The Pill Causes Bad Mate Selection

“Oral contraception affects a woman’s mind, smell, and mate choices”

What role does feminism as a social movement play in society’s ills? Is it a cause of the fundamental problems or merely a symptom? While many people in the manosphere have asserted that feminism plays a key causal role, this notion has been questioned. I’ll be examining this broad question over a series of articles. In the first article in this series, I’ll be considering the validity—and societal impact—of the claim that hormonal oral contraception (“the pill”) negatively changes the way a woman selects a mate.

To answer this question we will consider the recent research done by Gurit E. Birnbaum entitled “The Bitter Pill: Cessation of Oral Contraceptives Enhances the Appeal of Alternative Mates”[1] and the commentary by anthropologist Edward Dutton[2].

Reproductive Strategy

Before discussing the pill, let’s consider the evolutionary imperative: to reproduce. Evolutionary biology leads a fertile woman towards a somewhat unconscious reproductive strategy that maximizes her chances to pass on her genes as many times as possible. This involves the following three primary areas:

(1) Reproductive Fitness

A normal fertile woman will prefer alpha male traits[3] : physically fitness, good looks, and masculinity. These traits are proxies that indicate underlying good genes that give her the highest chance to produce healthy children with the lowest risk of genetic mutation.

(2) Compatible Immune System

A woman uses the body odors of men to help find the best genetic match that indicates immune system compatibility.[5] Ideally, she should find a match that is not too similar, but also not too far away. The goal is to produce healthy children by avoiding both inbreeding and conflicting alleles. Historically, this meant marriage involving the genetic equivalents of distant cousins.

(3) Seeking Men of High Status

A woman will seek a man of high status.[4] Her goal is to have as much wealth and support for her and her children. From an evolutionary standpoint, hypergamy is a proxy for genetic fitness.

This is a fertile woman’s natural state.

The Pill

Having established the natural tendency of women, we now ask whether the pill has any effect on this? The research indicates that it does.

While the natural reproductive strategy is expressed most strongly during a woman’s peak fertilitywhile she is ovulating—her overall preferences do not change throughout her cycle. By contrast, the pill works by taking a woman out of her fertility cycle and causes her to enter a period of semi-permanent infertility. This results in mental and physiological changes that cause her to unconsciously seek a non-reproductive strategyinverting her default, natural strategy. Her focus shifts from reproductive success towards personal success.

(1) Reproduction is unimportant

A woman on the pill will seek beta male traits[3] : nice, fun, woman-like, unattractive. These traits make a woman feel validated and supported. She may become repulsed by the alpha traits that she would find attractive in her fertile state.

(2) Genetic Incompatibility

Rather than finding a good genetic match for having children, a woman’s desires shift:

“…women’s perception of men may serve a different function: pursuing cooperative partners who assist with child care (“good parents”) rather than genetically compatible partners. Women may therefore revert to having opposite mate preferences, becoming fixed on seeking less genetically compatible men whose body odor resembles that of their apparently supportive genetic relatives.”

A man who is genetically like her brother or a close cousin is going to be much more likely to support her than a more distant match, even though any offspring would be less genetically fit.

(3) Seek Men of Any Status

If children don’t matter, then a good genetic match is unimportant. Any man will do. If she wants sex, status doesn’t matter. If she wants wealth, she’ll be able to temporarily extract wealth from almost anyone. If she wants a husband, the average beta will suffice.

The Consequences of the Pill

Of course these effects are not absolute. Individually, woman both on and off the pill can make alternate choices. Nevertheless, the overall negative effects should not be ignored.

The pill alters a fertile woman into an infertile woman, changing her life plan. She’s biologically no longer interested in children (outward focused), but in what makes her most comfortable and supported (inward focused). The hormones in the pill cause real physiological changes that change her perception of men. Even her sex drive can change. While this is listed medically as a side effect, biologically-speaking it seems to be the point.

There are two potential major scenarios where this will cause problems.

First, a woman on the pill before marriage selects a poor genetic fit (beta). Eventually when she stops taking the pill, she will have reduced attraction to her husband and suddenly be strongly attracted to the alpha men she would have naturally been attracted to before marriage.

Second, a woman marries a good genetic fit (alpha), but who goes on the pill after marriage (to avoid children), will develop a lack of sexual attraction to her husband. She may start criticizing her husband for his masculine traits and viewpoints that she was previously attracted to.

The marriage in both scenarios faces a heightened risk of sex-starvation, infidelity, or divorce. But even if these things do not happen, the swings will likely cause personal relationship instability and discontent. One can easily imagine this contributing to mental disorders like depression.

Analysis and Summary

Dating and marrying a woman while she is on the pill should be avoided. Men married to women who go on the pill after getting married should be aware of the risks.

The pill contributes to genetic and relationship mismatches. Divorce risk for most marriages is highest during fertile childbearing years, precisely when she is most likely to change pill usage. Contrast this with a pill-free normative natural marriage entering the infertile years: the relationship is firmly established and her husband has likely developed sufficient beta traits needed for her long-term support. Such a marriage is unlikely to end in divorce.

When women on the pill hook up with or marry poor genetically matched men, it does two things: (1) it leaves their otherwise best matched man unmatched and (2) takes someone else’s best matched man. What does this look like? Well, women on the pill can potentially have sex with as many “bad-boy” men as they can, but they generally won’t marry them. They’ll marry poorly matched men. Single men will be left with fewer prospects, as their best matches are marrying the wrong men. Married men will be left with greater divorce risk as the women who should have been their wives marry the wrong men. It’s an unmitigated sociological disaster for both married and unmarried men.

So what is the role of feminism? Feminism promotes female supremacy through its key tenetscareerism, marriage-avoidance, and children-avoidance through easy contraception, abortion, and divorce. All of these are, of course, counter to the evolutionary imperative.

The pill, while not essential to feminism, is a tool with a synergistic feedback effect. A number of red-pill memes demonstrate this: (1) women reproducing with feminine men produce more genetically feminine men, (2) women reproducing with masculine bad-boys have feminine men raise their (now) sociologically feminine boys (e.g. marrying single mothers), and (3) the pill amplifies feminine marital discontent. The pill helps enable these and more.

[1] Birnbaum, G.E., Zholtack, K., Mizrahi, M. et al. Evolutionary Psychological Science (2019) 5: 276. (download here)

[2] He has been accused of anti-semitism and supporting eugenics, demonetized by YouTube for various red-pill positions, and had his work rejected by academic publishers. He is friends with Bruce G. Charlton, who is not loved by our host. YMMV.

[3] What is meant by alpha and beta in this context? While there are certainly men whofrom an evolutionary standpointshould not breed, each woman’s ideal alpha may be very different. Alpha should be defined as the best evolutionary choice available to a particular fertile woman. The beta is a man who does not maximize her offspring’s genetic odds of survival. He’s a bad genetic fit for her. He may be someone else’s alpha or no one’s at all. The terms are relative and contextual.

The terms alpha and beta are not value judgments. For example, alpha men often have low dependability and beta men have high dependability. A woman will probably be doing well if she finds a man with a good combination of alpha and beta traits to see her through various life stages.

While the terms are frequently assigned motives and morality in the manosphere, the use here is merely descriptive of the ways a normal population of fertile women find the best genetic match for reproduction. Trade-offs can and do occur, resulting in deviations from the mean or expected behavior, but the general concepts hold.

[4] As with alpha and beta, high status is relative. Women seek the highest status that they can attain relative to their own status. This doesn’t mean they don’t marry men who have low-status in the absolute sense, nor does it imply that low-status men and women are unworthy of marriage. They are merely trying to maximize their genetic fit.

[5] Wedekind, C., & Füri, S. (1997). Body odor preferences in men and women: do they aim for specific MHC combinations or simply heterozygosity? Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 264(1387), 1471–1479. (download here)

Feminism Will Kill You


Earlier we noted an interesting juxtaposition. On one hand feminists claim to be deeply concerned about health care and saving lives. On the other hand they promote policies and behaviors that cause increased numbers of deaths. One such example is the relationship between “Breast Cancer and Abortion.” Over at Sigma Frame, Jack writes in “How the Pill Kills” of another. For context, I strongly encourage you to read it before reading my supplemental commentary here.

In the United States, ~700 woman die each year (out of ~4,000,000) from complications related to pregnancy or delivery.[1] By contrast ~250 women die each year (out of ~13,000,000) from VT associated with oral contraceptives.[2] Similarly, the risk of getting VTE while on the pill is about 5x greater than the general population, while about half the risk of getting it while pregnant.[3]

As with breast cancer and abortion, we found that feminists play games with statistics to make it seem as if their policies and behaviors save lives rather than cost them. The same is true here, since these statistics do show that it is somewhat safer to be on oral contraceptives compared to being pregnant. There are multiple problems with this reasoning.

First, being on oral contraceptives is more dangerous than not being on them. It is significantly more dangerous than other pregnancy preventatives, such as breast feeding, NFP, condom use, abstinence, and sterilization. Indeed, the availability of viable alternatives makes oral contraceptives and their associated increased health risks one of pure convenience and choice. Since they are not required to prevent pregnancy, the proper statistical comparison is against the general population.

Abbey Parkes

Second, the risk break-even for oral contraceptives compared to pregnancy is 2 to 10 years—taking the pill for as little as two years is similar in health risk to having a single pregnancy.[4] Even ignoring the first point, correcting for the average fertility rate of women and the number of years on oral contraceptives suggests that the adjusted lifetime risk to women on the pill is equal to or greater than the lifetime risks from pregnancy. Consider, Abbey Parkes, pictured above, who started on the pill at age 14 and was dead at 20. During that time on the pill she experienced roughly the risk of a pregnancy, without reaping any of the health benefits associated with pregnancy or experiencing the joys of marriage and motherhood.

Third, as we saw with breast cancer and abortion, the risk of harm is significantly greater than merely the risk of death. Surviving a negative health event is still a bad thing. The risk of dying compared to the general population is lower than the overall risk of non-death negative health events. Taking oral contraceptives not only threatens death, but also your quality of life.

In summary, we confirm once again that feminism leads to more unnecessary suffering and death in the name of the almighty orgasm. Being on oral contraceptives unnecessarily increases a woman’s risk of death and other negative health effects.

UPDATE: This post has been corrected to eliminate incorrect/unclear statistical inferences.

[1] Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. February 26, 2019.

[2] Keenan, L., Kerr, T., Duane, M., & Van Gundy, K. (2018). Systematic Review of Hormonal Contraception and Risk of Venous Thrombosis. The Linacre Quarterly, 85(4), 470–477.

[3] Peter Kovacs. “Oral Contraceptives and the Risk for Venous Thromboembolism.” Medscape. Oct 09, 2009 (referencing: van Hylckama Vlieg A, Helmerhorst FM, Vandenbroucke JP, Doggen CJ, Rosendaal FR, “The Venous Thrombotic Risk of Oral Contraceptives, Effects of Oestrogen Dose and Progestogen Type: Results of the MEGA Case-Control Study”, The British Medical Journal (BMJ) 2009 339:b2921).

[4] This is an estimate: pill use and pregnancy have different and varied side effects. Age plays a factor as well. It is also for comparison only: as per the first point, all real risk is relative to the general population.

Rape Inequality


Over in Oklahoma, 44-year-old first grade school teacher Tasha McCuan had sex with three different underage high school boys (link). The state charged her with three counts of second-degree rape. I’m sure she only had sex with them once each. True to form, the state then gave her the pass and dropped two of the three charges. For rape of three boys one boy she gets 5 years in prison and a $2,200 fine.

Around the same time as Tasha was getting it on with every boy at the high school, 36-year-old high school teacher Jason Argo was starting his 12-year prison sentence for one count of lewd battery and one count of child abuse, after receiving oral sex twice and having intercourse once with a high school student.

It turns out that Argo got off easy—12 years—because he had PTSD. On the other hand, McCuan got off easy5 years—because she’s a woman.

The Psychology of Gender Equality

Who should die today?

One of the fundamental problems with feminism is its incoherent notion of equality. There is no consistent definition of feminism[1] that agrees on who or what must be equal vs unequal, nor whether equality must be of opportunity or outcome. This is shown plainly in the women’s suffrage movement.

Women have had the right to vote ever since the passage of the 19th amendment to the United States Constitution in 1920. Voting is not about the individual, but about the group: the group with the most votes carries the day. If the opinions of men and women as a group were equally valid, then there would be no need for women to vote. Suffrage implies that there must be at least some issues upon which women’s opinions are unequal and (implied to be) superior to men’s. Let’s see what their notion of equality looks like.

Lewis Petrinovich and his team performed psychological research on hypothetical moral dilemmas. Trolley problems are not new, but this research took a twist by asking men and women to decide whether to save their own dog or a person. The results show a stunning gender disparity.

The research shows that women are dramatically more likely to let a person die than to let their dog die. Moreover, they show strong intuition that this is the morally right choice. Your sister is approximately 5 times more likely to let you die than you would let her die. If your best friend is a woman, she’s 4 times more likely than you to let you die than let her precious dog die. A woman is approximately 2 times more likely than you are to let an extended family member die.

Other research on gender differences in morality has led to additional interesting conclusions. When justice is carried out against wrongdoers, the brains of men are stimulated in the pleasure centers. For women the pain centers are stimulated. Women do not like when justice is served. Women are sensitive to context, while men are sensitive to principles. This helps explain why women are so frequently given a pass for their misbehavior.

The research shows that women are more empathetic than men, but they develop empathy over time in response to child development. This suggests that women who do not marry and raise a family fail to develop proper empathy to compensate for their lack of principles.[2] Feminism produces hordes of voting women who shun families for career. Those who lack principles and empathy make natural incoherent feminist soldiers. They are the women who would leave you to die.

Those of us who are not feminists recognize that giving women the right to vote meant giving those with non-principled, context-based moral centers the right to shape our laws. The research shows that women are much more likely to value an animal over human life. For proof, look no farther than the abortion laws and statistics.

As you prepare your 100 year anniversary women’s suffrage celebrations for August 18, 2020, remember that those women voting are significantly more likely to let you die. Men, the next time you have to chose between saving your woman or your dog, remember the feminist mantra of equality and save the dog.[3]

[1] The best definition most consistent across all flavors of feminism is the promotion of gender inequality favoring women, that is, female supremacy.

[2] A women’s empathy is more context-based, not principled. Recipients of that empathy will depend on the target and situation. It need not be rational or consistent. For example, women may support empathetic legislation that actively harms people. Or she’ll save the dog and the kids and leave you to die. Don’t expect her to die with you.

[3] While I’m not serious, this is an excellent example of Dalrock’s Law of Feminism.

The Cunt Pass, Explained

Regular readers of this blog will be familiar with Boxer’s regular use of the intentionally inflammatory slur cunt pass.[1] This term reflects the tendency of society in general and the legal system specifically to give women a pass when they commit various felonies and other anti-societal behaviors.

Examples of the cunt pass are varied. They exist in and overlap legal and social realms. They include lighter (or no) criminal sanctions for infanticide, ignoring negative evidence against women in family courts, and excusing sexual crimes of adult females with male children. The cunt pass is in evidence in society when pastors refuse to condemn women who break up families through frivolous divorce, utilize the divorce threat point, or refuse to have sex with their spouses.

But what is the cunt pass? It can be defined as follows:

Women are independent and powerful. They have the right and ability to make any choice. When they misbehave, it is because they are weak or mentally ill—victims not to be held responsible. Men are ultimately to blame and must excuse their misbehavior.[2]

Just as feminism—upon which the cunt pass is based—is logically incoherent, so to is this rationale. Women cannot be completely empowered and independent with their own choices while simultaneously not at fault for their misdeeds.

Oddly enough, there are many persons who deny that this bias exists, let alone that it is intentional. Many act like it is difficult to find the hard evidence to support it. The Department of Justice report “Homicides of Children and Youth” (October 2001) illustrates one critical application of the cunt pass.

The DoJ reports that women as a gender are disproportionately likely to kill children,[3] especially those under the age of 6.[4] What we find is that women tend to murder most vulnerable, those least likely to be able to resist. When the only meaningful difference between murdering young children, toddlers, infants, or the unborn (early, mid, or late stage) is the age of the child, then there is no in principle reason that a woman’s wanton death worship would end when a child pops out of the womb. The data confirms this. If abortion was outlawed, we would expect the subsequent murder rate of the unborn to be similar to the rates that women kill their birthed children now.

The report notes this critical point:

“Women who kill children are more likely to be labeled mentally ill than men who kill children and are somewhat more likely to commit suicide.” (DoJ, p9)

This is the cunt pass, front and center. For at least two decades we have known that women are much more likely than men to get an explicit or implicit “mental illness” pass for abusing or murdering their children. It is quite unusual for a government report to admit this in writing. The fact that the publication was done in the early days of the internet probably explains why it was allowed to stand. Yet even this admission by the DoJ is somewhat cagey. However, the report contains two more critical pieces of evidence:

“Homicides of young children may be seriously undercounted.” (DoJ, p2)


“Homicide is the only major cause of childhood death that has increased in incidence during the past 30 years” (DoJ, p2)

Think about this for a second. Women murder their children significantly more frequently than men. When they are accused of murdering their children, even the DoJ admits that they are excused much more frequently than men.[5] Statistically, those murders become accidents. The result? A serious undercounting of the real homicide rate of children.

Yet, even giving women the cunt pass for murdering children is still not enough to hide the fact that since the end of the 1960’s—the sexual revolution when feminism took power—women killing children is the only major cause of childhood death that has increased in incidence. Over that time almost every nation on earth has been experiencing a secular period of quality of life improvements and an almost universal drop in all crimes.

It should be noted that the cunt pass is given to nearly every woman who has a pregnancy and a subsequent abortion. It is alleged that a woman should not be held accountable in any way for having sex and getting pregnant. Not only must she not be held responsible for her choices and that unwanted pregnancy, but it is the man’s fault for ejaculating. Every. Single. Time.

The Department of Justice has merely provided yet another data point that shows that feminism worships death. It has highlighted that the cunt pass is not only real, but an essential feature of feminism.

[1] Though I’ve never used the term before and am unlikely to ever again, I will use it in here because it is considerably less inflammatory than the excused behavior. If the term is somewhat upsetting, then excusing the behavior should induce white-hot blind rage.

[2] Dalrock’s Law of Feminism: “Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.”

[3] “Although victims include approximately equal numbers of boys and girls, offenders include a disproportionate number of women.” (DoJ p9)

[4] “In general, women kill much less frequently than men. However, one-quarter of the victims in killings by women are juveniles [..] Women overwhelmingly kill very young children (75 percent of their juvenile victims are under age 6) and members of their family (79 percent). Thus, women who kill are heavily concentrated in child maltreatment homicides and infanticides. ” (DoJ p9)

[5] We have not even considered the cunt pass implicit in lighter sentencing for women.

The Definition of Feminism


There are many definitions of feminism. Those who despise feminism define it according to the hell that it is. Those who love feminism prefer fluffy, sweet-sounding definitions. Down below, new commenter Karen has generously provided her preferred definition of feminism:

The definition of equality as far as feminism goes is really simple: equal opportunity for all; not being stopped from trying because of gender. Treating everyone the same.

At first glance this appears to be a pretty tame definition. It is quite a bit less honest than Webster’s definition of feminism, but many feminists would probably agree with it.

Note that this definition is vague and contradictory. Equal opportunity for all is not the same as treating everyone the same. This is simple to demonstrate. If we were to treat everyone the same, then we would all be like Chinese culture: refusing to give up our seats to pregnant women. The reason I might yield my seat to another is because different people get treated differently. So let’s interpret treating everyone the same as a simple summary of giving everyone equal opportunity irrespective of their gender.

There are many reasons that this is wrong.

#1: Equal opportunity is incoherent

The definition given is vague, especially not clearly defining ‘equal’. This is by design, because no specific, objective criterion can be established that leads to a coherent definition.

There are feminists called by the slur TERF: trans-exclusionary radical feminists. These oppose transgender rights, especially transwomen taking any rights afforded to women. They refuse to accept that transwomen are women. They argue that women cannot have equal opportunities if men are allowed to take their opportunities.

When a transwoman competes in a women-only sporting event, they have an unfair advantage because they are men competing against women. The opportunity is undeniably unequal. But by excluding transwomen you are not giving equal opportunities irrespective of gender. Thus, by the definition of feminism given above, excluding transwomen is also undeniably unequal. Both positions are undeniably unequal.

It’s a hopeless contradiction because men and women are not equal. Trying to equal that which is not equal leads to absurdities like feminists fighting feminists over which equality must be more equal. The concept of equality in feminism is self-refuting because it denies reality.

#2: Feminists seek equality of outcome

Having established that it is impossible to have equality of opportunity, we realize why feminists focus almost all of their efforts on equality of outcome.

Studies time and again show that the wage gap is real and that is predominately caused by choices made by women. The great irony was that when women achieved equality of opportunity, they used that opportunity to not close the wage gap. God forbid that we tell women what to do, so the only thing left to do is to try to force equality of outcome.

The Australian government attempted to help give women equal outcomes (that is, equal wages). They tried putting male names on female candidates’ resume. The result? Fewer interviews. It turns out that Australians are biased in favor of women, giving them unequal opportunities over men. In response to this, the Australian government insisted on new policies to increase the hiring chances of men over women. Wait, what’s that? They actually abandoned the practice because it didn’t lead to equal outcomes for women. They were perfectly fine with the anti-male unequal opportunity.

The feminist push for equality of outcome is not limited to women. As Karen noted, feminism was about ‘treating everyone the same’. Embracing this philosophy, the School Diversity Advisory Group in New York City found that minority children were underrepresented in the city’s gifted schools. The suggested solution? End equal opportunity admissions standards to force equality of outcome.

#3: Feminists seek inequality—of opportunity and outcome—favoring women

Feminists don’t stop with seeking equality of outcome. No, they have to be sure that women have greater opportunities and greater outcomes than men.

Last month, Hasbro embarrassed itself by announcing Ms. Monopoly, a board game that gives unequal opportunities to women.

The NYT article entitled “Where Boys Outperform Girls in Math: Rich, White and Suburban Districts” noted that girls academically outperform boys in almost every area.

When faced with this inequality, the NYT suggested that schools in America need to focus greater attention on creating more opportunities for boys to try to catch up or exceed girls’ outcomes. Wait, what’s that? They actually said that this was a problem that could be solved by raising girls scores, further increasing the gender disparity.

Feminists love abortion because their death worship favors women. Dave Chappelle pointed out their hypocrisy: if they can murder his child, he should be allowed to abandon it and not have to pay child support if the mother chooses to keep it. It’s logically consistent. Feminists despise it when anyone points out that women have unfair, unequal reproductive power and parental rights.

Another way feminists favor women is in divorce proceedings. By giving unequal rights to women, they can and do use divorce and custody of children as threat points in marriage. This feminist view of marriage is thus an antagonistic competition where power is given to the wife over her husband.

Feminists love #MeToo and Title IX enforcement, because it allows women to create post-hoc rationalized rape accusations to further control men and destroy their lives as punishment for being men. #BelieveAllwomen is yet another way to support this and give women unequal social rights and punitive powers.

#4: Feminists see opportunity as a zero-sum game

In theory, there are two ways to achieve equal opportunity: reduce the opportunity of men or increase the opportunity of women. In a zero-sum game these two are equivalent, so feminists would have to decrease the opportunities of men to increase the opportunities of women. However, feminists don’t actually care if opportunity isn’t a zero-sum game: they will reduce a man’s opportunity whether or not there is a corresponding increase the opportunities available to women in order to achieve relative equality. Many of the examples given above are like this (e.g. girl’s test scores).

This is important because the fluffy sweet-sounding definition ‘equality for all!!!’ is used as an excuse to reduce a man’s opportunity even if it doesn’t benefit women. Equality in this context just means harming men. This is where Dalrock’s Law of Feminism comes into play. Feminists demand that men change to their lives to give women more opportunity and better outcomes while simultaneously working to reduce his opportunities and outcomes. It is for this reason that many men are so hostile towards feminism, and their hostility is completely justified.


It turns out that the tame definition of feminism is actually insidious. Those gentle words are smooth lies. Those of us who hate feminism are often falsely vilified for ‘hating women’. Yet by fighting the irrationality of feminism, we fight the resulting tyranny and inequality. In doing so, we are probably the only people left who actually care about both men and women.

This interpretation is actually illegitimate. Karen really did contradict herself. The full context is this: “Treating everyone the same. So a heavily pregnant woman would be treated the same as anyone else with a temporary disability or injury that makes them vulnerable in a jerky bus.” She really does think that treating people differently means treating them the same.

Feminism is Hell


From the years 697BC to 643BC King Manasseh reigned as king of Judah. The Bible describes his reign as evil. Many have argued that he was the worst of all the kings in the southern kingdom. Among the list of his evil deeds is the devout worship of Moloch:

“He sacrificed his own son in the fire” [2 Kings 21:6]

Not only did he sacrifice his own son, but he perpetuated Moloch worship during his reign. The focal point of these deeds was in Jerusalem in the Valley of Ben Hinnom. God was so incensed by these abominations that he sent his prophet Jeremiah to condemn it:

“They have built the high places of Baal to burn their children in the fire as offerings to Baal—something I did not command or mention, nor did it enter my mind. So beware, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when people will no longer call this place Topheth or the Valley of Ben Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter.” [Jeremiah 19:5-6]

By the time of Jesus, the Valley of Ben Hinnom was known by the name Gehenna. Jesus talked about it often. But Gehenna is not the name that we use in English. We use “Hell”, the place of death. Hell, the most special kind of place, is named after those who murder their own children.

When Judah, under King Manasseh’s reign, murdered hundreds (or possibly thousands) of children, God was so ticked off that “Hell” now commemorates it. We’ve seen previously that feminism is a religion of death. One of its primary rituals is child sacrifice: abortion. In the last four decades nearly 2 billion babies have been sacrificed to Moloch in its name. It’s hard to truly comprehend a number that large. Those are video game numbers representing human lives.

If God lost his religion over the deaths of thousands, imagine how he views the deaths of billions. Feminism is truly hell. No, that’s not right. I think even Hell is personally disturbed and horrified by 2 billion murdered children. Feminism is worse than Hell. We just don’t have any other name to describe it.

† This small valley still exists in Jerusalem. You can go visit it.