“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.