The Bible quote in the site's banner is a dead give-away that this is not feminist movement.

Meh. Just like all those "True" Americans in Virginia who voted Palin (oh, and McCain too, let's not forget him) into office.

I think all real feminists know there is no such thing as a "true woman".

I read their manifesto, not sure how anyone could confuse this with a feminist movement.

I love how people like this truly believe that there was NO adultery, divorce, unhappy marriages, promiscuity, domestic violence, STDs, rape, pornography, etc, etc, etc before 1960.

It's either ignorant or delusional.

Also - idealizing a time most of us did not live in? How convenient - you can paint the brightest picture of it and convince people that everything would just be so perfect if we could just get back to that time before women's lib turned the world into atheist, STD-ridden homosexuals who are only into casual sex and (gasp!) take birth control!

I have actually heard of this movement before. I am creating a visual project (I do go to an art college after all) and written thesis around the social and religious traditions that people still take part in today that have sexist roots. I am asking people to question what they know about gender and sexuality—and why we have certain constructs in society. In my research, I can across this website. I find it disgusting, personally. What I found the worst was that when I was taken to the site, I was immediately taken to a page asking me so sign the "true women's" manifesto, rather than reading it. I did not sign it, noticing the Bible quote and figuring out what this site is really about. After looking around the site, I was mortified. There is an article entitled, "15 Ways to Please Your Husband," which gives advice like , "4. Wear his favorite dress with your hair done the way he likes it," and "6. Give him a nicely framed picture of yourself, or of you and the children, for his office" This reminds me of the text books in the 50s on how to be a good wife.

I fear that this movement is larger than I am aware of. It is not about giving women the right to choose to follow God and get married. It is about having no other options for women than to follow a domestic lifestyle. They use words like "submit" and "obedience" in their manifesto. It really creeps me out to tell you the truth. They are holding conferences and trying to garner support. I hope that people figure out what is at the root of this movement—male dominance.

UGH! I just don't even know how to articulate my feelings about this..so that simple cry of disgust will have to suffice!! UGHHH!!

I cannot be the only one to find this kind of movement terrifying? With the growing popularity of these kind of movements we seem only a very few, short steps away from Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale."

This romanticism of the 50's also completely ignores the fact that the only women playing Donna Reed and June Cleaver were upper/ upper-middle class white women. Most minority and lower class women were not baking cookies and bringing their husbands' their slippers, they were working so that their family could afford food. So not only are they denying the existence of rape, violence, promiscuity, infidelity, STDs, and all the other "immoral" acts that seem to run rampant today they're also denying the existence of the poor working class.

Damn you Donna Reed.

I found it interesting in that Mary Kassian was aware enough to point out how cigarette manufacturers co-opted feminist messages, but yet claimed that rape etc were virtually non-existant. While I would accept a referenced claim that rates were perhaps lower, it is likely that incidents of sexual assault and rape were vastly underreported because of a culture and justice system that blamed the women for being seductive/hysterical/refusing 'congjugal rights' and the resultant ostracism of the woman.

I also believe it is important to recognise that a mention of the Bible does not an antifeminist make. I am a Christian young feminist woman, as are many of my friends. I am personally against abortion and the contraceptive pill for contraceptive reasons for myself, but pro-choice. I am not sexually active, but respect my friends decisions to be sexually active. I am pro women's ordination, pro-queer sexuality, pro-equal pay anti-gender stereotypes and unrealistic beauty ideals etc etc, and I pray everyday to a God who cared about women, who had women leaders,prophets and apostles and who went by the name El Shaddai which has conotations of breasted abundance Ultimatly it comes down to how you interpret biblical texts as to whether you are a Christian feminist or a Christian anti-feminist. But Christianity and feminism are not mutually exclusive.

Wow, willing slavery rocks! (Not.)

It may be clearly ignorant to some, but not to all who glorify the stick-thin ideal. Even if it was satire, I don't think it was appropriate to make a weight issue out of something so natural and important. Considering how many people on this site have commented about how they were treated differently, etc when pregnant, I think that any superficial classification of pregnancy bedroom furniture into weight is one too many. This society is antinatalist enough, Colbert doesn't have to reinforce it.

It may be clearly ignorant to some, but not to all who glorify the stick-thin ideal. Even if it was satire, I don't think it was appropriate to make a weight issue out of something so natural and important. Considering how many people on this site have commented about how they were treated differently, etc when pregnant, I think that any superficial classification of pregnancy bedroom furniture into weight is one too many. This society is antinatalist enough, Colbert doesn't have to reinforce it.