“Why Feminism Is Never The Answer” | Make Womanhood Biblical Again

https://defaultcustomheadersdata.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/design2.jpg?resize=1440,600

“Christian women… if you’re going to make anything your gospel, make it THE gospel.” – by Christiana

Source: Why Feminism Is Never The Answer – Make Womanhood Biblical Again

Whether or not one agrees with every point in this essay (and I agree with most of them) or all the views of its author (she seems pretty based to me), it seems to me that this critique is square on, and one which our “woke” and “progressive” world (which, having largely abandoned the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, has set up instead an idol of left-wing sociopolitical ideologies – the “Golden Calf” of the 21st century) needs to hear:

“Feminism can never put a stop to sex trafficking, because it cannot stop greed, loneliness, and depravity.

“Feminism can never eradicate domestic violence, because it cannot instill in men a passion to love and lead their families well.

“Feminism can never put an end to pornography, because it cannot satiate lust, addiction, and emptiness.

“Feminism can never cut down the divorce rate and improve marriages, because marriage is not about “equality,” fairness, or sameness; and all the role reversal in the world cannot change the fact that we are daughters of Eve and sons of Adam.

“Feminism can never bring women fulfillment, because true fulfillment is only found in Jesus Christ.

“Feminism can never force men to genuinely respect women by removing sexual distinction…

“Feminism exalts women but can never truly empower them; promotes women, but can never pacify the innate desire to control. It insults women and men alike by insisting that the only real difference between the sexes is physical.”

Amen.

This is not to say that all women should do nothing but stay at home and raise children; some are not suited to that vocation, and some do indeed have gifts that can benefit society most effectively if expressed in the worlds of industry or academia. Furthermore, few traditional women – throughout the centuries and millennia of human history – did nothing but stay a home: they were always active in their local communities.

But that does not change the fact that motherhood is the first and greatest vocation of womankind as a whole; nor that, in the words of the great G.K. Chesterton,

Chesterton - feminism

N.B. The videos alluded to in the tags are found at the link, so please click through. Thank you!

 

 

Nothing Says Woman Quite Like a Dress – Crisis Magazine

Source: Nothing Says Woman Quite Like a Dress – Crisis Magazine

If there is one thing that I think is a vibrantly encouraging sign in the process of re-traditionalization in the West – a movement which seems slowly but surely to be gathering momentum – it is the way in which more and more women seem to be finding value in traditional feminine practices, whether it is home-making, the wearing of the veil in church, or in this case, what used to be the sine qua non of femininity, wearing a dress.

I will gladly admit, I am biased: I grew up with women wearing dresses. Both my grandmothers, and my mother, wore exclusively dresses or skirts – even for housework – all through my childhood and young-adult years, and in fact until the day they died. Ma, it is true, did try out the “pantsuit,” when those were in fashion; but she was not comfortable in it and quickly abandoned it, despite the protests of my older brothers, who I suppose wanted a “hip” mother.

Well, Ma may not have been “hip,” but she was a wonderful mother, wife, and homemaker, and my absolute model and ideal of feminine beauty – inside and out! So while I confess to appreciating, in my more carnal moments, the appeal of an attractive young woman in well-fitting jeans, shorts, or a short skirt, it is a dress, or a well-chosen skirt-and-blouse ensemble, that says “womanhood” to me. Continue reading “Nothing Says Woman Quite Like a Dress – Crisis Magazine”

The curious case of third wave feminists | The Spectator

There’s one type of woman that feminists will not tolerate.

Source: The curious case of third wave feminists | The Spectator

It used to be, up until, oh, 20 or 30 years ago, that feminists could – and often did – make the argument that they don’t hate men, they’re just seeking equality. Fair enough! Although like many others on the left-hand side of the socio-political aisle, they have missed the point that equality need not, and often does not, mean identicality.

Be that as it may, the rise of third-wave feminism has made it difficult to near impossible to make that claim (no hate, just equality), with any kind of credibility. And, perhaps realizing this, many third-wave feminists have taken off the gloves, and are no longer even pretending they don’t hate men. As the author of this piece, self-described “woman on the right” Daisy Cousens, points out,

“The third-wave feminist is a curious creature. Her comrades are a strange sub-strata of Millennial and Generation X women with a peculiar inferiority complex. They’re obsessed with picking at the scab of women’s lib, trying to draw fresh blood, and are often seen prowling (or lumbering) around, attempting to sniff out sexism in every nook and cranny. Theirs is an ideology based not on equality, but misplaced victimhood.

“According to your standard third-waver, the most insidious issues facing women today are not genital mutilation, or underage marriages, or sexual slavery. They are ‘manspreading’, ‘mansplaining’, and ‘micro-aggressions’. Terms cooked up to keep feminists in business as they steadily ran out of things to complain about.”

But their hatred of women who don’t agree with them, who stray from politically-correct orthodoxy, may be even more intense. Commenting that “third-wavers are perpetually miserable, and seek to make other women as brutally unhappy as they are,” Cousens points out that third-wave feminists are prey to “a strange form of misogyny” which “is starkly revealed in their treatment of right-wing women.”

Read on for more…

Hillary Clinton: My husband’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky was not an abuse of power

hillary clinton

Clinton said she didn’t think her husband’s affair with Lewinsky, which began in 1995 when Lewinsky was a 22-year-old White House intern, was an abuse of power, arguing that Lewinsky was an adult at the time.

Source: Hillary Clinton: My husband’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky was not an abuse of power

It is rare, these days, for me to agree with either of the Clintons, and even more rare that I agree with Hillary. But as one of my father’s favorite aphorisms put it, “even a stopped clock is right twice a day,” and in this case, I think she is square on: Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky was not an abuse of power.

That does not mean that President Clinton was without fault in the incident, but his failing was the sin of adultery, pure and simple – he cheated on his wife. That is morally wrong, but it is not the bugbear of today’s feminism, “abuse of power.” Continue reading “Hillary Clinton: My husband’s relationship with Monica Lewinsky was not an abuse of power”

Episcopal Church considers making God gender neutral | Fox News

Episcopal Church leaders called for revisions to masculine language in the Book of Common Prayer.

The Episcopal Church formed a committee Wednesday to “provide a pathway” toward revising the Book of Common Prayer to include gender-neutral language.

Source: Episcopal Church considers making God gender neutral | Fox News

“Church leaders called for immediate revisions to correct the ‘overwhelming use of masculine language’ throughout the book, arguing that the language is now a hindrance to spiritual inclusion, according to the Episcopal Church website.

“’As long as ‘men’ and ‘God’ are in the same category, our work toward equity will not just be incomplete. I honestly think it won’t matter in some ways,’ Wil Gafney, a professor of the Hebrew Bible and strong advocate for the edit, told the Washington Post.”

This is old news for me, in some ways; they were talking in the same terms at Vanderbilt Divinity School back in the mid-90s. I stopped attending chapel there when a lesbian trio sung a “Doxology” to “the Mother, and the Daughter, and the Holy Spirit.”

The problem is, as C.S. Lewis pointed out in “Priestesses in the Church,” when you remove that “masculine language” and replace it with either feminized language or, as is the fad these days, “gender-neutral” language, you change not only the language but the content of the faith.

“Christians think that God Himself has taught us how to speak of Him. To say that it does not matter is to say either that all the masculine imagery is not inspired, is merely human in origin, or else that, though inspired, it is quite arbitrary and unessential.

Change the language with which we speak of God, and we end up with something quite different from Christianity – or at least, quite different from orthodox Christianity. Of course, for many of these neo-reformers, that’s the point…

In His ultimate essence, of course, God far-and-away transcends human gender. The problem is, by trying to make God “gender-neutral,” we also end up making Him neuter, and therefore impersonal (we are also, as Lewis points out above, challenging the inspired and therefore authoritative character of the Holy Scriptures – placing our contemporary social views and mores above the given-ness of revelation: in effect, creating God in our own image).

We can have a personal relationship – whether for good or ill – with a Father. We can’t have a personal relationship with an amorphous blob! I’m reminded of another Lewis quote, in which he commented,

“A girl I knew was brought up by ‘higher thinking’ parents to regard God as a perfect ‘substance’; in later life she realised that this had actually led her to think of Him as something like a vast tapioca pudding. (To make matters worse, she disliked tapioca).”

While that may elicit a wry smile, it also makes a very good point! It is a short step from non-gendered to “nothing in particular.”

There are other Biblical metaphors for God that can be used, of course, that don’t have specifically gender-oriented connotations – “Vine” and “Rock” are two that come immediately to mind – but there is a reason that the more traditional, masculine images of God are vastly more common: they tell us things about God, and about our relationship with Him, that the less-commonly-used ones do not.

Besides that, and perhaps even more importantly, our Lord Jesus Christ called God “Father,” and instructed us to do so as well (“When you pray, say ‘Our Father…'”). We can call God other things in addition to Father, of course, as I commented above; but we cannot fail to call Him “Father” and make any kind of claim that we are obeying our Lord’s teachings. And while God transcends human biology, of course, fathers are biologically male. It does violence to biology, language, and theology alike to pretend otherwise!

The Fatherhood of God – unavoidably masculine though it be – is an essential component of Christianity. Remove it, and you have a different faith.

 


Do you appreciate and/or enjoy these posts, and want to support The Anglophilic Anglican in my defense of Western Christendom, and enjoyment of Western culture and civilization?

Then please consider supporting me on Patreon!

Many thanks in advance.

Feminists are set on making us all victims | Comment | The Times

Image result for women oppressed iran

MeToo protests on behalf of free and privileged women, ignoring those who are truly powerless.

Source: Feminists are set on making us all victims | Comment | The Times

It is refreshing and, to be honest, more than a little bit of a relief, to see a woman in the position of a relatively mainstream commentator like Melanie Phillips making the points she makes in this essay. It is not necessary to – as indeed, she does not – deny the fact that some men, sometimes, have behaved abhorrently and even criminally badly, to perceive that some of the allegations and assertions being made by the feminist Left are not only overstated, but in many cases cruelly wrong. Such vitriol does no good to either men or women, nor to society as a whole.

“Sophie Walker actually claimed that we were living in a patriarchy. [Yet] Britain has a woman prime minister, a woman home secretary, a woman director of public prosecutions, a woman head of the Supreme Court, a woman running the Metropolitan Police. Political parties have all-women shortlists. Education has been feminised through collaborative coursework and the denigration of competition.

For many women, men have been reduced to little more than sperm donors and walking wallets. They have been told that all the characteristics or roles they value so highly such as valour, leadership or breadwinning are dangerous, pathetic or demeaning.

“All this is apparently irrelevant. Declared Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, QC — a member of the UK legislature, principal of Mansfield College, Oxford and former chairwoman of the Genetics Commission, the Power Commission and the British Council: ‘Power is coded male.’ Should one laugh or cry?”

Meanwhile, as “the great protest against their own alleged victimisation and oppression is being mounted by women in the West, the most free, most independent, most educated and most wealthy women in the world today and in the history of the human race,” Ms Phillips points out,

“There are indeed women who really are powerless and institutionally victimised by men. Yet no MeToo movement has sprung up to protest against their oppression. What is the feminist reaction to women victimised by Sharia, subjected to female genital mutilation or “honour” killings or stoned to death for adultery? Silence. What is the feminist reaction to the Iranian women ripping off their headscarves and putting their lives on the line to get rid of the clerical regime that tyrannises them? Silence. What is the feminist reaction to the poor white girls of Telford or Rotherham who have been pimped, raped and enslaved by mostly Pakistani-heritage Muslim gangs? Silence.”

It is, quite frankly, an outrage.

Feminism -vs- feminine principle

It should be clear to any inquiring mind that modern Feminism has absolutely no desire to celebrate the Feminine Principle but has every desire to abandon it in favor of the Masculine Principle and to merely demote actual men to the status of the Bestial Principle. Or, to put it more clearly, Modern Feminism wishes to make women into men and men into baboons – sports-watching, beer-drinking, sex-obsessed, dullard baboons. What Feminism leaves behind in this move, ironically, is anything authentically Feminine.

“… Modern Feminism wishes to make women into men and men into baboons – sports-watching, beer-drinking, sex-obsessed, dullard baboons.” While simultaneously, ironically, and hypocritically, complaining about them being so.

The 2nd Amendment, firearms safety, and equality

Source: Stately McDaniel Manor | Culture, Politics, Firearms, Education, Literature, Philosophy, Music, And Other Musings

The Declaration got it mostly right (“all men are created equal…”): to slightly paraphrase a classic aphorism, “God made human beings, Col. Sam Colt made them equal!” One of the few areas in which I do not admire England / Britain is their draconian gun-control policies. Leaving people defenseless against those who wish them harm is morally vicious, and poor public policy.

In related news, Mike McDaniel of the Stately McDaniel Manor blog reports that accidental deaths due to firearms have declined dramatically, despite more firearms than ever being sold:

Despite gun sales reaching record numbers in the last two years, accidental gun shootings are at an all-time low, a surprising finding by the National Safety Council. In its annual “Injury Facts” report, the group put accidental gun deaths in 2015 at 489.

That is the lowest since 1903, when record-keeping began, and a 17 percent one-year drop, and is “about three-tenths of 1 percent of the 146,571 total accidental deaths from all other listed causes,” according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents the firearms industry. It is a remarkably low number, and underscores the fact that law-abiding gun owners are among the most careful and responsible folks out there.

It is especially notable in light of the very large number of legally–owned firearms in America. In 2015, an additional 23 million firearms were sold – a then-all-time-high – and last year, 2016, the number surged to 27 million: spurred, as McDaniel notes, by fears of what a possibly Hillary Clinton presidency would mean to firearm ownership. Yet despite the tens, even hundred, of millions of firearms in legal hands, the number of accidental deaths in 2015 was… 489. That speaks highly of gun owners!

It also flies in the face of claims made by anti-gun advocates that “safety” is one of the reasons they are attempting to enact additional measures limiting our Constitutional rights and freedoms where firearms are concerned. Estimates range – sometimes widely – but it is probably fair to say that somewhere between 30% and 40% of American households have at least one firearms, with an estimated total ownership of 256 million firearms.

And the total number of accidental deaths due to firearms use is under 500? I’d say we’re doing pretty good!

Oh, and that equality issue I mentioned? The sexual dimorphism inherent to our species means that women tend, on average, to be about 15% smaller than men, and only around 60% as strong – again, on average. This means that women are at a significant disadvantage when attempting to physically fight off would-be male attackers.

Firearms significantly redress this disadvantage: the original aphorism I with which started this piece stated (variations on) “God created men, Samuel Colt (inventor of the first practical repeating handgun) made them equal.”

This is even more true where women are concerned!