I was reading in one of my textbooks today, Western Civilization by Jackson J. Spielvogel, about the rise of the women's movement in the 1970s-1990s, and an interesting thought struck me. It was occasioned, I think, mainly by this passage: "Women got together to share their personal experiences and become aware of the many ways that male dominance affected their lives. This consciousness-raising helped many women become activists" (853).
One question that can be immediately raised, of course, is how pervasive and marked a problem this can be if groups had to be started in order to convince women just how repressed they were, or are. Nevertheless, that was not the subject of my thought.
What I did think was how curious the goals of the feminist movement are. They identified some real abuses, past and present, of the Biblical notion of male headship (which they would also vehemently deny, but they will have to argue that point with God if they get the chance). Yet their reaction, in the midst of this discovery, seems odd. To me, it appears evident that the best solution to any problems in the familial and societal structures would be an attempt to achieve some level of cooperation between male and female. The feminist is not going to look to the real answer to this, the Bible, but even so, any sensible person should notice that men and women are built, physically, mentally, and emotionally, to match and augment one another. This holds true in spite of all tantrums, arguments, break-ups, and the like.
And yet, what the feminists seem to be doing, in this passage and today, is fighting for a complete separation and autonomy between the sexes. Take another passage, for instance. "Women sought and gained a measure of control over their own bodies by insisting that they had a right to both contraception and abortion" (Spielvogel, 853). Although it is undoubtedly the woman who carries the child, this hardly seems to take into consideration the flip-side of the matter. A man's body is also necessary for children, and the children are as much his own as the mother's. It is probably true that in olden times (and in many cultures today, most notably Islamic and African ones) that men could demand to sleep with their wives whenever they wanted, and simultaneously refuse any kind of contraception, thus, in a sense, forcing the woman to bear more children than the family could realistically care for. There are multiple problems with such an attitude, and the blame in that case would be entirely on the man.
Yet here again feminism has jumped over to quite the opposite side of the issue, in which the woman is the sole arbiter of her sex life, number of children, etc. The man is a kind of unwanted guest, tolerated because he is necessary, and perhaps the more disliked because he is. If anything, this seems to be denying the man any control over his body (quite aside from the issue of the baby's body, which I may raise in another post later) as much as any previous state of affairs denied the woman that control. Again, there are many other issues that could be raised here, and which I probably will raise when I think them through, including the selfishness that seems to be inherent in thinking first of "controlling one's own body" in a marital relationship, as if one of the deepest things about that relationship is not giving oneself selflessly to one's spouse. But my main point here is that, in most respects, feminism seems to emphasize, not any kind of mutual solution to the problems they perceive, nor even, really, any association with men on any level but the most necessary. They do not seem to want to be respected by men, honored by men, or even loved by men: they want to be men. And that kind of autonomous, separate, independent attitude can only be dangerous for human beings no more designed to be men than men are to be women.
~Connor
One question that can be immediately raised, of course, is how pervasive and marked a problem this can be if groups had to be started in order to convince women just how repressed they were, or are. Nevertheless, that was not the subject of my thought.
What I did think was how curious the goals of the feminist movement are. They identified some real abuses, past and present, of the Biblical notion of male headship (which they would also vehemently deny, but they will have to argue that point with God if they get the chance). Yet their reaction, in the midst of this discovery, seems odd. To me, it appears evident that the best solution to any problems in the familial and societal structures would be an attempt to achieve some level of cooperation between male and female. The feminist is not going to look to the real answer to this, the Bible, but even so, any sensible person should notice that men and women are built, physically, mentally, and emotionally, to match and augment one another. This holds true in spite of all tantrums, arguments, break-ups, and the like.
And yet, what the feminists seem to be doing, in this passage and today, is fighting for a complete separation and autonomy between the sexes. Take another passage, for instance. "Women sought and gained a measure of control over their own bodies by insisting that they had a right to both contraception and abortion" (Spielvogel, 853). Although it is undoubtedly the woman who carries the child, this hardly seems to take into consideration the flip-side of the matter. A man's body is also necessary for children, and the children are as much his own as the mother's. It is probably true that in olden times (and in many cultures today, most notably Islamic and African ones) that men could demand to sleep with their wives whenever they wanted, and simultaneously refuse any kind of contraception, thus, in a sense, forcing the woman to bear more children than the family could realistically care for. There are multiple problems with such an attitude, and the blame in that case would be entirely on the man.
Yet here again feminism has jumped over to quite the opposite side of the issue, in which the woman is the sole arbiter of her sex life, number of children, etc. The man is a kind of unwanted guest, tolerated because he is necessary, and perhaps the more disliked because he is. If anything, this seems to be denying the man any control over his body (quite aside from the issue of the baby's body, which I may raise in another post later) as much as any previous state of affairs denied the woman that control. Again, there are many other issues that could be raised here, and which I probably will raise when I think them through, including the selfishness that seems to be inherent in thinking first of "controlling one's own body" in a marital relationship, as if one of the deepest things about that relationship is not giving oneself selflessly to one's spouse. But my main point here is that, in most respects, feminism seems to emphasize, not any kind of mutual solution to the problems they perceive, nor even, really, any association with men on any level but the most necessary. They do not seem to want to be respected by men, honored by men, or even loved by men: they want to be men. And that kind of autonomous, separate, independent attitude can only be dangerous for human beings no more designed to be men than men are to be women.
~Connor
2 comments:
Good thinking, Dear, and you know I agree with you. I, of course, lived through this turmoil (though I didn't really know it as turmoil at the time), and was certainly influenced by it to an extent, not being a Christian at that tender time of my life. What amazes me is the lack of actual clear-thinking on the part of these women (and many men, as well). The unintended consequences that have resulted from much of the feminist agenda is staggering, as evidenced by books such as The War Against Boys and others.
As we discussed on our walk last night, many of these women want to be "equal" with men (whatever exactly that means), and be independent (I am strong, I am invincible, I am woman!), yet for the most part they are always championing government intervention or programs to support their goofy ideas. So, they aren't as independent as they would like to think.
"One question that can be immediately raised, of course, is how pervasive and marked a problem this can be if groups had to be started in order to convince women just how repressed they were, or are."
My thoughts exactly, (but better expressed)!
Post a Comment