REAL egalitariansim is distasteful to today’s evangelical feminists

The following statement will result in an easily predicted basket of responses.

If there was ever a period in the United States (I cannot comment on other geographies with as much certainty, though I am sure periods exist elsewhere that are similar functionally) when real egalitarianism was close to being, or actually was being modeled, it was prior to the industrial revolution, during the birth and expansion of our nation to the west.

Secular feminists will rail using worn out clichés about women being enslaved to men, barefoot, pregnant, assigned only woman’s work, etc. Evangelical feminists will agree and add that these arrangements were likely physically abusive, but even in the absence of DV, they were emotionally abusive in that the women’s important emotional needs were in no way being met, and that is a churchian cardinal sin.

A very simplistic look is a good opener; look to the Proverb’s 31 woman, the Biblical equivalent of MLK for the evangelical feminist , was clearly operating in an environment that was functionally similar to frontier married women with husbands and children. Obviously as Christian men, we should not find fault with the Proverbs 31 women, and we do not. We red pill Christian men do however have major problems with the rewritten narrative around her, and the idolatry with which she is held in a certain form of high regard.

But lets unpack the example of the pioneering settlers in America’s growth west during the establishment then movement of the frontier until we reached the Pacific coast.

At the very frontier we cannot glean the best example simply because of the danger. Homesteads were not completely established in that the business of operating a home was often secondary to simply staying alive by protecting against attacks from indigenous people. Once a frontier and small buffer was established the danger abated sufficiently to set up agriculture based homesteads, which of course led to settlements and commerce, supply stores, law officers, etc. etc.  At this point, a man was working the fields and likely he had the double duty of somehow collectively with neighbors still defending the collective. If his was a homestead at the outer reaches, he had no collective with which to work. In both cases he was soldier, sheriff and farmer.

Between these tasks he had no time to devote to controlling his wife. He had to rely on her. She had neither time nor opportunity to control her husband nor sufficient time to dwell on that. They depended heavily on each other, and each one had tasks that, if not done, had grave consequence. To the extent needed, they overlapped. In case of a man’s illness, the wife had to tend fields and be able to shoot a gun. If she was ill the man had to tend the livestock (a task she generally bore as it was close to home) and manage things inside the house to the degree he could. To function best, each had full latitude to engage their daily responsibilities as seen fit. Time of an evening over dinner was generally coupled with exhaustion and discussion and planning for more and better ways to deal with making sure they survived. Survival depended utterly on both of them and their respective tasks.

It’s beyond the purview of this post but let me make quick mention of the fact that what passes for relationship now would be a real conundrum for the women in those days. To have expectations, the kind of esoteric connectedness that so defines today’s marriage, would have been folly, silly, and alien as a concept.  What is that expression about idle hands?

This man and women were 100% empowered. The women did not sit in church groups and bitch about how the men get all the best jobs while the poor dears are stuck doing mainly domestic things. These women were stuck in their roles (For the person who wants to offer up a name of some famous frontier woman I say, OK, I’m pretty sure there were a bunch, but only today’s corrupt way of thinking would ever conjure that objection up as important.)

While churchian women today will claim that these frontier women were terribly abused and unhappy, had to have been depressed, EVEN IF THEY DIDN’T KNOW IT THEY WERE BEING ABUSED, this is an exploitation of what was something they have no perspective on these days……reality.

In fact, they would make great strides by acknowledging these women for the way they manifested their so called empowerment. Today’s women would look upon that empowerment and see enslavement. Why? Those women ALSO accepted the ultimate responsibility that goes with the empowerment that was so necessary. Today the real objection, if adapted to those frontier days, would say that those women should have had the RIGHT TO CHOOSE to work in the fields, as sheriff, or as soldier, and that it would be the highest of praise worthy that a man step aside and encourage his wife to do so.

The men considered themselves ultimately responsible for the well being and survival of the family. To see to it, he had to fully and completely trust his wife to accept a great measure of daily responsibility. Her doing so put her in a position to speak to the family plans, the big picture, because she was integral to its success, by necessity, not by fiat.

Behind all of it there stood a man who insisted that when push ever came to shove, he was where the buck would stop ultimately.

That looks more egalitarian than anything the mealy mouthed mutual submission crowd comes up with, be they evangelical feminist women or men pandering to same.


5 thoughts on “REAL egalitariansim is distasteful to today’s evangelical feminists

  1. Very good post. I would like to add some thoughts to it.

    First: justice by feminist standards is not justice as the average person understands it. To the average person, justice is the rectifying of particular wrongs, with the aim of generally being fair. And frankly every system is flawed, and we understand from the Bible that it is almost impossible for any system not to be flawed because of the sins of humanity. However Feminism proposes that the root of all wrong is injustice towards women in particular. Because of this, to Feminists your scenario simply won’t wash. Women did not have different roles; they were treated as chattel. QED.

    Second: Feminism, like all revisionist political movements, presents a view of history that suits its ideology. Try sometime saying to a feminist that the reason feminism exists is modern economy and technology, and you’ll get astonishment and outrage. Because of course in the pioneer days you are talking about life was dictated far more by necessity than by preference. Of course it is still dictated by necessity, but we are more easily able to pretend that it is not.

    Third: The idea of men as expendable vs. women as dominated balancing the game is one that Feminists reject generally. If they did not they would have to own it and accept that they still see males as expendable vs. women. Yes, women did not have to serve in the police, in the military or in other forms of deliberate risk taking, and therefore did not earn the right to have political power. All you have to do is consider one of those films showing a cavalry charge or an infantry advance–who wants to be one of those guys who gets hit before he even reaches the enemy? Yet for that era of warfare, that’s what happens. Young men who survive and gather prestige grow in power–because they risked losing their lives, sometimes for very little reason. Women by contrast risked their lives in childbirth and in marriage. Balance.

    Fourth: Throughout history genuinely oppressed groups have rallied at some point and attacked their oppressors. The Amistad incident is a great example of this. It doesn’t matter how ill educated, lacking in advantages or whatever they are–even Medieval peasants, armed only with agricultural equipment attacked knights when they felt more oppressed than they could bear. However historically women’s protests have been for the most part against the actions they felt their men were undertaking ill advisedly.

    Now it’s very clear in history that women are CAPABLE of violent action when they want to undertake it. (an example comes to mind of a woman of an Italian princely family in the late middle ages who when taunted by her besiegers that they’d kill her children if she didn’t surrender her fortress to them, who raised her skirts, patted her genital region and said “There’s more where they came from!”) Individual women have disguised themselves as soldiers, commanded armies and led nations. No question about this. However I can’t think of an example in history of women having an uprising against their oppressors.

    Fifth: Because of this, it should be possible to see the so called feminist issues as simply being human issues that we could discuss and deal with. For example the same way that we have possibly better ways of raising children suited to our CURRENT ENVIRONMENT. The wisdom of this, in my opinion, is that rather than condemning the past we can understand it simply to have been different, and explore ways of adapting. But Feminism insists that the past was evil, and that all vestiges of it must be swept away. This makes genuine discussion and exploration impossible, creates an adversarial situation.

    Sixth: As I have said before, Feminists lack gratitude. This is where the MRA movement comes into play. They have no sense of gratitude towards men who out of a sense of fairness accepted women playing different roles in society. Thus any man who accepts whatever Feminism does is a friend, any man who questions it is an enemy.

    Seventh: It has to be borne in mind that Feminism is a hostile movement. Since the nineteen fifties it has been. It is a movement born out of international communism which wants to destroy the society we live in and create one of total control over human life’s every aspects. So really, the egalitarian discussion is merely a smoke screen for this aim. Those who think I’m paranoid need to actually read the backgrounds of Betty Friedan, Simone de Beauvoir, Gloria Steinem and others.

  2. Well get ta writin friend, and, do tell us how you have been doing please, maybe post that under the ChristianForumsIssues area, its kind of a free for all

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s