The Close of Feminism

In my mind, it's simple. I hate feminism with a passion. But even more than that, I hate the two kinds of men that have caused feminism. You read that right. I strongly believe that feminism exists because of two kinds of men: domineering tyrannical men, and wimpy abdicating men. I don't care what woman you are, I guarantee you don't want either of these two. If you think of yourself as perverted, you might go so far as to say you want one of these, but you wouldn't be happy with him.

But if I say I hate feminism, you feminists are immediately going to cry out that I hate women. Pardon me, but that is a non sequitur of the first rank. As one wise man used to say, "It followeth no way." What I am objecting to is an ideology, not those who hold the ideology, and certainly not those who don't hold to it. See my earlier blog on logic for an explanation as to why it is possible to attack an idea without attacking the people who hold the idea.

If you want to know what I hate about feminism, just go here.
The funniest thing about feminism, to my mind, is that feminists want to make women to be like men, of all things. I thought they hated men? Or at least regarded them as second-class citizens? Generally, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I'm not sure I can say that that works in this case. The male sex is not an enviable one; ladies, you really need not envy it.

Another funny thing about feminism is the lack of perspective. Feminism wants to empower women. I presume that means that the feminists want to make women more powerful. More powerful than what? Than the idea of being a mother at home? What is power? To me, the idea of a woman being more powerful in the workforce is laughable. Here's an idea that not one feminist I've ever run across has ever been able to refute.

The hypothesis is this: women are more powerful (defined as the ability to change society, to influence society) in the home raising children than doing about anything else. Why? Let's make it concrete. Take Jim, a man in the workforce. He interacts with lots of people in his daily work, but almost all of them are grown-ups. Suppose he wants to influence other people; well, most of them have already formed their opinions, and are not likely to change. Now take Susan, a stay-at-home mother. She has major, major influence over her children because she is with them all the time, helping them to form good opinions in the formative years of their lives. Now you tell me, who's more powerful: Jim or Susan? The answer is clear. Not one man in a million has the power to influence society so much as a woman raising children at home.

I had my doubts about posting this. Here I am, handing a most potent weapon to the feminists, should they choose to use it.

I would say one thing more. The feminists have wanted equal power for men and women. Aside from the silly category of "power" being used in the first place, I'd say you've managed to shift the power in the other direction. Suppose a woman has a complaint against a man. It is the woman's word that is taken at face value, and the man has to prove his innocence (if he really is innocent). I suppose I'm thinking generally of sexual harrassment. All of a sudden, our standards of proof have vanished into thin air. All that is required to convict a man of sexual harassment is for a woman to say it is so. (At this point, men should be quaking in their shoes. If some woman just "has a thing" against a man, she can ruin his life for good.) The reasoning is that a woman wouldn't have the courage to stand up to him unless it were that easy. Excuse me, but doesn't the Bible say that only on the testimony of two or three witnesses can a man be condemned of anything? I seem to recall reading that somewhere.

Let's get rid of this modern ugliness and silliness and return to a biblical view of manhood and womanhood: the complementarian view. This view states that men and women are equal in the sight of God, but have different roles to play. And having different roles, feminists, does not imply one is superior to the other! Which is better: a china teacup, or a sledgehammer? It depends on what you want to do.

Men, the buck stops with us. We have to understand the biblical idea of covenant (marriage is a covenant), and then execute our office of covenant head. Not domination, nor servility, but dominion. Yet again, we seem to find that the truth is a knife-edge: stray but a little, and you will fall, to the ruin of many. Dominion is a complicated animal, and not well served in a blog. For further teaching on this concept, I would refer you to two Douglas Wilson books. One is Reforming Marriage, and the other is Federal Husband.