“Women’s liberation is the liberation of the feminine in the man and the masculine in the woman.” — Corita Kent, Artist / Activist
Apparently, being metrosexual has its advantages. Guys, are you having trouble finding a woman? Well then, it’s time to pack up your firearms and instead exfoliate, powder, and carry a man-purse. Apparently, that’s what liberated women want: Feminized men.
Not long ago, the Wall Street Journal pondered this Western anomaly in Why Women Don’t Want Macho Men. It explores the evolutionary psychology behind… girly men.
Right now in the U.S. many families find themselves economically dependent on one working parent: Mom. Over 70% of mothers have jobs outside the home. No longer as reliant on men’s genes or jobs to ensure the health and wealth of their children, women may come to value other
qualities in a mate. It may become evolutionarily adaptive to prefer men who are cooperative, communicative, caring and better parents over traditional “manly men.
While exceptionally attractive (or wealthy) women may indeed capture this ideal male, most are forced by circumstance to settle for the best combination of traits. Some husband-seekers trade off masculinity for companionship and good parenting. Others forfeit compassion in exchange for wealth. (“I want a man who’s kind and understanding,” Zsa Zsa Gabor once griped. “Is that too much to ask of a millionaire?”) To secretly have it all, some women adopt a “dual mating” strategy—marrying a solid, faithful guy and enjoying trysts with hunks. (emphasis mine)
Well, at least “hunks” are still in demand, if only on a rent-per-tryst basis. Don’t worry ladies, you can always go back to that “cooperative, communicative, caring” schmuck you were “forced by circumstance to settle for.” I mean, who else will iron your power pant suit and do the dishes for you while you’re out negotiating with European powerbrokers?
And all this while I thought that being a “solid, faithful guy” was what it meant to be “manly.”
Okay, so I’m not sure I want the woman in me liberated. Besides, if men become feminized, who will save us from the apocalypse? I mean, Orlando Bloom doesn’t seem nearly as intimidating as Chuck Norris.
Then again, imagine what an army of metrosexuals could do…
And all this while I thought that being a “solid, faithful guy” was what it meant to be “manly.”
That’s because we’ve been influenced by a Biblical perspective, where the ideal Man and the ultimate example of how husbands ought to love their wives is not some latter-day Samson (or even a David or a Solomon, for that matter) but Jesus Christ, who loved the Church and gave Himself up for her. Who could make a whip of cords and drive the moneychangers out of the temple in a righteous wrath, but told His disciples to put away their swords when the soldiers came to arrest Him. Who fearlessly confronted and challenged self-righteous people to the point where they were ready to kill him, but wept openly at the tomb of Lazarus and asked His Father to forgive those who were nailing Him to the cross. A carpenter raised in a hardscrabble northern town, who had no beauty in Him that we should desire Him–and anyone with eyes and ears to hear found themselves drawn to Him and saying, like the temple guards, that “No one spoke like this man.”
There’s a lot there that no human being can possibly live up to or duplicate, of course. But still, we’re promised that the more we look to Christ, the more we will be transformed into His image–and we all know Christlikeness when we see it.
But the men and women of the world (and sadly, many in the church as well) have rejected His example, or else they’re ignorant of it. No wonder so many relationships fail.
To secretly have it all, some women adopt a “dual mating” strategy—marrying a solid, faithful guy and enjoying trysts with hunks…
Fascinating. So the WSJ is saying the women have become men.
I am so sick of Chuck Norris.
We women would pitch 85 fits before breakfast if there were a Sofia Vergara or Whoever “Ideal Embodiment Of Woman” trope. Yet somehow nobody bats an eye for men to have to swallow this gender-norming stereotype.
I love men. They come in all shapes and sizes and skillsets. I tend to be more attracted to the Atticus Finch type–smart, honourable, quietly handsome, capable–and such a man is the one I married. My father is a balding, overweight fellow who is blind in one eye and wears coke bottle glasses that he always loses. But he is also a legal genius who graduated top of his class from an Ivy League law school. He’s in many ways more manly than Chuck Norris, but he always feels inferior.
I have brothers, scores of male friends, and nephews still in childhood. They are all unique and wonderful. Some exfoliate, some rarely bathe at all. But they are all men.
I’m glad to see N. American church culture attempting to be more aware of addressing masculine needs. I’ll be infinitely more glad when we stop thinking that means we expect all men to act one certain way, look a certain way and hew to a false archetype dreamed up by The World.
Yes, faithful and solid is what men should be and what women need. And, yes, men come in many shapes and sizes, but they don’t come in women’s shapes. They are not women and we shouldn’t be trying to make them into women. Gender confusion is a huge problem just now. Our children do need role models, I think. Not Norris or Sampson or David, but Christ, as has been noted. He was meek and manly, humble and confident in his Father, strong and faithful to death.
Amen! And don’t forget justice.
I don’t want a brute for a man (and never really saw the appeal for Chuck Norris) but I do appreciate a guy with calluses and grease under his fingernails. My husband does all the work on our cars, built our (gorgeous) entertainment center from scratch, can hang drywall, lay tile, etc. He lifts weights and loves ATV-ing and snowboarding, and I’ve personally seen him totally whomp someone for jumping his best friend. BUT, he’s gentle and kind and smart and I love his engineering nerd side. And I love him no less because I’m a better shot than he is ;).
To me, what makes a man is being strong in who he is, and loving those around him with his whole heart. Brutishness is weakness. There’s a huge difference between macho and manly, imho. Women generally don’t want “macho”–it implies a false bravado and self-centeredness. There is also a difference between a man being mild and being a wuss.
Katherine, “smart, honourable, quietly handsome, and capable” are signs of strength. You are right in loving those qualities!
Wow, that is the sickest article I’ve ever read. So it’s not about marriage anymore, it’s about mating well? And power women can just mate with whomever they choose?
The thing about men being caring and compassionate? You know, I have yet to meet a man who is not. Men have this fascinating thing called an ego. (Women have it, too, and that’s why they’re out chasing the almighty buck.) If the shoe was on the other foot and men were looking for gentle, compassionate women, the feminazis would throw a fit, wouldn’t they?
I like men just the way they are, thanks.
I was just talking about this in Sunday school, how the whole 50/50 chore thing is blowing up in our faces. Women want men to be men AND do all the household chores. Turns out, when couples try to split things 50/50, they start keeping scorecards, and things get competitive and ugly (studies are starting to prove this).
When I had three young children who got up nearly EVERY night, I was exhausted keeping up with them. When I decided to rail on my husband for not sharing the responsibility, he very kindly pointed out that he was the one who had to get up early and go to work every day. Sounds harsh, but you know what, I needed to hear it. I realized that getting up in the night was something I could do to contribute to our family dynamic. I suddenly felt GOOD about sacrificing, since I know he was sacrificing long hours to provide for us.
As I commented on this unfortunate “feminization” of men in Sunday school, I think several men were ready to stand and shout “AMEN!” It’s my one huge gripe with romance novels (of which I read precious few)–the men ALWAYS know exactly the right thing to say, and are often just as verbal as the women.
Now, I know some men are naturally more communicative. But ALL heroes? Give me a break. This is why I wrote a novel with men acting like REAL men. Yes, some are brutes, driven by lust. Some are more sensitive. And some just don’t know how to communicate. These are the kinds of men I’ve been around all my life, not the ones who know exactly how to handle women and exactly what to say all the time (and act like GIRLfriends).
REAL MEN are often mysteries to women, and vice versa. And, though it may drive us crazy sometimes, it keeps us guessing to a certain degree, even if we’ve been married for eons.
“Then again, imagine what an army of metrosexuals could do…”
My husband: “Make REALLY good coffee.”
And world peace ensues…?
Thanks for the morning laugh, Mr. Mike. 🙂
Just think what you could do with 100,000 nail files and a silo of Lubriderm.
A soft touch is what this hurting world needs. *sob*
“[M]en who are cooperative, communicative, caring and better parents over traditional “manly men.” It’s sad those two ideas have become separated. Looks like the world could use more stories of true masculinity. People need heroes to look up to.
I would agree that men are being over-feminized. I personally find it disturbing and unattractive when a man’s skin and nails are better groomed than mine. Of course, my nails usually look atrocious. Nevertheless, I don’t think the trend is all bad. I think the pendulum needed to sway some, because I’ve heard many older ladies grumble about their emotionally distant husbands while they marvel at how much our younger husbands are involved in the family.
Somewhere along the line men need to realize it’s okay to possess feminine qualities…that it does not mean one is a homosexual. I think we’ve swayed way too far at this point. We are telling boys to embrace their feminine, yet not showing them how to balance the feminine with the masculine. Thus, many are becoming gender confused. (My opinion.)
Interestingly, I’ve noticed many of these younger men don’t know a thing about chivalry. Depending on the age of the male, I’ve noticed I can pretty well predict which ones are going to let the door slam in my face. (Maybe they’re secretly bitter about the mantyhose riding up their bum crack, but hey, I never supported the idea of men wearing hose…)
Before about the 18th C (and for many people even after that), most men and women didn’t have the luxury to separate the world of the sexes. Both men and women had to work hard to keep the family running–often with a home business, or both the mom and the dad working in the fields. That women in our society are relegated to nice home tasks while men go out of the home to work demonstrates that we live in a wealthy society. That we have a problem with both men and women working is ludicrous. Poor women have worked long hours for all of human history. That working women now expect men to be soft compassionate pushovers is just another distortion. There is no reason why both men and women can’t work and retain their respective masculinity and femininity. And there’s no reason why compassion and helpfulness aren’t manly (a man who has his nails done is a different story, however . . . ) For heaven’s sake, we must be living down the rabbit hole.
Personally, I like Chuck Norris and what he stands for, though I don’t agree with his beliefs. I like Rambo movies and movies where the hero is a man that rescues the woman. I don’t like movies where the woman is so independent and egotistical that in being her own rescuer she forgets that some rescues require team work.
I think it’s funny that the feminazi’s who extol women in power positions only like those women who are leading the country if they are liberals. It’s amazing how much they don’t support conservative women in leadership roles. And I have witnessed some of these women feminists in action. I actually had one drag her husband back to motor vehicle to redo a title because his name was first. She wanted her name first, even though it’s not who is first on the document, but legal status they choose. In this case, they chose “or” which means both have legal ability to sign. I tried to explain that to them before they had to wait forever in line, but the woman was so angry that her name wasn’t first she took a number, gave me a dirty look, and dragged her meek, backboneless husband to a seat.
Personally, if my man exfoliates that would turn me off. My man and I go hunting together. He is the leader of our household and we are a team, working together as a team. We rarely fight. We discuss things together and listen to each other. I grew up in a marriage of anger and I swore I didn’t want my marriage that way.
*beliefs = religious beliefs. LOL
Is there a reason that a woman can’t be a feminist and be a Christian? I certainly hope not; I’m a feminist.
I tend to be a complimentarian. My husband and I have a traditional Christian marriage that includes wifely submission and husbandly leadership.
But I’m a feminist in that I believe women can rise to any challenge that meets them. I believe some women are called to careers outside the home and that not every woman is called to marriage and/or motherhood.
I believe that women should be educated. Women should be self-aware and self-determining. That’s part of what makes wifely submission so astoundingly wonderful–you’re willing to accept someone as your leader because you love him and have faith in him. And after all, isn’t that the picture of the Church? Doesn’t Christ expect and active, vibrant Church who is an asset to the world, a light and a salt and a hope?
The Proverbs 31 woman goes out into the world of business to earn for her family. She does everything to the best of her capability and uses the gifts God has given her.
I am a feminist. I am not a Nazi. I’m not an evil person. I’m not a tool of Satan and I’m not a discredit to the church.
Thank you for saying this, Katherine, because I likewise believe in wifely submission and husbandly leadership, and I even wear a head covering (voluntarily) and remain silent (also voluntarily) in church. But if I heard the word “feminazi” used one more time in these comments my brain was going to explode.
Feminism is a huge, diverse movement. There are many, many people who call themselves feminists not because they hate men or want to overthrow all authority structures, but simply because they believe women are equal in intrinsic value to men and should be acknowledged and celebrated as such. I choose not to use the term to describe my own views because it is so easily misunderstood and so often misrepresented, but I’m not opposed to feminism as a concept. The views of many radical feminists I absolutely do oppose — but judging all feminists by the radicals is a bit like judging all Christianity by the so-called “Westboro Baptist Church”.
This was a fun post for me. I’m not sure how it turned so serious.
Katherine, I don’t have a problem with — nor do I think Scripture prohibits — any of the things you value: that “women can rise to any challenge that meets them,” that “some women are called to careers outside the home and that not every woman is called to marriage and/or motherhood, that women should be “educated, self-aware, and self-determining.”
The qualifier, for me, is this sentence: “My husband and I have a traditional Christian marriage that includes wifely submission and husbandly leadership.” I believe traditional feminists would see “wifely submission and husbandly leadership” as incompatible with feminism.
” I believe traditional feminists would see “wifely submission and husbandly leadership” as incompatible with feminism.”
There are a lot of misconceptions about feminism. As R.J. Anderson said, to judge all feminists by the radical fringe is like judging Christianity by Fred Phelps.
I know probably 50 feminists like me. And 3 like the other kind.
And in answer to your “how did it get so serious?”…didn’t you know that gender issues are a major hot button topic in the Church right now? I actually didn’t know they were THAT huge until I started following Mark Driscoll and Rachel Held Evans on Twitter. Wow.
Anyway, that’s how it got serious, I think. Well, that and I really really really don’t like Chuck Norris The Trope. The man I don’t know and have no problems with.
Katherine, I posted this because gender issues are a hot topic. It’s definitely tongue in cheek. Interesting that you know so many non-traditional feminists. Or do you think of them as “non-traditional”? I mean, wouldn’t you say the “radical fringe” pretty much controls the debate?
I’m very familiar with Driscoll and Rachel Held Evans. My agent represents her. She has commented here a couple times but, sorry to say, I think we’re in different universes. Frankly, I see the debate as a lot of bluster. The Bible’s pretty clear: The issue is not one of worth but roles. Which is why I asked about your mention of “wifely submission and husbandly leadership.” If I’m not mistaken, even biblical feminists would hedge at either notion and instead emphasize mutual leadership / submission.
My older son (who’s a math teacher), was required to take a semester of “Gender Distinctives,” a class taught by a lesbian and a transgendered. I was appalled. The entire purpose of the class was to strip the genders of any distinctions, even to the point of suggesting that men could / should have babies! Sad to say, I think much of the contemporary feminist movement — even the “Christian” one — is connected to such social restructuring.
Thanks for commenting, Katherine!
(BTW: My original title was “Death to Chuck Norris,” which I nixed for obvious reasons.)
Yes, this is how I see thing, too.
this is so interesting to me. I would think your views,Katherine, were Christian views, but not feminist views. What is the benefit of classifying yourself as a feminist and a Christian? By your definition of feminism it seems that it would be redundant to call yourself a feminist when we already know you’re a Christian.
I am a woman, and I may further define myself as a mother. But if I told you I was a mother, I wouldn’t need to also say I’m a woman. So if I say I’m a Christian, isn’t it expected that I believe women and children are equal to men? Equally made in God’s image. Equally sinful. Equally loved by God. Equally deserving of respect and love.
I don’t say I’m a Christian and I love children or I’m a Christian and I love my neighbor or I’m a Christian and I think women are equal to men.
So in this age where feminism is associated with abortion rights and birth control and lesbianism, why do you feel it’s important to identify yourself as a feminist?
This is serious question, not a snarky one, because I have long thought that feminism and homosexuality and sex without children and no-fault divorce are all on the same plane and have all done great damage to our society and I’d like to know if I need to rethink this position.
First off a bit of an aside: I have sex without children–it’s one of the side-effects of infertility. This is the second time I’ve heard it mentioned (in the course of one week) as a societal ill. The thought never crossed my mind.
I identify myself as a feminist because I think it is important not only for women but for little girls, little boys and feminism. Feminism in its truest sense is the acknowledgement of Woman as different from yet still equal to men. Feminism in its truest sense teaches the inherent value of femininity to the culture.
God loves and values women very highly. Over and over we see the subtle ways in which the course of God’s dialogue with mankind has been shaped and perfected through women. Rahab, Deborah, Ruth, Esther, the Marys, Dorcas, Priscilla… Women were the first to know of and acknowledge the coming of Christ. They were the last at the cross, midwiving Jesus into death and it was a woman who was first to the tomb. We are an essential and devoted part of Christ’s following.
Yet today both within the church and without it there are beliefs about the worth of women which are extremely unbiblical. I do not believe women should teach from the pulpit to a mixed group. That’s not a belief I hold because I believe women are inferior or stupid or incapable of ministry. It’s a belief I hold because it’s what the Bible teaches. And knowing men and women I understand why the Bible teaches it.
By the same token there are cultural disregards for women throughout the church. Little things that you may not think are wrong or hurtful but are. Sermons about how Motherhood and Wivelyhood are the “ultimate calling” for women when the Bible tells us plainly that there is one body with many parts and not every part is an eye or a hand or a foot. Scholarships offered to boys but not to girls–I have a very long list but I’m trying to be as succinct as possible.
We say in both the church and the world that “of course everyone is equal” but then we don’t act like it. The message a person gets is repeatedly different. That’s why I say I’m a feminist.
One of the things I do is to act as a mentor to one of our local public school’s Gifted Young Writer programs. Once a year we meet with 120 handpicked kids whose stories wone them entry into the program. We critique those stories and then throughout the year stay in touch with the kids to work on their writing. For the past three years nearly every girl has written a story based on Twilight. The whole story revolves around finding the best boyfriend ever and getting married. And every year I give the little lecture that the teachers now REQUEST that I give which is that a woman’s ultimate goal should be to be the best person she can be. She should pursue her interests, take pride in who she is and what she can do. If there is something she cannot yet do, but wants to she should know she is good enough to beat the obstacles and do that thing. The right boyfriend and husband will show up in good time. A man is a companion and a partner, not a goal.
Three girls have told me since then that my “stuff you said” has kept them from having premarital sex.
And that’s really my ultimate goal, really why I’m a feminist and why I think it’s important for Christian women to take back that title. I’m pro-life. All the years I stood outside abortion clinics with a poster (I started when I was 8, became a peer counselor at the CPC when I was 11) I never saw or heard of one abortion prevented. Now that I work focused on women’s issues, women’s empowerment and bringing women from less-than status to equal status (even if it’s just _in their OWN eyes_) I know not only of four abortions I’ve prevented but countless acts of pre-marital sex which would have made who-knows-how-many-babies. There are a lot of little girls AND little boys who are not dead because I have had the courage to say that I am and to be a feminist.
I could literally write a book on the subject and I’m trying to be as concise as possible. I should say, of course, that I learned all this from my devout Baptist-turned-Mennonite mother.
Thank you, Katherine. I love what you’ve had to say here today. Y’know, I have two posts in draft that I’ve never gotten to: one on Christianity and feminism’s historic relationship, and one on underlying assumptions in reproductive rights and related social issues. Your remarks are inspiring me to get off my duff and make those kernels into something readable.
Thanks for answering.
I did not mean to imply that in marriages where one spouse is infertile, there should be no sex. Horrors! Sorry about writing so carelessly. There are more reasons for sex in marriage than children.
That said, I don’t believe our wholehearted embracing of birth control is good. Many people value making money more than they value children. A wealthy woman lawyer is seen by most as a great success, while a women with four or more children, barely making it on her husband’s salary is more likely to be seen as either dumb or lazy. Marriage and children aren’t seen as high callings today. But China and Europe are beginning to see the devastating effects of their whole-hog love with birth control, and we’re following closely behind.
So I was with you until you got to the part where you tell young girls that their pursuit of the best boyfriend and of marriage isn’t a good goal. You say the girl should pursue HER interests, but it seems that your lecture is meant to convice her that she should only pursue her interests if she’s not interested in marrigae.
You are right to classify youreself as a feminist, then, because that belief goes beyond the Christian belief that men and women are equal.
The right husband will simply appear in good time? But not the right career? Girls get the message today that they are stupid if they don’t go to college to seek careers. We teach them to go to school to learn how to be valuable to potential employers so they can land the best jobs. We never teach them to consider what it takes to make themselves valuable to potential husbands and land themselves in a good marriage, because, UGH, only silly, shallow girls need a husband. God said it is not good for man to be alone, but women are good all by themselves, in the minds of many today.
One of the reasons Twilight was so successful, I believe, is that girls want to be married to one man who will love and cherish them. They don’t want to be the sex objects that the media teaches them they should be. They want to be protected and loved. They want a man who will deny his lust for the good of the girl he loves. God has put this longing into their hearts and it’s a good goal. Finding an excellent man who will be a good husband and father is a lofty goal.
I don’t follow how being a feminist saves babies. I don’t understand how teaching girls to pursue careers keeps them from having premarital sex–Why not teach them that if man tries to get in their pants he’s not good husband and father material and they need to keep looking for the man of their dreams?–but I trust your reasons for holding to the feminist idea that women are fine without men, thank you very much, are loving reasons and not hateful reasons. I do believe you are motivated by love for women, not hatred for men. I don’t want you to think that I’m saying you’re evil. I think you’re wrong on this one, but I don’t think you’re evil.
Thanks for taking the time to tell me what you believe.
I call myself a feminist because I’ve reaped the benefits of the feminist movement, and I enjoy those benefits. I would also consider myself a feminist of the early type, going back to the 17th C and Mary Astell and Bathsua Makin et al. (there may be even earlier examples, but I haven’t studied them). This type of feminism advocated for equal education for women and the equal status of women as rational, thinking human beings. It’s a shame that we must view feminism in such a poor light, allowing certain issues to be divisive and forgetting the good–the things that should bind us together.
And I’m sorry to hijack this thread with such serious comments. I don’t want Chuck Norris or Orlando Bloom rescuing me, thank you very much. I’ll leave that to my husband and my loyal pup. Although I can shoot a gun, I’m otherwise a complete wimp and not ashamed to admit it. 😉
Sally said: “…and sex without children and no-fault divorce are all on the same plane and have all done great damage to our society.”
If it is permitted to veer a little bit on this post, I am curious to hear why “sex without children” (and I’m assuming you mean between a married man and woman) is damaging to society? I’m not being argumentative–I’m sincerely interested in why a married couple’s choice to not have children is perceived as damaging to society? Is it less damaging to have children you’re not prepared to raise? Someone here mentioned infertility, but barring medical issues, if a couple knows they do not want children…why is this perceived as a problem?
No time to answer in-depth right now, but quickly: Sorry about the ‘sex without children’ remark. I had in mind the free-sex movement of the sixties that demanded and was aided by birth control and abortion. Now we can have sex anytime without worrying about being burdened with children. I think that is a feminist dream (men can have sex without being saddled with children, and by golly, I should be allowed to do the same) and I think that is hugely damaging to society–to women, to men, and to children.
Sorry for the confusion.
Katherine, this is in response to your last comment. Perhaps this is indicative of the divide in the sexes, but I don’t get it. I mean, obviously, what you’re doing is awesome. But the term “feminist” needs some unpacking. However, you seem to suggest that that unpacking is necessary because of the Church, not so much the contemporary feminist movement. That’s a distinction I’m missing in your defense of feminism.
You said, “there are cultural disregards for women throughout the church.” But that depends entirely on what church. I’ve been actively involved in church cultures (Foursquare, Pentecostal, Charismatic) that confirm women pastors and allow women to teach in mixed settings. Unlike you, I have NO problem with women teaching men. In church settings or out. However, I don’t consider myself “pro-feminist,” nor do I consider that position biblically atypical. I understand there are church traditions that believe differently. But let’s be careful not to paint the entire Church as the big meanie in in this. The Bible has done more to liberate oppressed parties (think Wilberforce) than people seem to give it credit for. The fact that the first witnesses to attest to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ were women is so culturally bombastic as to, by itself, have begun a sort of feminist revolution. All that to say, aren’t you potentially forming an opinion based on an extreme, on cultural imbalances or stereotypes within a specific church tradition?
I get that you want “Christian women to take back that title.” But there doesn’t seem to be an appropriate denunciation of the “radical fringe” in the process. And, to me, that fringe has done far more damage — and continues to do far more damage — than any church culture. You said, “Feminism in its truest sense is the acknowledgement of Woman as different from yet still equal to men. Feminism in its truest sense teaches the inherent value of femininity to the culture. ” Sorry, but I don’t see how that’s any different from what the Bible teaches. So why call yourself a feminist, especially when the term carries such culture baggage? Wouldn’t it be tactically better to drop the “feminist” label altogether and just emphasize what Scripture teaches?
So if I were a light-skinned black woman in the 1960s your advice would be to just pass, right? After all, there was a lot of stigma and prejudice against the blacks of the day and it’s just easier to pretend to be white than to stand up and say “I am a black woman and this is who I am.”
I think you are not arguing with what I am saying; I think you are projecting a lot of prejudices against me and then expecting me to answer for all feminists everywhere.
1. You said, “there are cultural disregards for women throughout the church.” But that depends entirely on what church.
Well sure it does.
2. But let’s be careful not to paint the entire Church as the big meanie in in this.
I didn’t. Again, you’ve put up a straw-man. My claim is that there are in the church experience for many women tropes that need to be killed and claiming feminism and the mindset of a feminist is a way to do this.
You are doing to feminists what I’ve seen many people here claim that “secularists” are doing to the Church. You have a negative opinion formed by exposure to a limited amount of people and so you are willing to make them an Other who you then denounce.
3. The fact that the first witnesses to attest to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ were women is so culturally bombastic as to, by itself, have begun a sort of feminist revolution.
You’ll see where I brought that up myself. You seem to have conveniently skipped all my examples of feminsm in the Bible.
4. I get that you want “Christian women to take back that title.” But there doesn’t seem to be an appropriate denunciation of the “radical fringe” in the process.
Because I don’t work that way. I don’t tell people they’re wrong. Instead I ask them to tell me why they are right and then we have a dialog about it. I will, inside the circle of feminism, explain why I don’t adhere to certain teachings. But that happens on feminist blogs and at feminist meetings. It doesn’t happen in the public square where I throw people under a bus. The mere fact that I’m bringing this up here really upsets me because it’s not how I care to handle the situation. But just as the Bible asks us to settle church disputes inside the church and out of the public square that is how I strive to settle differences between myself and my husband, myself and my political party, myself and other women who work for the cause of feminism.
5. Sorry, but I don’t see how that’s any different from what the Bible teaches.
It isn’t. But there are Christian environmentalists who call themselves environmentalists. There are Christian businessmen who call themselves businessmen. Christian attorneys like my father call themselves attorneys even though they are not behaving any differently than proscribed in the Bible. You just have developed such a negative view of feminists over the course of time that you’d be much more comfortable if I sat down and quit saying the F word. And we could all pretend that the feminists aren’t needed in the church.
6. So why call yourself a feminist, especially when the term carries such culture baggage?
Because that’s what I am. I’m not ashamed of it. It’s not my fault that it carries cultural baggage, but it can be through my doing that the baggage is lessened. I want little girls to know that not all feminists are the bogeymen they’ve been raised to think they are. Until society stops selling Barbie dolls and photoshopping ads and putting three year old girls in hooker make-up and selling t-shirts that say “I’m too pretty to do homework” and making TV shows where a woman sings a song about seducing teachers for good grades (_Smash_ on NBC), until PETA stops using naked women to protest meat-based diets, until girls’ soccer teams have equal funding to the boys’, until a woman at a company doing the same job as a man can expect to make at least half as much as the man…Society needs me to call myself a feminist. I need to call myself a feminist.
And any man with a daughter ought to be grateful for the feminists like me out there.
the problem with thinking evolutionarily is that you are thinking evolutionarily.
i just read an article that concluded women are attracted to bad boys. it was all about cliches that are generally true.
“Researchers at the University of British Columbia found that guys who look moody or sullen are more attractive than men who smile, according to a study published in The American Psychological Association journal, Emotion. The reason: A man with a don’t-come-near-me face conveys that he’s strong and valuable — two traits that women traditionally look for in a man.”
taken from http://yahoo.match.com/y/article.aspx?articleid=12705&TrackingID=526103&BannerID=1099740