Tags
anti-feminism, blogging, Christianity, culture, faith, insanitybytes, opinion, women
A little article here that gave me pause, “3 challenges for Christian feminists and egalitarians.”
I’m going to address this a bit tongue and cheek, from a position of vast female superiority, not really believing women are superior or more valuable, but simply rejoicing and delighting in how wonderful it is to be women. Female privilege is a real thing in the world, there are genuine benefits.
Indeed, there are atrocities still being committed against women the world over, and children….. and men. Men suffer a great deal from human rights violations and they are the most likely to get themselves killed in the process. Even in the Western world men are statistically the most likely to be of victims of homicide, also suicide, and the most likely to die in combat. The atrocities men face are rendered somewhat invisible and that again speaks to an aspect of female privilege. Culturally we are all far more horrified when atrocities happen to women than when they happen to men.
So the first qualm in this article that I have comes in this sentence, “the theological position that works from the basis that men and women were created to function in equal, non-hierarchical roles in the church and family.” Equality, which denotes sameness is a fool’s errand. While it’s honorable, noble, to recognize that everyone has value, worth, in God’s eyes, limiting our value so we perceive it only as equal to another’s, does not honor the abundance of God, the kind of worth and value He has placed on us. He gave His only begotten Son to save us. We were worth suffering and dying for. We can never hope to be worthy of that sacrifice, but I think that’s where our eyes need to be, all of us. Earthly men are lovely and they have many things to teach us, and while it is valuable to learn from them, we are really all striving to emulate Jesus Christ. My worth and value can never be based on simply attaining equality with men.
In the earthly world hierarchies exist and serve a vital purpose. We don’t put just anyone in charge of surgery for example, we select those who are well-trained and have proven themselves. There is a hierarchy between parents and children, we lead them because hopefully we are smarter than a 4th grader and have more wisdom and experience than they do. There are divisions of labor that often happen along gender lines. My husband tends to clean the gutters and pump the septic tank, while I mop floors and go grocery shopping. It is virtually impossible to measure those different roles in terms of “equal.” I often consider being indoors, warm, comfortable, shopping or cleaning, far preferable to being out in the weather trying to make the plumbing work when it is bubbling up all around you.
The second qualm I have is here, “For me, egalitarianism is just one ‘branch’ of feminism as a whole. To work towards egalitarian goals is important, but a focus on better inclusion of women in existing Christian culture can feel limited and insufficient for those who exist on the margins of this culture in the first place.“
This statement totally overlooks the fact that women within Christian culture enjoy more freedom, inclusion, and protection than we ever have had anywhere else, even in the days of old. In the Western world, women as a group enjoy more rights, freedom, choices, opportunities than we have had at any other time in history, the world over. True, there are still some lunkheads in the world, some cultians who pervert scripture, but over all, “Christian culture” is one of the most beneficial places for women to be, inclusive, loving, and rather kind towards women.
Ironically it is usually women who always insist on women “existing on the margins of society.” I rather resent the endless negative messages, you are a woman, you are a victim, you are marginalized, you are oppressed, men hate you, the patriarchy is out to get you. These are incredibly negative words to be speaking over our sisters. Conversely, we also hate that outfit she is wearing and her skirt is too short…
Some days I wonder when we ever get to the part were we lift one another up, remind each other to keep our eyes on Jesus, praise one another for the race we are all running, rejoice in the blessings that Christian culture has bestowed upon us, perceive men as great allies, as the earthly lovers of our souls, and begin rejoicing in the beauty of womanhood and what it all means.
Romantic and crazy dreams I’m sure, but they are real enough, I have seen them, I have lived them, I do live them….until someone pops up to interrupt and inform me that women are actually marginalized, that we have no equality, that we are chronic victims of some misappropriated hierarchy.
One more thing, regarding “..those who exist on the margins of this culture..” Those are sticky waters to navigate and one must be very careful about seeking the approval of men, the favor of the culture, becasue to be called to Jesus Christ really does require one to be set apart, to be in the world but not of the world, to exist some what on the margins. Again, God is a God of abundance and to “feel limited and insufficient,” in that relationship with Him is often an indication that we have not placed our eyes in the right place.
See, there's this thing called biology... 
In the Western World, it is not a disadvantage to be a women. It is foolish, however, for some men to do gutters. It’s an epilepsy thing. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ha! Yes, some should not be climbing ladders…or touching anything electrical, but we won’t speak of that right now. 😉
LikeLike
Even in the Western world men are statistically the most likely to be of victims of homicide, also suicide, and the most likely to die in combat. The atrocities men face are rendered somewhat invisible and that again speaks to an aspect of female privilege.
The problem with statistics is that they can work against you as well – A 2013 global study on homicide by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime found that males accounted for about 96 percent of all homicide perpetrators worldwide. Also, according to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the percent of victims killed by their spouses or ex-spouses in 2011 were 77.4 percent women and 22.6 percent men in selected countries across Europe. According to the data given by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, worldwide, 78.7% of homicide victims are male, and in 193 of the 202 listed countries or regions, males were more likely to be killed than females. – In short, not only are males more likely to be victims, they’re also more likely to be perpetrators as well. How you get men murdering men equals female privilege is a mystery.
LikeLike
“How you get men murdering men equals female privilege is a mystery.”
Well, it seems to me that the fact that men suffer such tragedy in the world while women do not, again speaks to female privilege. I do not experiences the same burdens that men do, I am far less likely to engage in homicide or to become someone elses collateral damage. Female privilege actually protects me from such violence.
I suppose another way of looking at it is that even in their wounding and brokenness, statistics show that men are more likely to take it out on themselves and each other, indicating that women do enjoy a kind of protected status.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’d argue that the power to decide the fate of another person – whether they will live or die suggests that men often view other men as a threat to their power, wealth, station, influence, possessions, and class. It doesn’t seem that women merit equal treatment because they’re not an equal threat, rather, they’re beneath them – so women get to be the victims of the rampant violence that does plague them and is perpetrated by men. Hierarchy does that – women aren’t the equal of men, so they don’t merit being treated as their equals, but inferiors. All it proves is that hierarchy is not good. Hierarchy wasn’t good when slave masters were superior to their slaves. Hierarchy wasn’t good when the wealthy were superior to the poor. Hierarchy isn’t good when men are superior to women, have temporal priority over women, have authority over women. Feeding the lie only perpetrates the idea that it’s right that men protect women (from other men) not realizing that the men must also protect women from themselves would save a lot of lives – like those of the women who were killed by their husbands who were supposed to protect them from others (and themselves).
LikeLike
I think if we truly wish to reduce violence and end abuse we must work towards empowering men, not robbing them of power. Men who engage in violence and abuse are wounded, insecure, not confident in who and what they are as men. Men need more power, not less, because internalized power is what prevents us from trying to take it from others.
“It doesn’t seem that women merit equal treatment because they’re not an equal threat..”
Your question, your argument seems all wrong to me. Do we really wish to be perceived as a threat? If it is being suggested that being perceived as an equal threat is what leads to more men getting themselves killed, where’s the payoff for women here? Narrowing the gap in homicide statistics between men and women?
LikeLike
The best way to end the violence between two power-hungry men is to give them more power? Why not douse a fire by giving it more gasoline? The ideal world have no murderers and no murderesses, but we don’t live in an ideal world – but one where violent, abusive, and insecure men who lack confidence are far too often given more power than is good for them. I remember in our last conversation, your advice to an abused woman was to shrink and become powerless so that the more powerful man would get more power. Do the math, power plus more power creates more problems. It fuels the fire that burns out of control.
Perhaps it wasn’t the right word, but in terms of power/strength, it takes an equal to make another person back down. It takes the captain of the wrestling team to keep the bullies in check, not the captain of the chess team (in terms of sterotypes, the analogy fails if the captains of the chess club and wrestling team are one and the same person.). It’s standing up to a person and speaking out against their bad ideas that causes them to reconsider their course of action. Women need that power to voice their thoughts and be considered as equals, who can say ‘no’ and mean it and be taken seriously because she speaks with her own authority that is equal to that of men. And this is speaking beyond murder statistics. Murder statistics are just a symptom of the disease.
LikeLike
“The best way to end the violence between two power-hungry men is to give them more power?”
Yes. Counter intuitive, isn’t it? But listen to your own words, “power hungry.” What are they hungry for? Power! So you feed them with authentic power, the kind that works internally, the power within that feeds their own hunger. We speak of empowering women all the time and people think nothing of it, but the moment you speak of empowering men, people grow concerned. So what we are basically saying is that men are inferior, unworthy of having any power at all, even power over their own selves.
“..it takes an equal to make another person back down.” Surprisingly, no. That is only true in a physical contest of wills. It only takes authority over oneself to back others down. Women will never create peace in their own lives if we believe the only way to have a voice is to deprive men of their own power, so things are more “equal,”so we never face any threats.
“…your advice to an abused woman was to shrink and become powerless so that the more powerful man would get more power.”
In that context, back than I was speaking to the fact that when women are being abused, they cannot win. The idea of shrinking is about survival. You have now become a threat to him. Ideally women would surrender to the fact that they are indeed powerless, and get out before they get hurt. In an abuse situation it’s actually very harmful to tell women that if they shrink, they are only making a powerful man more powerful. Uh, no, they have already lost the battle. He is indeed more powerful. They must submit to the idea that they have now lost and that the problem is much bigger than them.
LikeLike
You assume that giving power-hungry people more power would ‘fill’ them up. Have you considered the far likelier outcome that they wouldn’t be satisfied? Give an inch – take a mile sort of thing? I remember reading an old quote – “your levelers want their superiors to come down to their level, but they’re not helping to raise their inferiors up.” it was referring to classism, but it’s a good thought – men are typically at the superior level, men are over-represented in politics, business, law, academia, and STEM careers. When we talk of empowering women, we mean to bring them up to the level of men. Men fear losing the power they have and often aren’t willing to give it up, to raise up women to their level because their own power is far more precious to them. 50/50 seems to frighten you, why? Ideally, there would be equality, no over-representation of one at the expense of the other. No favoritism of one at the expense of the other. If anything, it’s a power balance, taking what the men have usurped and restoring it to where it should have been all along.
I don’t think in the midst of being attacked that women should submit and accept their powerless. They should fight back enough to flee. I don’t think women should accept being a punching bag, or being shot at because they’re weak. The earlier statistic shows that about 75% of domestic violence murders are committed by men, meaning that about 75% of victims are women. That’s just unacceptable that we should just accept it.
LikeLike
“I don’t think in the midst of being attacked that women should submit and accept their powerless. They should fight back enough to flee.”
Well, that is the time women are the most likely to get themselves killed, when fighting back and fleeing There’s a better way to fight a bit smarter, especially when you are physically less likely to win.
You speak of how we “shouldn’t accept” 3 times, but actual survival often requires us to accept the truth. It is not about winning a power struggle, it is about surviving to tell the tale.
“If anything, it’s a power balance, taking what the men have usurped and restoring it to where it should have been all along.”
Sounds rather revenge based to me, as if men have stolen something and we must now steal it back. Do we also steal back the alleged usurped power of being the most likely to die in suicide, homicide, and combat?
LikeLike
You might as well be telling women to stand perfectly still that their husbands don’t have to try to hit or shoot a moving target – that’s not helpful and it certainly won’t save their life – it won’t help them to survive. I guess that depends on what you define as true, I believe that what you are saying is true to you and for you, but not necessarily to anyone who isn’t you. I was reminded of a quote recently, “It’s the gloomy things that need our help, if everything in the garden in sunny, why meddle?” Since we’re talking about this, it has to be gloomy and it must need help. We just have a difference of opinion as to what constitutes as being helpful. If we had more women in charge, more women in politics and as presidents, we’d be far more likely to have leaders who would not commit to war and less people dying in combat. Don’t sell the ability of women short, for centuries many have been going to war even against the wishes of men. Those who would fight anyway deserve our support no matter who they are. I’m sure that women would do just as well as the men, the ones that have already won awards have proven that they are indeed capable. Those women are astounding and deserve to be celebrated for their accomplishments. People are born, going to live as they please, and are going to die. We can’t change that and we can’t rule everybody else and make decisions for them. We can educate our population, create support groups, stress the importance of connection and friendship – but we have to throw away this “women this” “men that” gender ideas that just complicate our reality – women can and do and will fight and kill and die in combat just like men. Men and women aren’t that different – ten fingers, ten toes, two arms, two legs, a head with two eyes, and two ears. Everyone is far more similar than different – isn’t that what Adam said: “bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh – you’re just like me and I’m just like you!” It makes no sense telling two peas in a pod that one of them is actually a strawberry.
LikeLike
“If we had more women in charge, more women in politics and as presidents, we’d be far more likely to have leaders who would not commit to war and less people dying in combat.”
Do you really believe that? It seems to me as if you are saying that women are vitally different, that we are far more virtuous, that we would actually end war and violence. So that speaks to the fact that you believe there are some innate gender differences there.
But than you say, “but we have to throw away this “women this” “men that” gender ideas that just complicate our reality.”
Now you’ve gone and complicated my reality. Which is it? Are we drastically different or virtually the same?
LikeLike
I wasn’t thinking in terms of gender differences. Instead of using ‘men’ and ‘women’ switch to ‘republican’ and ‘democrat’. Create a world where republicans are over-represented in law, academia, politics, everything. The republicans would all agree to stick with the republican party line because that’s why they’re republicans and they’re powerful, they think, speak, breathe, and understand republican and can sometimes ignore everything that isn’t republican. Now imagine democrats asking to be made 50/50 partners in everything. No longer would the republicans have the majority vote. I don’t want a world where the majority rule because they’re more of them and they’re more powerful. I want a world where there is a balance of opinions – and if it’s one thing I know it’s that a group of people who all pretty much agree in everything all have the same blind spots. I want people for the other side, for every republican, a democrat, for every tall person, a short person, for every right-hander, a left-hander. For everybody from the east, a westerner, for every northerner, a southerner. Let’s try this experiment and see what happens: how leadership changes if our default preference for ‘male’ is switched to ‘female’. We can see how things would change and which is better. Take the scientific approach – make a theory, try an experiment, gather data, review the results. Who knows, we might find that it’s not that different and men and women aren’t different and it wouldn’t have been a problem but we won’t know if we don’t try. Can you think of any good reasons why women shouldn’t be 50/50 partners in everything with men? I thought we were all human.
LikeLike
“Can you think of any good reasons why women shouldn’t be 50/50 partners in everything with men? I thought we were all human.”
Well, if we’re going to insist on a 50/50 quota where women now fill all the jobs and roles traditionally held by men, what we’re actually saying is that the only jobs that matter are those that are male defined. Who now picks up all the work women have been doing for centuries? Is that work now no longer important? And why do we believe that being a politician is now vastly superior to being a stay at home mom?
Also, we’re going to have to kick half the men out to make room. What are they now supposed to be doing with themselves?
Than there is the additional issue of what each gender actually desires to do with themselves. Women may not want a career in STEM in equal numbers to men, she may want a home, families, babies. When we push too hard for what we believe should be a more politically correct version of reality we often create more misery and unhappiness because people aren’t really allowed to follow their heart, they’re forced to meet politically correct expectations based on some elses definition of equality.
Also, in the Western world where women hold hardly any seats in congress, we have somehow managed to acquire, property rights, the right to vote, and several other advancements, without ever having 50/50 representation or anything close. So we could make a good argument that one need not be in a male defined role to be heard, and that in fact, women have been quite effective without it.
LikeLike
What about the flipside? Men who would rather be stay at home dads? Men and women who don’t want and won’t have children? If we really want people to follow their heart – then that means supporting them when they don’t do what we don’t want them to do because we know it’s what makes them happiest. That means supporting women who want to be career women. One thing that is often overlooked about the past is that women didn’t really start getting options until rather recently in terms of history – my grandmother used to have a guy countersign for any loan she wanted to take, my other one was a single mother back in the day when all the other woman treated her poorly supposing she was a home-wrecker. This is really the first time when large numbers of women had options to have careers of their own. No one ever seems to ask a guy how he will be a businessman and a father, but always seem to women how they’ll be a mother and a businesswoman. The idea that men can handle both and women can’t is insulting to women. I’m all for letting everyone follow their heart and fulfilling their potential and making their dreams come true – I wouldn’t say “well he’s a guy/she’s a girl so he can do this or she can do that, but not the other way around” I don’t think that one’s gender limits the opportunities available to anyone – and why we’re long overdue for women to do be less limited in their options. Many doors are now open, but not all of them and that means there’s still some work to be done.
LikeLike
Jamie,
A quick look at your blog suggests that you consider the Bible to be of some importance, and that you are unashamedly egalitarian.
As to your belief that hierarchy is inherently wrong, I suspect it is strongly related to Item 5 of your core beliefs. I disagree with your interpretation of Mark 10:41-45. You believe that it means we are to “lay down our own authority, not exercise it over others”. I posit that Jesus was instructing the Apostles to use their authority in a loving fashion (that is, in line with Item 2 of your core beliefs, being the “Golden Rule”). This is entirely in keeping with other teaching in the New Testament that is related to hierarchies.
For example, here are some of the verses stipulating how the Christian higher in the hierarchy is to treat those who are lower:
Masters to slaves
[Eph. 6:9 NASB] 9 And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.
Husbands to wives
[Eph. 5:28 NASB] 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;
Rich to poor
[James 2:3, 9 NASB] 3 and you pay special attention to the one who is wearing the fine clothes, and say, “You sit here in a good place,” and you say to the poor man, “You stand over there, or sit down by my footstool,” … 9 But if you show partiality, you are committing sin and are convicted by the law as transgressors.
Parents to children (you didn’t mention this but it is also a hierarchy)
[Eph 6:4 NASB] 4 Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.
I do not read these scriptures to say that hierarchy is bad. Rather, there is instruction on how the higher person is to behave, in effect, that abuse of hierarchical authority is sin.
Tell me, where does the Bible say that hierarchy itself, as opposed to the abuse of hierarchy, is not good? Or, as I suspect, is your statement based on something else?
You also seem to believe the worst when it comes to power. You say “Do the math, power plus more power creates more problems.” and “Have you considered the far likelier outcome that they wouldn’t be satisfied? Give an inch – take a mile sort of thing?”
What did Jesus say about letting others have more power?
[Matt. 5:39-41 NASB] 39 “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. 41 Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.”
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Talmidimblogging.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re very welcome!
LikeLike
In our culture today, more and more men are withdrawing their protection, provision, and productiveness; mostly because women spit on us for our sacrifices. To most women, men are only valuable for breeding purposes (and given the thugs and retards they usually lust after, they don’t even consider us especially valuable for that).
If one looks at a completely emasculated society like Sweden, you get the Feminist Utopia. Swedish men don’t even bother to protect women from the Jihadist thugs over there—that would be racist and sexist, after all—and besides, Swedish women (if they’re anything like American ones) probably prefer gang-rape by foreign barbarians to a ‘boring’ relationship to some nobody who has a job, uses soap, and would actually sacrifice his life for her.
In contrast, you look at pictures of Syria where you see MEN, covered with blood and gunpowder, safely bringing home women and children they’ve rescued from some Jihadist torture-camp. But our society calls those guys Oppressors and lament for the poor women brought home to be enslaved once again by home and family.
It isn’t any wonder that male suicide rates are what they are in Western countries. A man has no rights that women or minorities need respect.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“In our culture today, more and more men are withdrawing their protection, provision, and productiveness; mostly because women spit on us for our sacrifices.”
I’m going with no, Eric. The protection and kindness of men is a built in biological thing, a fail safe in the design so to speak. True, in a proper civilization men come to refine their natural attributes, to take them to a higher level, and women can encourage that by heaping praise and admiration over them. Outside of that system, men tend to be much less refined, much rougher around the edges, but it is still there, powerfully evident.
Your suicide rates are a grievous and painful example of that, but the majority of men, even when they are hurting, even when they have nothing left, will turn against themselves or each other, not women. It takes a huge amount of wounding and brokenness to break that biological tie that leads men to protect women at all costs.
Oddly it is the red pills who taught me this, the elaborate rationalizations, the broken psyches, the relentless compulsion to fuel their hatred so they can try to justify what they are saying and doing. Their red pill “truth” is actually to deny the nature of their own biology, who and what they are in the biological equation. Heart breaking because who and what they are is something quite beautiful, but rather than embracing that, they create this imaginary world where they have been deceived by the all power feminine imperative. They must constantly rationalize their own unwillingness to protect women because it is not natural. ai yi yi…
Interesting, but men do not engage in protection, provision, and productiveness, exclusively because of the rewards women heap on them. It helps for sure, but those things are actually somewhat innate to men. Even those who don’t have a relationship with women, will often have a cat or a dog, a creature to lavish their provision, protection, and production upon.
LikeLike
Really good article, IB. Whenever I read about this egalitarian approach, it strikes me that the advocates aren’t concerned with equal but with sameness. Consequently, there seems to be a push toward women doing just what men do—working like men, behaving like men, bearing burdens like men. That’s simply wrong-headed and an actual denigration of women. We aren’t worthwhile, the thinking seems to be, unless we are acting like men.
That’s not to say that women haven’t benefited from being allowed to play sports or vote or run our own businesses. The opportunities women enjoy, however, don’t have to mean in order to succeed we must forego the qualities that make us women.
In so many ways I’ve felt the feminist approach has reduced female privilege. For example, there’s talk, now that women can be in the military at the combat level, about including women in the draft, should we have need to conscript soldiers again. Another example, some women have been required to pay spousal support. Once men stood in the presence of a lady; opened doors for women; walked on the street-side of the sidewalk so that any mud splatter would be on them, not the woman; carried heavy burdens; and did any manner of other kind things simply as a courtesy to women. Just a few years ago a guy in the newspaper office where I was working, rebuked another guy for his language because I was in the room.
Seriously, women have had privilege, but feminists seem determined to do away with every shred of it, and with what makes a woman, a woman in the process.
Becky
LikeLiked by 1 person
Conversely too, it’s causing the denigration of men and masculinity; there’s the same push to make men act more like women. Look at the way homosexual and transsexual men are praised in this society; we get the same message reversed; men aren’t worthwhile unless they’re acting like women.
I think of the recent incident with the Iranian Navy. Crying and appealing to a captor’s mercy is normal feminine behavior; but here American men did it—and went even further by submitting to the more virile Iranian men; kneeling before them and apologizing to them on video. And our Pentagon perverts and media scum praised what they did; and communities tear down monuments to real war heroes as ‘offensive’.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Eric, I agree completely. It’s so strange, but I think it’s what God said would happen when He meted out Eve’s share of the punishment after the fall. Woman wants Man’s role and it destroys both. Apart from Christ.
Becky
LikeLiked by 1 person
You both make really good points. As a culture we are trying to erase all that makes men and women unique and wonderful, and the next step is to erase marriage, too. Marriage thrives when there is a blending of that uniqueness, it is the male and female attributes that attract us to one another, that allow us to empathize and commit.
Becky is right, it is quite charming when a man rebukes another for his language because there are ladies about. I try not to look around and quip, “where?” Ha! I jest, it really is quite sweet.
The incident with the Iranian Navy was tragic. I don’t know all the details, but the very act of trying to get those men to appear feminine and submissive was pure propaganda designed to humiliate us. As usual, I am appalled by the shortsightedness of our leaders.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great stuff, IB. Our society is rife with men and women completely screwed up, twisted up, and self-torturing over the fallacies and damage of feminism. Even not being a feminist myself I’ve actually suffered quite a bit of unnecessary emotional pain and mistreatment because of the effect of feminism on men and I think even in some ways on myself, despite the fact that I intentionally oppose it. It’s a tragedy. I’ve never suffered a thing from any men who truly believed the New Testament teachings to husbands to love and care for their wives as a delicate and valuable depression-ware vase so to speak. But those guys who ignore it and think only of themselves or those guys who try to mix Biblical teaching together with feminism, or even just put feminism first…watch out.
LikeLike
Or those guys who resent woman-kind because of the harms of feminism OR because of stupid embittered stereotypes about nagging wives or “the ball-and-chain”. The resentful bitter ones are powerfully destructive!
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Even not being a feminist myself I’ve actually suffered quite a bit of unnecessary emotional pain and mistreatment because of the effect of feminism on men and I think even in some ways on myself, despite the fact that I intentionally oppose it”
Oh yes, I could write absolute volumes about that, about the harm that was done to me under the guise of feminism, to my children, men I have encountered. I can honestly say that alone has been far more damaging than all the times I have been a bug on some man’s windshield.
LikeLike
“men hate you, the patriarchy is out to get you.”
Well, um, sometimes this is true, and I’m not talking necessarily just men here, but also women and the disintegration of authority structures of other types….and don’t get all freaked out about that, but look at some of what we’ve seen lately from those in the news (who shall remain nameless). Celebrity status can do weird things to people. You’re better off out of the limelight; those in celebrity status can give everybody a bad name. This is why authority structure is so important. But that’s why I’m a Catholic and plan to stay that way…..just as I have also seen what happens when people remove themselves from that type of authority/accountability structure. I grew up in the traditionalist movement, and that means that you have all sorts of opinions and all sorts of arguments over VII, the Papacy, you name it, et cetera ad nauseam.
My own experience has been, if you come away from the authority structure, you’re going downhill. It starts with the Church authority structure, and then trickles down — stay under it, and you’ll generally be OK. Come out from under it, and it wreaks havoc on everybody. I found that parental authority and paternal authority was gravely misused when families came out from under the ecclesiastical authority. The folks on top were supreme on top, they didn’t answer to anybody, and the splintering happened. Just my experience; yours may be different. I’ve seen what I’ve seen, but I’m sure you’ve seen other things as well. I am sure this will get me in a heap of trouble with some of your commenters, IB, but I’ve seen people operate without authority structures over them (possible exception of their own interpretation of the Bible, and when you lack an authority structure there, you can interpret it any way you like) and it hasn’t been pretty.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As a male, I don’t feel qualified to comment IB – it seems to me that a lot of which you speak is controlled by how each individual woman feels. Also, “equal” and “same” are not interchangeable. You raised kids – you know how that works – If you give your 7 year old son a bicycle, that does not mean you should give your 3 year old a bicycle too – that would be the same. Rather you want to treat them equal so perhaps you give the three year old a new doll.
Your argument that there should be no hierarchy is one that I don’t quite agree with. I find that there are times I feel closer to God and then I would like my wife to follow. There are very definitely often times that my wife is closer to God and then I follow. So, I would say that as much as each should have a personal relationship with God (something I have always encouraged), at any given time, it is possible that one would lead the other and vice versa. So, (I’m thinking as I write here – you get the old noggins humming) it is not a matter whether there is a hierarchy – there always is – it is a matter of which hierarchy is chosen at any given time. That’s my story and I am sticking to it – I think. Ha!
LikeLike
“Your argument that there should be no hierarchy is one that I don’t quite agree with”
I think I was arguing the precise opposite. I agree, there is always a hierarchy. Feminism, egalitarianism, denies that, or rather dismisses all hierarchies as bad.
Relationships are an interesting dance, so lead, follow, yes I understand what you are saying. The thing is like with a dance you cannot simply trade off back and forth so one is leading while the other is following and it keeps alternating. In a proper dance, men have to stand, keep their frame, all of the time. That totally, completely requires a man to listen, to take her needs into consideration, to follow her lead sometimes, to listen to her and God Himself…. but who is actually responsible there? He is. What often happens is that in the very process of trying to being fair, men will completely drop their own frame, more than happy to let her handle it all. Then along comes the egalitarians constantly shaming us with lectures about how she needs even more “equal,” and before you know it she is doing it all, being it all, and carrying all the emotional weight a man has now set down.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Don’t be. You always give me some good food for thought. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Paul,
I appreciate your willingness to admit that you were wrong because you misunderstood. It makes discussion more fruitful and also more pleasant. Thank you for the example.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great points. I have to wonder at the insistence that women exist on the margins in your typical Protestant church. Aside from the pastorate, the women are usually running the place! Ah, but that’s precisely where our egalitarians are going…”Why aren’t the plum positions of ‘power” occupied by the women? That’s what we want!”…I think they have selectively forgotten that the True Church’s power structure is exactly upside-down according to Christ. Luke 22: 25-26. Servanthood is to be what we seek.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Amen, Madblog. Servanthood is what we seek or should be seeking anyway. I think those that truly understand that are more likely to be praying for the strength to handle all our responsibilities, rather than feeling pushed out onto the margins. Somewhat funny, but the margins is where you rest, as in can I just sit this one out and cheer you all on? 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
In the Christian / Biblical tradition, it does not seem like parents only have authority over children because they are older and wiser, but because they are parents. It doesn’t seem to be just a pragmatic arrangement. Jesus, we assume, was holier than his parents and yet obeyed them.
In the NT, a presbyter or episcopos exercises authority over the congregation because he was appointed by an apostle, who in turn was appointed by Christ, not because he is smarter or wiser.
The same would go for married couples: Paul recommends a husband exercise authority over his wife not because he is smarter, but because he is a husband.
That having been said, we tend to have a dour view of authority and focus on abuses of it. But human authority is never absolute, it is always circumscribed and it exists for the common good.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You makes some really good points. I like to think of it all in terms of roles too, jobs we are given to do.
LikeLike