Monday, September 19, 2005

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.

Visit Math Help Boards for friendly, free and expert math help.


At 9/21/2005 08:00:00 AM , Blogger Kim C. said...

Great article, Adrian! I posted a quote on feminism to my own blog that you might appreciate:
I love your reasoning about "empowering women," and the power that they are giving up when they leave the workplace.
Keep up the good work.
BTW, I used to know your family. We went to church together in Colleyville. Remember the Browns, with all the kids? (you might were pretty young I think)

At 9/21/2005 09:48:00 AM , Blogger Mr. Baggins said...

I remember the Browns somewhat. Are you one of the children, or are you the mother?

At 9/21/2005 09:34:00 PM , Blogger Adrian C. Keister said...

I think I remember the Coghlans even more. Remember Perry Coghlan?

Anyway, I think what I remember most about the Browns was that your mother was of American Indian extraction, homeschooled, and was also very elegant, as I recall. Do I remember correctly?

At 9/22/2005 10:53:00 AM , Blogger Kim C. said...

I'm the oldest Brown child, married to the oldest Coghlan child. We now have 7 young Coghlan girls of our own.
Yes, my mom is 1/8 Indian with dark hair and high cheekbones, slim and a little on the tall side. Very youthful still!
They now have 14 children: I'm the oldest at 32, and the youngest is 7.
They also have 14 grandchildren so far, but that is probably just the tip of the iceberg; only 5 of us are married so far, and most for 5 years or less.
Mom and Dad are both POPEs (Product Of Public Education), but have homeschooled their children since '83, when I would have entered 6th grade.
How are your parents?

At 9/22/2005 10:54:00 AM , Blogger Kim C. said...

"I love your reasoning about "empowering women," and the power that they are giving up when they leave the workplace."

This should have read, "when they leave the home for the workplace."

At 9/23/2005 12:13:00 AM , Blogger Mrs Adept said...

Wow - loved your article - will definitely be asking hubby to view it also.

At 9/26/2005 09:24:00 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm so glad you said you hate feminism. Doesn't it feel good to say it. Seems like you really needed to write this article. I never understand those women who want to be like men but still, in the next breath, say they are proud to be women. Like, K.d. Lang. She is one of those liberals who, I am sure, is very proud to be a woman, or atleast she says it. But, she looks like a very ugly boy. How is this sporting your feminine traits?


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home