How do feminists deal with Scriptures that go against the movement?

[edwest2]

The feminist movement was a social engineering project designed to create fear, distrust and division between men and women. It was not based on Biblical principles. “Men” became the enemy and “women” were separated from them. The result was the creation of two warring camps.

A Feminist is only someone willing to embrace the philosophy. It does not exist for men and women who read the Scriptures in total. Men are commanded to love their wives just as wives ae commanded to love their husbands. Wives are called a gift from God. Marriage itself, is a gift and sacrament.

God bless,
Ed

 

[FrankLawrence]

We need to understand that there are two types of feminism. Good and evil.
Good feminism is the recognition of women as equal heirs with men to the promises of God. It is about respecting women as people, NOT objects. It is all about the human dignity of our sisters in Christ, respecting their roles as wives and mothers, showing them the love that they deserve as children of God.

Evil feminism is what pervades American society, today, however. Evil feminism suggests that it should be socially acceptable for women to brag about how they’ve allowed men to use them as objects, without receiving negative labels. Evil feminism says that women should be allowed to dress provacatively without receiving negative labels. Evil feminism says that it doesn’t matter what type of intelligence or personality a woman has, as long as she has a nice body, which is to be used to control and manipulate men through sexual hypnosis. Evil feminism implies that if women perform different roles than men, the roles that women perform are automatically inferior and therefore results of chauvanistic oppression from men. (Thus it is used to attack the Catholic Church, and some of St. Paul’s letters.) Evil feminism complains that “even black people had the right to vote before women did,” which is actually a racist statement in disguise, since it suggests that black people should be considered less worthy of voting than women. Finally, and most disturbingly, evil feminism says that failure to give women the “freedom” to murder their unwanted unborn babies constitutes sexist discrimination and HATRED against women.
So, when we use the word, “feminism,” we need to be careful, because it can have two diametrically opposed meanings, one for good, the other for evil.

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

We need to understand that there are two types of feminism. Good and evil.
Good feminism is the recognition of women as equal heirs with men to the promises of God. It is about respecting women as people, NOT objects. It is all about the human dignity of our sisters in Christ, respecting their roles as wives and mothers, showing them the love that they deserve as children of God.

Evil feminism is what pervades American society, today, however. Evil feminism suggests that it should be socially acceptable for women to brag about how they’ve allowed men to use them as objects, without receiving negative labels. Evil feminism says that women should be allowed to dress provacatively without receiving negative labels. Evil feminism says that it doesn’t matter what type of intelligence or personality a woman has, as long as she has a nice body, which is to be used to control and manipulate men through sexual hypnosis. Evil feminism implies that if women perform different roles than men, the roles that women perform are automatically inferior and therefore results of chauvanistic oppression from men. (Thus it is used to attack the Catholic Church, and some of St. Paul’s letters.) Evil feminism complains that “even black people had the right to vote before women did,” which is actually a racist statement in disguise, since it suggests that black people should be considered less worthy of voting than women. Finally, and most disturbingly, evil feminism says that failure to give women the “freedom” to murder their unwanted unborn babies constitutes sexist discrimination and HATRED against women.
So, when we use the word, “feminism,” we need to be careful, because it can have two diametrically opposed meanings, one for good, the other for evil.

I remember reading that those who favored the right of blacks to vote had seen it as a stepping stone to universal suffage.

 

[edwest2]

I don’t understand what “good feminism” is. In fact, I’ve run across the term femi-nazi and popular feminism is basically a desire to turn women into men.

I think even an idea like good feminism is divisive. It’s not Biblical. Just like College courses titled: “Women’s Studies,” as if women were some other species, separate from male human beings.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Gardening_Mommy]

I notice this thread doesn’t seem to have attracted any female attention…

Seriously, though, Frank hit the nail on the head. The early feminists were all about getting abortion outlawed, getting the vote for women, improving inheritance and divorce laws, etc.

NOW has made “feminism” synonymous with “militant female superiority”; I don’t think many (if any) of them are Christian, because hating all men just doesn’t fit with the Gospels. However, New-Agey goddess-worship junk certainly supports NOW’s positions and there’s no annoying hierarchy to point out that women can’t exist without men… (and there are actually feminist professors who are arguing that the male genome is deteriorating and men will be completely irrelevant at some point in the near future, genetically speaking.)

Unfortunately, NARAL convinced NOW sometime in the 60’s that thousands of women were dying every year from back-alley abortions and, therefore, NOW had to be pro-abortion to be pro-woman. (Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of NARAL’s founders, has since had a major conversion and become actively pro-life, including telling the story of how he and some other population-control proponents made up the fatality numbers to trick NOW.) So, the modern feminist movement undid some of the good the early feminists did and twisted “feminism” into a “you dominated us, now we’re going to get you back” thing. (sadly, one could say much the same thing about the Civil Rights movement; it’s an easy temptation to fall into…)

Some of the women expelled from NOW for refusing to support abortion went on to found Feminists for Life, which was recently in the news because Chief Justice Roberts’ wife had done pro-bono attorney work for them, and that came out during his confirmation process. Amusing to see how nasty NOW got about that… FFL basically laughed at them, saying, gee, I thought we were beyond assuming wives and husbands were the same legal entity?

FFL is also the group that pushed the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Students legislation, encouraging colleges to give students real options (most student health care plans pay for an abortion, but won’t cover a penny of prenatal or delivery care). NOW was noticably absent on this issue.

Anyways, a lot of issues have been neglected, thanks to the stupidity of NOW. Deadbeat dads, violence against pregnant women, lack of options for women who want/have to work and raise small kids, the utter lack of respect (and legal recognition) of the work housewives/SAHM’s do, etc…

In short, as a Naval Academy graduate, former Naval officer, homeschooling stay-at-home mom/wife, active pro-lifer, and Catholic, the early feminists would’ve been pretty happy with me (except they were often pacifists and disliked Catholicism for being too patriarchal).

NOW would be appalled over pretty much the entire resume.

The good news is, the hate mongering doesn’t go over well with most women. Have you seen NOW recently? They seem to be having a hard time finding any feminine feminists… or even any young ones.

The bad news is, it’s hard to bring up some of these woman-centered issues without a lot of people tuning out without thinking, saying, “Oh, no, not those psycho feminists again…”

 

[Image_of_God]

I notice this thread doesn’t seem to have attracted any female attention…

Seriously, though, Frank hit the nail on the head. The early feminists were all about getting abortion outlawed, getting the vote for women, improving inheritance and divorce laws, etc.

NOW has made “feminism” synonymous with “militant female superiority”; I don’t think many (if any) of them are Christian, because hating all men just doesn’t fit with the Gospels. However, New-Agey goddess-worship junk certainly supports NOW’s positions and there’s no annoying hierarchy to point out that women can’t exist without men… (and there are actually feminist professors who are arguing that the male genome is deteriorating and men will be completely irrelevant at some point in the near future, genetically speaking.)

Unfortunately, NARAL convinced NOW sometime in the 60’s that thousands of women were dying every year from back-alley abortions and, therefore, NOW had to be pro-abortion to be pro-woman. (Dr. Bernard Nathanson, one of NARAL’s founders, has since had a major conversion and become actively pro-life, including telling the story of how he and some other population-control proponents made up the fatality numbers to trick NOW.) So, the modern feminist movement undid some of the good the early feminists did and twisted “feminism” into a “you dominated us, now we’re going to get you back” thing. (sadly, one could say much the same thing about the Civil Rights movement; it’s an easy temptation to fall into…)

Some of the women expelled from NOW for refusing to support abortion went on to found Feminists for Life, which was recently in the news because Chief Justice Roberts’ wife had done pro-bono attorney work for them, and that came out during his confirmation process. Amusing to see how nasty NOW got about that… FFL basically laughed at them, saying, gee, I thought we were beyond assuming wives and husbands were the same legal entity?

FFL is also the group that pushed the Elizabeth Cady Stanton Pregnant and Parenting Students legislation, encouraging colleges to give students real options (most student health care plans pay for an abortion, but won’t cover a penny of prenatal or delivery care). NOW was noticably absent on this issue.

Anyways, a lot of issues have been neglected, thanks to the stupidity of NOW. Deadbeat dads, violence against pregnant women, lack of options for women who want/have to work and raise small kids, the utter lack of respect (and legal recognition) of the work housewives/SAHM’s do, etc…

In short, as a Naval Academy graduate, former Naval officer, homeschooling stay-at-home mom/wife, active pro-lifer, and Catholic, the early feminists would’ve been pretty happy with me (except they were often pacifists and disliked Catholicism for being too patriarchal).

NOW would be appalled over pretty much the entire resume.

The good news is, the hate mongering doesn’t go over well with most women. Have you seen NOW recently? They seem to be having a hard time finding any feminine feminists… or even any young ones.

The bad news is, it’s hard to bring up some of these woman-centered issues without a lot of people tuning out without thinking, saying, “Oh, no, not those psycho feminists again…”

I am glad that men have replied and I hope they continue but it is nice that women has replied to this issue, too. The problem I am aiming at is not women voting, etc., but with the belief of some feminists that women must perform all the tasks of men in order to be equal. The problem is that how would a Christian feminist respond to this when it directly contradicts Scripture? Even though the Catholic Church is “patriarchal” in some senses, isn’t this exactly what is conveyed in the Bible?

 

[Image_of_God]

We need to understand that there are two types of feminism. Good and evil.
Good feminism is the recognition of women as equal heirs with men to the promises of God. It is about respecting women as people, NOT objects. It is all about the human dignity of our sisters in Christ, respecting their roles as wives and mothers, showing them the love that they deserve as children of God.

Evil feminism is what pervades American society, today, however. Evil feminism suggests that it should be socially acceptable for women to brag about how they’ve allowed men to use them as objects, without receiving negative labels. Evil feminism says that women should be allowed to dress provacatively without receiving negative labels. Evil feminism says that it doesn’t matter what type of intelligence or personality a woman has, as long as she has a nice body, which is to be used to control and manipulate men through sexual hypnosis. Evil feminism implies that if women perform different roles than men, the roles that women perform are automatically inferior and therefore results of chauvanistic oppression from men. (Thus it is used to attack the Catholic Church, and some of St. Paul’s letters.) Evil feminism complains that “even black people had the right to vote before women did,” which is actually a racist statement in disguise, since it suggests that black people should be considered less worthy of voting than women. Finally, and most disturbingly, evil feminism says that failure to give women the “freedom” to murder their unwanted unborn babies constitutes sexist discrimination and HATRED against women.
So, when we use the word, “feminism,” we need to be careful, because it can have two diametrically opposed meanings, one for good, the other for evil.

Thanks for this. I didn’t know about this. But, the problem is, how do these “evil” feminists who happen to be Christian—who feel that women must preform the same tasks as men to be equal—handle Scripture when it speaks against them?

 

[Tim_Kirchoff]

Now that I have an audience, would anyone sign a petition to end women’s suffrage? They do so much good in the world- the don’t deserve so much suffrage. End women’s suffrage!

 

[Image_of_God]

I don’t understand what “good feminism” is. In fact, I’ve run across the term femi-nazi and popular feminism is basically a desire to turn women into men.

I think even an idea like good feminism is divisive. It’s not Biblical. Just like College courses titled: “Women’s Studies,” as if women were some other species, separate from male human beings.

God bless,
Ed

This is an interesting position on it. I didn’t know this. I fear that some forms of feminism are leading women to loose their femininess and become masculine.

 

[edwest2]

I’m still having a hard time with labels like feminist and patriarchal, they are divisive and not Biblical. Just because a small group of women have made men the “enemy,” God loves men and women just the same. What does God being male or referred to as male have anything to do with anything? Both a man and a woman are needed to bring the next generation into this world and raise them. This requires mutual trust, love and support. NOW turned it into a war. Gloria Steinem went on to marry one of “them” (a man).

NOW was a very bad thing for this country because it helped destroy the trust between men and women.

God bless,
Ed

 

[jazzy_987]

We need to understand that there are two types of feminism. Good and evil.
Good feminism is the recognition of women as equal heirs with men to the promises of God. It is about respecting women as people, NOT objects. It is all about the human dignity of our sisters in Christ, respecting their roles as wives and mothers, showing them the love that they deserve as children of God.

Evil feminism is what pervades American society, today, however. Evil feminism suggests that it should be socially acceptable for women to brag about how they’ve allowed men to use them as objects, without receiving negative labels. Evil feminism says that women should be allowed to dress provacatively without receiving negative labels. Evil feminism says that it doesn’t matter what type of intelligence or personality a woman has, as long as she has a nice body, which is to be used to control and manipulate men through sexual hypnosis. Evil feminism implies that if women perform different roles than men, the roles that women perform are automatically inferior and therefore results of chauvanistic oppression from men. (Thus it is used to attack the Catholic Church, and some of St. Paul’s letters.) Evil feminism complains that “even black people had the right to vote before women did,” which is actually a racist statement in disguise, since it suggests that black people should be considered less worthy of voting than women. Finally, and most disturbingly, evil feminism says that failure to give women the “freedom” to murder their unwanted unborn babies constitutes sexist discrimination and HATRED against women.
So, when we use the word, “feminism,” we need to be careful, because it can have two diametrically opposed meanings, one for good, the other for evil.

I agree completely!

 

[dwc]

What Frank Lawrence said. Since nothing in the bible instructs that women are not to receive equal pay for equal work, are not to be treated as chattel, and are to be honored and respected as equal human beings, there is no conflict between true feminism and the bible.

One thing I’ve always found noteworthy is how Jesus thwarted the traditional, patriarchal Jewish customs about men and women and treated women with more respect than they were typically allowed.

 

[rwoehmke]

Good questions. Perhaps best answered in the book The Church Impotent, The Feminization of Christianity by Leon J. Podles. It explains why many more men than women don’t go to church for one thing.

Question: how far back did this feminization start? I am 72 years old and think that men are much more involved in Church than they were say when I was seven years old. The Rosary Society, Daughters of Isabella, The Sisters, and mothers in general were more involved than any group of men in town. The men were mostly working class and after supper kicked back and read the paper, maybe with a brew or two. The Mothers visited the school for conferences and took care of the altar linens and most church cleaning. I am active in my parish and would say that when it comes to physical plant stuff the men are really good today, men are fairly involved in teaching Religious Ed, but the proportion of men to women in bible studies and the like is good if its one man for every three woman.

I also believe in reading some of these rules of Paul one must bear in mind that he was reacting to a society in which women and slaves were expected to be submissive and obedient. Check out the notion of the pater familia in Roman Law and you will get the drift. I have always held that he or she that has the knowledge or skills gets to take the lead in any particular situation.

Frank has a good grip on what I would dub “The disease of virulent feminism” caused by feminazis.

 

[allaussie]

Evil feminism suggests that it should be socially acceptable for women to brag about how they’ve allowed men to use them as objects, without receiving negative labels. Evil feminism says that women should be allowed to dress provocatively without receiving negative labels. Evil feminism says that it doesn’t matter what type of intelligence or personality a woman has, as long as she has a nice body, which is to be used to control and manipulate men through sexual hypnosis.

I agree with you to a certain extent that the 90s concept of ‘sexual empowerment’ has been touted as feminism and freeing women from patriarchal oppression and sexual norms. Of course it’s not empowering women to make their own sexual choices it’s empowering men to exploit women and convincing women that they shouldn’t object. Despite the claims that it gives women a positive power over their own bodies in reality most of the time women still put the happiness of their partners ahead of their own and allow their bodies to be used for a man’s pleasure but convinces women that they should be happy with that situation.
On the point of being labelled negatively for sexual behaviour I think that those who tout ‘sexual empowerment’ have gone about it backwards, they took the old double standard of male ‘stud’ and female ‘town bike’ for the same behaviour and instead of making it unacceptable for men to sleep around and telling people that we should be making love not just having sex (i.e. this is about an expression of an emotional connection not just a physical act) they decided that women should be treated like men and praised for their promiscuity.

Just like College courses titled: “Women’s Studies,” as if women were some other species, separate from male human beings.

That is why a lot of universities are changing the name of these courses to Gender studies, because you can’t look at women in isolation as though they were separate from men. They have units looking at the way our culture and other cultures view both femininity and masculinity (e.g. ‘macho’ masculinity can be a very self destructive force which makes young men do dangerous things in order to prove their masculinity to their friends) and the way they interact.

 

[Julianna]

How do feminists deal with Scriptures that go against the movement?

My first thought…is you would have to ask one directly. It would be difficult in this forum to find someone who would openly align themselves with the “current” as it is, feminist movement. I agree with the poster who referred to todays feminists as not only lacking femininity, but continues to rally against men for whatever reason.

You have to keep in mind as well, that when Paul wrote those statements…it was a total patriarchal society. However…Jesus was different…we all know that. I take more stock in what Jesus said than Paul. Paul had a great gift in that he could read, write and speak well. Most writers get their inspiration from the time and the experiences they live in…this is where his material comes from. I enjoy reading all of Paul’s writing.

I think the suffregettes would roll over in their graves if they saw what has happened to the womens movement…and they would also be quite disgusted at the young women today who seem to sell themselves short by continuing to have casual sex in the name of equality. They forget, it is they who carry the child and have the ultimate responsibility for his/her life. Treating life as disposable rather than revered takes away rather than adds to their cause. Ingesting birth control pills filled with chemical toxins which could seriously effect their health down the road, should be a big red flag. By giving themselves away…they cheapen the gift God has bestowed upon men and women which should be reserved for a sacramental covenent.

I think the word “feminist” has a bad rep. There are some old school “some” men who believe that women should remain silent and let the man make all the decisions. For a women to speak up, ask a question or to disagree with a man…for some men is intimidating and will use the Bible (the passages you quoted) as a tactic to scare women into submission. Not happening for me. There is a quote I find most appropriate when someone…and it has happened…refers to me as a feminist…I respond with:

I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.

The right to vote…own land…have my own money…get credit…buy a home…have a career or not… are very precious to me. Rights I would never want to turn the clock back for. The last man I asked “permission” to do something was my father. I have never asked my husband “permission” to do anything.

 

[Image_of_God]

How do feminists deal with Scriptures that go against the movement?

My first thought…is you would have to ask one directly. It would be difficult in this forum to find someone who would openly align themselves with the “current” as it is, feminist movement. I agree with the poster who referred to todays feminists as not only lacking femininity, but continues to rally against men for whatever reason.

You have to keep in mind as well, that when Paul wrote those statements…it was a total patriarchal society. However…Jesus was different…we all know that. I take more stock in what Jesus said than Paul. Paul had a great gift in that he could read, write and speak well. Most writers get their inspiration from the time and the experiences they live in…this is where his material comes from. I enjoy reading all of Paul’s writing.

I think the suffregettes would roll over in their graves if they saw what has happened to the womens movement…and they would also be quite disgusted at the young women today who seem to sell themselves short by continuing to have casual sex in the name of equality. They forget, it is they who carry the child and have the ultimate responsibility for his/her life. Treating life as disposable rather than revered takes away rather than adds to their cause. Ingesting birth control pills filled with chemical toxins which could seriously effect their health down the road, should be a big red flag. By giving themselves away…they cheapen the gift God has bestowed upon men and women which should be reserved for a sacramental covenent.

I think the word “feminist” has a bad rep. There are some old school “some” men who believe that women should remain silent and let the man make all the decisions. For a women to speak up, ask a question or to disagree with a man…for some men is intimidating and will use the Bible (the passages you quoted) as a tactic to scare women into submission. Not happening for me. There is a quote I find most appropriate when someone…and it has happened…refers to me as a feminist…I respond with:

I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat.

The right to vote…own land…have my own money…get credit…buy a home…have a career or not… are very precious to me. Rights I would never want to turn the clock back for. The last man I asked “permission” to do something was my father. I have never asked my husband “permission” to do anything.

I agree with you, heartily. This wasn’t the type of feminism I had in mind then. But anyway, do you believe in this idea that men and women have different roles to a certain sense? That men and women show virtues in different ways?

 

[Gardening_Mommy]

Thanks for this. I didn’t know about this. But, the problem is, how do these “evil” feminists who happen to be Christian—who feel that women must preform the same tasks as men to be equal—handle Scripture when it speaks against them?

Usually, they seem to write it off as “Paul’s concessions to make the Romans ok with Christianity and, therefore, not truly God-inspired teaching” and proceed to ignore them.

Sort of like what the Episcopalians did to those inconvenient chapters in Romans that condemn homosexuality.

Early feminism tried to point out the critical contributions of women to society; it wasn’t a us vs. them ideology. Most of the early feminists were married. Elizabeth Cady Stanton was notorious for going out in public while visibly pregnant (major breach of ettiquette at the time) and hoisting a flag to celebrate the birth of her children. These women wanted respect for their contributions, at a time when, legally speaking, they were equivalent to children.

I don’t think they would’ve wanted these useless “women’s studies” departments. History’s current trend of at least mentioning women, lower classes, slaves, etc. makes more sense; history may be made by a lot of rich white men, but their decisions are heavily influenced by the problems and concerns of their wives, the less well-off, etc. (I really hate all those group-dedicated history months; if you teach it in a vacuum, you enforce the idea that the group’s accomplishments and contributions can’t compete with “real” history.)

Modern feminism, however, has totally rejected any “biologically dictated” roles like mother, nurturer, wife, etc. “Equality” has been warped to mean “identical.” (we’d laugh at a guy who sued over the “right” to become pregnant… but women who want to be ordained get all kinds of sympathy.) Success is couched purely in business/economic terms, and business is predominantly masculine. So, yes, some forms of feminism encourage a lack of femininity and even encourage lesbianism. In trying to distance themselves from biological roles, they have to belittle any woman who is focused on being a wife and mother.

Ironically, this has resulted in laws that continue to treat non-wage-earning wives (and non-wage-earning children) as second class citizens, some sort of group of parasites on the inherently superior wage-earners, when these were exactly the people the early feminists most wanted to help.

True feminism recognizes the complimentarity of the sexes; St. Paul makes perfect sense. Taking care of the altar linens, cooking for the poor, etc. are logical extensions of what wives do with expertise in their own families.

Unfortunately, the “feminism” that most people are familiar with just replaces what they interpreted as a bad “patriarchy” with an equally (or possibly more) abusive matriarchy.

 

[athansor]

So, is it immoral if the woman in a family is the main breadwinner and the male is the stay at home parent?

 

[Gardening_Mommy]

I agree with you, heartily. This wasn’t the type of feminism I had in mind then. But anyway, do you believe in this idea that men and women have different roles to a certain sense? That men and women show virtues in different ways?

I think men and women have different tendencies, generally speaking. Yes, you have women who adore electrical engineering… but they’re the minority. Most women would rather talk about education, nursing, history, languages… relational stuff.

Even at the Naval Academy, with some very non-traditional women, hardly any of us chose to go into engineering. The sciences (physics, chemistry, mathematics, etc.) had a slightly larger percentage of women in their majors, but it was still less than the proportion of women at the school. Most women chose the “soft” majors: international relations, english, history. There was a ton of encouragement to pick engineering majors (the department chair begged me to stay in engineering, promised to do whatever it took to make it work if I wanted to come back from history, etc.), but most women had the ability and just weren’t interested. It wasn’t discrimination (there was no, “oh, women can’t do engineering…”); it was just not what most women were interested in for a major.

Kids see the difference; why can’t adults? A little girl I knew used “Mama” to mean “feed me or cuddle me” and “Dada” as a request for some roughhousing, tickling, playtime. It was obvious to her that her parents dealt with her differently.

Some professor got in trouble a while back when he told an anecdote about his kids. He and his wife had decided, he explained, to raise the kids “gender-neutral” so that they could feel free to explore whatever talents they had. So, he gives both kids some toys. The son proceeds to turn the cute doll into a soldier. The daughter names her two new trucks “Daddy truck” and “baby truck” and uses them to play house. It occurred to this guy and his wife that maybe, just maybe, it wasn’t just a societal construct that most girls prefer dolls and most boys prefer trucks and guns. Female professors in the audience were quoted as being, “So horrified, I thought I was going to throw up.”

And, yet again, feminists look totally blinded by their ideology… and some men take this as an excuse to treat women like doormats. There’s a well-balanced middle position that is getting totally ignored.

 

[bpbasilphx]

<>

Angry depressed women in sensible shoes frequently quote the verses about wives submitting to their husbands, but NOT ONE of them seem to know the next verse.

It says, “Husbands, love your wives…” This might seem self-evident to us today, but in a society where arranged marriages were the norm, this was revolutionary!

Now think–would you rather be merely submitted to? Or loved?

Now tell me who has the better of the bargain.