Monstrous, Fatal Feminism: A Review of The Gunn Brothers’ Film, The Monstrous Regiment of Women

Written by Becky Akers on Monday, 04 March 2013. Posted in Movies, LifeStyle, Opinion, Becky Akers

The feminist movement has, by and large, been a distinctively socialist and collectivist attack on traditional values and on Christian belief. Historian and novelist Becky Akers reviews a hard-hitting documentary that unmasks the real face of feminism.

Monstrous, Fatal Feminism: A Review of The Gunn Brothers’ Film, The Monstrous Regiment of Women

Written by Colin and Emily Gunn. Studio: Gunn Productions. Running time: 54 minutes.

I loathe feminism as much as I love Colin Gunn’s documentaries. So when I learned that he and his wife, Emily, had co-written a movie exposing feminism in all its satanic gore, I joyously tore into it.

Nor was I disappointed. 

You know from the title that this will be a provocative and unusual film. The Gunns took “The Monstrous Regiment of Women” from a pamphlet that the reformer, John Knox, wrote against England’s Queen Mary I. Her persecution of dissidents and her penchant for roasting Knox’s friends at the stake understandably aroused his ire. Furthermore, he worried that her mother and regent, the Dowager Queen of Scotland, would import those atrocities to his beloved home. 

And so he excoriated Mary’s bloody reign with his tract – a work whose “very name is enough to enrage feminists everywhere, and most women as well,” according to Rosalind Marshall, a “world-renowed Knox biographer” at St. Giles’ Cathedral in Edinburgh, Scotland, whom the Gunns interview. 

We can attribute some of that rage to ignorance of sixteenth-century terms. As the Gunns and their guests explain, “monstrous” then meant “unnatural” and “regiment” referred in this context to “rule.” 

Yet even in translation, Knox’s premise insults modern sensibilities. Which the Gunns peaceably and charmingly acknowledge before reminding the Christians to whom they’ve dedicated the film that like Knox, we take our beliefs from the Bible, not the world. And Knox merely echoed Scripture when he denounced women’s rule (not that men’s rule is so hot, either: remember the Lord’s exhortation to anarchy in I Samuel 8). Indeed, the Almighty inflicts female governors on a nation as a special curse: Isaiah’s third chapter lists the punishments He will visit on Judah in particular and sinful countries in general; Verse 12 mentions that “women rule over them.” Or, as another of the Gunns’ interviewees, Jennie Chancey of Ladies Against Feminism, paraphrases it (and I’m paraphrasing her), “You have messed up so badly I’m allowing women to rule you.” Deliciously, the Gunns flash pictures of America’s female politicians across the screen as Mrs. Chancey talks. 

From this the documentary segues into a discussion of Hillary Clinton’s likelihood of attaining the presidency, God help us. And that is my only quibble with the film. I found this section a bit distracting, not because their repulsive target doesn’t deserve all the opprobrium anyone can heap on her, but merely because there are so many equally damnable women in office. Why pillory Hillary alone? 

Meanwhile, the Gunns chat with an avowed feminist who defines the philosophy as “egalitarianism.” Emily Gunn reminds us that our Father is most firmly opposed to such and that He has blessed us with a hierarchy in which “the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God” (what luscious freedom! Notice the complete absence of the State from this order). Furthermore, feminist “egalitarianism” isn’t egalitarian at all: it merely replaces a woman’s husband with the State while bringing men under its suzerainty as well. And it forces “equality” on two obviously dissimilar sexes however “unnatural, unrealistic or harmful the consequences may be, ” as Emily Gunn puts it.

I especially appreciated the film’s linking of feminism with communism. Phyllis Schlafly, feminism’s lifelong and fearsome opponent, notes that “the feminists’ goal was to make the role of the full-time homemaker economically impossible and socially disdained.” Jennie Chancey adds that Betty Friedan, the author of the Feminine Mystique who joined the Communist Party, enthusiastically endorsed Marx and Engel’s ambition to extirpate the family, turning children into wards of Leviathan. Feminism thus saw to it that “security, protection and provision, once the priorities of the father, soon passed to the paternalistic State.” 

Some of what the Gunns explore is familiar ground, such as feminists’ love of universal daycare as a tool for shoving kids into Leviathan’s maw. Feminism also strips women of choice while forcing them to conform to socialists’ preferences. “Equal pay” laws and exorbitant taxation have destroyed the “family wage” breadwinners used to earn so that it’s extremely difficult for wives and mothers to remain home even when they want to. Worse is the change in women’s thinking, so that even those who don’t identify as feminists adopt their attitudes: most girls grow up expecting to serve a boss instead of a husband. They either despise marriage and the home or relegate them to a distant second-place after career. 

Like all statist philosophies, feminism’s “death toll” is horrifyingly high. Not only has it pushed women into the military to kill and be killed, but it also urges abortion on them. 

The Gunns open their segment on abortion with a woman who justifies murdering the unborn because she passed two obviously homeless men on the street and assumes their mothers didn’t want them. Yes. But successive shocks come even faster and more furiously. 

Soon after this chilling speculation, we watch video of an actual abortion. We see a perfectly formed though miniature baby rather than a “cluster of cells” as feminists claim; an abortionist delivers this “fetus” after killing it. Blood drips and spatters. He wraps the tiny, lifeless body in a white sheet like a cut of meat from the butcher’s; no burial, only disposal. The Gunns brilliantly juxtapose this footage with that of a feminist and physician who “very, very, very” strongly believes in a woman’s “right to choose.” She praises abortion as “a humane, normal, medical procedure.” That “procedure” exterminates as many victims each day as 9/11 did, according to the Gunns; they call it “an unprecedented holocaust.” Yet it’s not Al Qaeda attacking: it’s “the monstrous regiment of women.”

Even more compelling is the movie’s interview with the heroic Carol Everett of The Heidi Group. Ms. Everett sold abortions through her clinic for six years in her quest to become a millionaire – until she met Jesus Christ. Don’t miss her nauseating, powerful expose of an utterly evil industry devoted to murder, money, and manipulation.

The Gunns address their short masterpiece primarily to female Christendom, but I strongly recommend it to everyone. Women weary of feminism’s tyranny or those whose lives it has ruined will obviously relish the film. My husband watched it with me; while I was riveted from the opening credits to the end, he grew itchy. But I suspect that’s only because feminism has never threatened our marriage. Men whose homes and families it has shattered will embrace this vindication of Biblical femininity as eagerly as I.

 

About the Author

Becky Akers

Becky Akers

Becky Akers is a free-lance writer and historian. Her novel, Halestorm, is set during the American Revolution and available in paperback or for Kindle.

 

Copyright © Becky Akers. Used with Permission.

Comments (3)

  • Michael

    Michael

    06 March 2013 at 10:10 |
    Looks like it's going to be movie night soon at our house!! An excellent review, Mrs Akers.
  • Jennifer

    Jennifer

    04 March 2013 at 23:59 |
    I've rarely seen such gleeful outright salivation over tearing women down as leaders. A "special curse"? lol We've had NUMEROUS excellent female leaders, including Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Queen Elizabeth 2, who some of the most macho men I've seen have praised her as their queen. That passage in the Bible involved God addressing a time and place where women rulers were NOT common, and spoke of both children and women ruling. The people being described were clearly bossy wives and unruly children running the husbands and fathers; it was not describing female governors or queens anymore than child-governors! It amazes me how this has been twisted.

    "Emily Gunn reminds us that our Father is most firmly opposed to such and that He has blessed us with a hierarchy in which “the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God”"

    You salivate over that as well, calling it "luscious". This means that men are in charge of women? And God's in charge of men, well, how relieving. But wait, isn't God in charge of women too? And does this mean ALL men are in charge of me? Oh dear, maybe such a faulty and simplistic interpretation of that passage isn't sufficient after all.

    As for Hillary, you mentioned that there are so many are damnable women in office. But according to you, ALL women in office are damnable, so why not use the biggest stereotype of feminism to represent all such women? And did you know that Phyllis Schafly STILL works outside the home and has no problem with women owning businesses and being leaders? Few women the Gunns interviewed were in fact homewives alone, and even when that was their main occupation, they were first referred to as "authors" when their names came up. What do you know. And when looking at the work that true female leaders have done, God is letting "women rule them" because they messed up? Well, what a blessing!
  • Ron Warrick

    Ron Warrick

    04 March 2013 at 15:29 |
    Why are you so proud of taking your beliefs (supposedly) from scriptures rather than reason and rationality? The Founders fought a revolution against a king who claimed to rule by divine right. There is not one word in the Bible in support of our republican form of government, but book after book regarding kingship and obedience to authority appointed by God. Even slavery receives not a word of approbrium. Only the rise of reason and the Enlightenment brought the blessings of Liberty to this land. Our job is to protect and expand reason and that freedom, not to try to use the law to force society into traditions simply because they are in some old book, no matter how wise they may have been in their time. Anyone who would rule from the Bible is no more fit to rule than one who would rule from the Koran. It can't be done.

Leave a comment

Please login to leave a comment.