Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that

Hear, O children of discernment, the fierce and controversial words of Pat Robertson: “Feminism is a socialist, anti-family, political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.” This utterance, sharp with fear and exaggeration, was not meant to illuminate but to alarm. It reveals not the essence of feminism, but the deep anxieties it stirred in those who felt their world threatened by the rising tide of women’s liberation.

For the late 20th century, when Robertson spoke, was a time of upheaval. Feminism, in its second wave, was challenging traditions long considered unshakable. Women demanded equal pay, control over their bodies, and freedom from the chains of enforced domesticity. To defenders of the old order, these cries sounded like rebellion against the very foundations of society—family, faith, and economy. Thus, Robertson cast feminism not as reform, but as destruction.

Yet history reveals the distortion. The true heart of feminism was not hatred of family, but the demand that family life be chosen freely, not imposed as destiny. It was not a call to sorcery, but to autonomy; not a desire to “destroy capitalism,” but to expose and resist the structures that profited from women’s unpaid labor and denied them full participation. Robertson’s words show how movements for justice are often demonized, for fear is a powerful weapon against change.

Consider the suffragists a century earlier. They, too, were accused of undermining morality, of leaving children untended, of abandoning their “proper” roles. Yet by their persistence, they won the vote and proved that justice was not the enemy of order, but its true foundation. So it has always been: those who seek equality are painted as destroyers, though they are in truth builders of a new and fairer world.

Therefore, let this wisdom endure: when feminism is called a curse, it is because it dares to challenge powers long accustomed to rule unchallenged. Robertson’s words stand as a testament not to the evil of the movement, but to the depth of resistance it inspired. Let future generations know: whenever a voice cries for liberation, expect another to brand it as dangerous. Yet history will show, again and again, that those branded dangerous were often the ones carrying humanity toward justice.