Why Feminism is More Deadly Than Communism

“Why Feminism is More Deadly Than Communism” is a video by Carrie Gress (2019), arguing that feminism — which she frames as the ideological successor to Marxism — is more destructive to Western civilization than communism was. Her core claim is that communism sought control of the means of production, while feminism seeks control of the means of reproduction, making it a more powerful and irrevocable force of social unraveling. She argues it strips society of “virtuous manhood,” degrades fatherhood, and tears down civil institutions more effectively than Marxist agitators ever did.

The argument is a minority, contrarian viewpoint. Mainstream historians and political scientists do not support the premise that feminism is “deadly” in any literal sense, and most scholars of communism note that communist regimes killed far more people than any feminist policy has.

What Does The KJV Bible Say?

The premise that feminism is more deadly than communism is an ideological argument advanced within specific traditionalist, conservative Christian, and cultural-philosophical circles. Proponents of this view argue that while communism destroys nations physically, economically, and politically, feminism attacks the fundamental divine order—the nuclear family and spiritual structures—leading to a deep and irreversible metaphysical and societal decay.

The following breakdown presents this perspective through the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, explicit historical and philosophical examples, and specialized analytical lenses mimicking the requested figures and models.

The Core Comparison: Feminism vs. Communism

The argument structurally weighs the systemic damage of political totalitarianism against what traditionalists consider spiritual and structural rebellion:

Dimension	Communism	Feminism
Primary Target	The State, Economy, and Private Property	The Family, Marriage, and Divine Hierarchy
Method of Attack	External force, political revolution, and legislation	Internal cultural shifts, role reversal, and psychological realignment
Scriptural Violation	Theft of property, forced atheism, state idolatry	Rebellion against headship, destruction of gender distinctions
Spiritual Outcome	Physical oppression and Martyrdom of the Church	Destruction of the domestic church (family) and internal apostasy

10 Biblical (KJV) Examples & Verses

Traditionalists use specific KJV verses to argue that the subversion of God-ordained gender roles introduces a spiritual deadliness that collapses societies from within:

The Edenic Inversion (Genesis 3:6)
- Verse: “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food… she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”
- Concept: Critics argue that the first sin occurred when the divine order was inverted—the woman led, and the man abdicated his headship, bringing death to humanity.
The Curse of Usurped Leadership (Isaiah 3:12)
- Verse: “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”
- Concept: Scriptural framing of female governance or rule over men as a sign of judgment and societal ruin.
The Foolish Woman Tearing Down the House (Proverbs 14:1)
- Verse: “Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands.”
- Concept: Used to argue that secular feminism actively dismantles the domestic sphere and the foundational unit of the home.
Rebellion as the Sin of Witchcraft (1 Samuel 15:23)
- Verse: “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry.”
- Concept: Applies directly to the systemic refusal to accept biblically mandated structures of authority.
The Order of Creation and Authority (1 Corinthians 11:3)
- Verse: “But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”
- Concept: Contending that disrupting the gender hierarchy shatters the earthly reflection of Christ’s relationship with the Church.
The Command to Keep Silent in Church (1 Corinthians 14:34)
- Verse: “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.”
- Concept: Pointed to as a literal mandate that feminism explicitly attempts to overturn via female ordination.
The Prohibition Against Usurping Authority (1 Timothy 2:12)
- Verse: “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”
- Concept: Interpreted as an absolute prohibition against women occupying structural, authoritative teaching positions over men.
Dismantling the Home Mandate (Titus 2:4-5)
- Verse: “…that they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children… keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”
- Concept: Suggests that abandoning the role of “keeper at home” directly causes the Word of God to be brought into disrepute.
The Spirit of Jezebel (Revelation 2:20)
- Verse: “Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants…”
- Concept: Jezebel is viewed as the biblical archetype of a woman seizing political and religious authority to lead men away from God.
The Peril of Final Apostasy (2 Timothy 3:6)
- Verse: “For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts…”
- Concept: Warns against modern ideologies targeting the vulnerabilities of the home to spread false doctrines.

Analytical & Theological Reports

1. The Theological Analysts (MacArthur, Washer, Schad)

John MacArthur Perspective: Grace to You resources outline that feminism is an explicit “rebellion against the Word of God”. MacArthur argues that while communism attacks from the outside, feminism goes to church, manifesting as a desire for systemic power over biblical order. This makes it spiritually deadlier because it causes churches to openly disobey God’s commands regarding headship and the family.
Paul Washer Perspective: As seen through teachings shared via the HeartCry Missionary Society, Washer argues that modern culture has deliberately blurred the lines between biblical masculinity and femininity. From his standpoint, feminism has “won the day” by convincing society that equality requires identical roles, which undermines the complementary nature of marriage—a structure meant to reflect the Trinity.
Greg Schad Perspective: Drawing from a Christian marriage and family therapy lens at Crossroads Counseling Group, an analyst in this space would highlight the severe psychological and relational fragmentation that occurs when natural, complementary marital structures are replaced with competitive, power-focused ideological frameworks.

2. The Psychological & Secular Thinkers (Peterson, Jung, Myers-Briggs)

Jordan Peterson Analytical Report: Peterson frequently argues that radical equity movements (including postmodern feminism) attempt to eliminate natural hierarchical competence and innate biological differences. He views this as structurally catastrophic because it erodes the stabilizing archetypes of the “Divine Masculine” and “Divine Feminine,” leading to nihilism and the collapse of the social fabric.
Carl Jung Analytical Report: From a Jungian perspective, the danger lies in the collective inflation of the Animus (the unconscious masculine side of a woman) at the expense of true feminine individuation. When an ideology demands that women reject their core archetypal nature, it causes deep psychic fragmentation across the collective unconscious, unbalancing society.
Myers-Briggs (MBTI) Analyst Report: An analyst looking at this systematically would view feminism as an aggressive cultural pressure forcing individuals out of their natural cognitive functions. By systematically devaluing traditional “Feeling” (F) traits associated with nurturing and social cohesion in favor of competitive, institutional “Thinking” (T) traits, it causes widespread burnout and cognitive dissonance in the population.

Note: We do use YouTube Video’s under the “Fair Use” Act under the Copyright Law:

“Fair use is a doctrine in the United States copyright law codified in Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976.¹ It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author’s work without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as for commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching or scholarship.⁰¹ The U.S. Copyright Office Fair Use Index should prove helpful in understanding what courts have to date considered to be fair or not fair but it is not a substitute for legal advice.²“