothers loved their children unconditionally and unceasingly. They were devoted to both their children and their husband’s welfare. These blessed women were the “nurturing” partner in the marriage, without whose contributions “Home Sweet Home” could not exist.
The dictionary defines the word “nurture” as, “the act, or the process, of promoting the development of children.” This was something that little girls had looked forward to, throughout human history. As young women, they dreamt about the day when they would marry and nurture their own children. And once safely married, and their first child arrived, they were enamored with, and proud of, the prospect and privilege of spending their lives caring for, supporting, and loving their children and husband. It was a happy dream-come-true and it was the cornerstone of Western civilization.
Just one hundred years ago, women considered themselves lucky when their children survived to adulthood, because many did not.
Pediatric illnesses routinely stole innocent little children from their devastated parents. And all the mother and father could do was pray for their little child’s soul because the life-saving immunizations, we take for granted today, did not exist.
This horrific experience was an ever-present possibility. So it’s no wonder that women felt very fortunate when they were given, by the grace of God, the wherewithal to successfully nurture their remaining children into adulthood.
These life-long responsibilities of motherhood were guarded jealously by women and were rarely, if ever, deliberately “passed-off” to someone else because these mothers knew that it could all end at a moment’s notice.
These Christian women also understood that the short years involved in raising a child were fleeting and precious, and that they were not to be squandered with other caretakers. These women rightfully treasured their privileged positions as wives and mothers.
Losing a child was heartbreaking enough but when a mother died, whether from sickness or in childbirth (which happened often), the household was thrown into grief-stricken turmoil.
A young mother’s loss was devastating, not only for her distraught husband, but especially for her surviving children. Their loving support net having been washed away overnight.
At the time, it was the general consensus that it was nearly impossible for a father to raise his children alone, as they needed constant supervision, which he was unable to give in the agrarian society of its day.
A farmer must farm and taking children with him into the fields was next to impossible. Everyone understood that he could not perform the role of both mother and father, any more than a widow could be expected to be both mother and father to her children.
Common sense demanded that both father and mother be present in order to raise the children effectively. So, when a young mother died, remarrying after the traditional mourning period was an acceptable choice for the widower. To this end, and considering the remoteness of many farms, widowers often married the single, or widowed, sisters of their deceased wives or brothers.
Of course, widows with children were left with more options, as they could, if necessary, move in with other family members. But, widows always found it more difficult to remarry than widowers did because, unfortunately, most eligible men were unwilling, or unable, to financially care for a woman with multiple children from previous marriage.
So, most widows had to ask for support from parents, siblings, relatives, or church members, otherwise she would become indigent, with the corresponding consequences.
Luckily, becoming indigent almost never happened in America because it was a Christian’s profound responsibility to help those in need, and helping a widow with children, was at the top of that list.
Everyone understood her need to stay with her children, but also to clothe, feed and shelter them. Someone always helped.
Christianity was the only faith practiced in most American communities, and the churches, which were the center the communities, encouraged and supported Christian family life, both in good times and bad. No one was left to “fall between the cracks.”
All of this changed in the late 1960s and early 1970s when anti-Christian, radical, second-wave feminism reared its ugly head.
Entire generations of Christian, college-educated, women fell victim to the feminist’s contorted view of, not only Christian men, but Christian family life as well.
These young college women were suddenly “enlightened”, by the miserable, non-Christian feminist leaders, to the supposed “abuses” they could be subjected to, at the hands of the Christian “patriarchal” society in which they were raised.
These naive young women were brainwashed to believe that the entire history of mankind had been a dreadful deceit, and instead of bringing happiness to women, family life was designed to chain women to the drudgery of housework. Of course, no one ever referred to the men’s physically demanding contributions to his family’s well-being as drudgery. Only the women’s contributions were considered “oppressive.”
In addition, these miserable feminists avoided any discussion of, or reference to, the elemental and essential need of women for marital love. The trusting, faith-filled love that is based on Christian teachings. The kind of love that can overcome all of life’s challenges. The kind of eternal love that can only be inspired by the devotion of a husband and wife to each other.
This conversation about love was avoided like the plague because the feminists knew that they could never overcome this innate desire within women, for good men. All they could hope for was to postpone the realization of this need in these young women. And at this, they succeeded, as most of these “liberated” young feminists did not realize the personally destructive nature of feminism until they were too old to do anything about the loss of the happiness it ultimately cost them.
In this naive, “Age of Aquarius”, where every odd and bizarre sort of “love” was embraced by the drug-laced, baby boomers (including “loving” and hugging trees), real Christian marital love was never discussed in any other light, than being “oppressive”, which couldn’t have been farther from the truth!
But, at the time, millions of college women were too young to realize the ridiculousness of this assertion and dove, head-first, into this “free love” mode, propelled by the non-Christian, radical, second-wave feminist-driven, “sexual revolution.”
The devastating personal loss they would eventually suffer wouldn’t be obvious for decades, and not until well after they’d lost their irreplaceable youth.
If these young women had realized the long-term, and in many cases, calamitous personal ramifications of this feminist lifestyle, they would probably have run for the hills.
But, they didn’t, because the truth about Christian marital love was radical feminism’s unmentionable. It was kept under lock and key, never to be discussed, because it held the truth about women and their relationships with Christian men. The reality of the devotion of Christian couples to each other would expose feminism’s assertions to be baseless lies. Decades later, it would be proven, that these radical feminists were never interested in women’s true happiness. They were only interested in the political power, the influence and the limelight.
During the destructive 1960s and 1970s, young women across the country were convinced by these dysfunctional misandrists that they were in fact being “dominated”, under all traditional circumstances, by Christian men. Even by the fathers and husbands who loved them.
These gullible young women were coaxed into believing that family life was “burdensome”, “a drag” and that it limited their ability “to be all that they could be.” They also believed that they were being denied their “rights”, just as were the blacks. The only problem was that no one could figured out what “rights” these privileged, white, middle class, college women were being denied. But, no matter… they were getting good press and great TV coverage, so they didn’t care what people thought. Just keep marching and screaming, so no one can ask you what the hell you’re doing.
These millions of naive 20-somethings were convinced that they should not allow themselves to be shackled down with husbands and children because their feminist “leaders” told them that they could only find real fulfillment by becoming career women and, making their own money.
They were told over and over again, across all types of platforms and media outlets, that this alone would alleviate all of the “oppression and domination” they were being subjected to (although again, no one could see how the love of fathers, husbands and children could be considered a negative influence). It didn’t matter to them. Just keep marching and screaming, so no one can ask you what the hell you’re doing.
At one point, the female peer pressure got so bad, that the women who actually wanted to have a family, rather than a job, were ashamed of their feelings and kept them to themselves. Wanting to marry was considered by the sisterhood to be old-fashioned, just as was waiting to have sex until you were married. According to the feminists, sex was a game, having no purpose other than pleasure. Love was certainly NOT part of this equation and again, it was never mentioned. And children, God forbid! They were considered an albatross around a young woman’s neck and a “total drag.”
When these brainwashed women began graduating, in droves, from colleges across the nation, they swarmed over the
business community looking for jobs. In fact, finding a job became their primary, and principle, priority. Staying single and having a job was their new and approved feminist lifestyle.
Family life? YUK. It could go to hell!
That’s why, up until 2011 (which again does NOT bode well for the survival of Western Civilization), 1974 was the lowest birth year in American history.
Most of the college-educated women at the time, ditched their men and went job-hunting instead, while everything associated with Christian family life came under attack from every direction possible, driven primarily by radical, second-wave feminist fanatics themselves.
As these stupid women dove into their new feminist lifestyles – abortion rights, divorce, pre-marital sex, drugs, saving the whales, alcohol, partying, hugging trees, girlfriends, clothes and “careers” foolishly filled the void left behind.
Today, in their 50’s and 60’s, these pathetic women are still having an impact on American policy makers, but are sadly, still doing the bar scene, looking more and more ridiculous every day. My hope is that today’s young women will see these older women’s lives for the pointless jokes that they are, and speak up!
Incredibly, this bizarre move away from family life was promulgated by the very same gender that had luxuriated in the unprecedented rewards of loving, and being loved, by children and devoted husbands for over 2,000 years. And what’s more amazing is how easily they were brainwashed to give it all up.
It’s the Women, Not the Men! to be continued….
Hard irony; in the 1960s feminist demonstration photos there are words “end child sacrifice”.
But today child sacrifice are rampant worldwide which is abortion. I wonder what those so called feminist mean of child sacrifice back then. #abolishhumanabortion
I believe this reference is to the civil rights protests in Birmingham Alabama in the early 60s which were undertaken by teenage children, because the parents were forbidden, by law, from protesting. The policemen used fire hoses on the kids, hurting many of them, and the kids became the focus of the segregation movement when they referred to that protest as “the children’s sacrifice” for the cause of desegregation. That’s the only thing I remember that term being used for. I don’t remember it being used in connection with abortion at all during the 1960s, mainly because abortion wasn’t legalized in the United States till 1974 and as a result, most of the protests, from the 1960s, was in favor of legalizing abortion, not opposing abortion.
Oh, the term I speak about that photo refer to the civil right protests back then. Thanks for the clarification.
But ironically today people sacrificed their children in a murderous act of abortion thanks to those feminists like you said. Today the term child sacrifice should be used to denounce abortion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. I wholeheartedly agree. Abortion IS child sacrifice in the most vivid sense. The term literally, and clearly, defines the horrific process of abortion and should be universally used by pro-life advocates when referring to this heinous act.