In a sense, every proposal that you should change your way of life is like a sale. All philosophies and religions are actually selling a concept. As Christians, we are sold the concept that Jesus is the way to salvation. The New Testament explains what that means, and people have pondered it and studied it, argued about it, even killed and given their lives over it. It is a very passionate sell.
Feminism proposes that women should have equality with men because women can equally contribute to society. Fair enough—we have an open market of ideas. And it is not unusual that the proponents of feminism should do what the average philosophy or religion does when questioned—argue bitterly and often very defensively. However those who are in the market have every right to say “Why should I buy this?”
That’s really the question being asked lately. “Why should I buy this? How will this make my life better?” I know some Christians intensely dislike it when I bring it up in this way, but really, there is a transactional relationship going on in Christianity. God offers us forgiveness, for example, and so we are to forgive others. God offers us wisdom, we are in turn to follow God’s path to righteousness, not our own. The very notion that our salvation was bought with a price is at its root a transactional relationship.
IAL brought up the important understanding of the weird relationship between White Knight Christianity and feminism both throwing men under the bus leaving chaos in its wake. So what is their endgame?
White Knights (having been one I get this I think very well) honestly believe that they are doing the right thing by denigrating men in order to uplift women. The basic notion is that women have no real agency without men provoking them to do the right thing. However the bizarre thing is that feminism proposes the exact same thing: that without men’s agreement women cannot do the right thing. Shirley Taylor talks about the important contributions women have to make, and how men are holding them back.
I have to ask then: what is it that Shirley Taylor wishes women could accomplish? What are they held back from doing? I read every one of her blog entries, and nowhere did I see any sign of what the lady hopes that women could be doing in church other than occupying positions of authority. But why? What will they DO? What are they offering to sell?
Well here’s a little sampler. In one of her blog entries she reviews a book called “Every Woman and Child” by Adele Hebert. Hebert makes the statement that “Our Christian faith is based completely on the words of women.” Shirley Taylor’s review says that in the book Jesus became angry many times, but never at women. In her blog she refers to submission as we have consistently seen in the churchian feminist movement—as slavish. She refers to a pastor caught in a sex scandal and says “Have you ever read a story of a female pastor putting hidden cameras in bathrooms to spy on men, or young boys? Have you ever read of a story of a woman pastor molesting young boys?…Yet women cannot be put in authority over a man.” In other words: women are better than men. Her conclusion generally is that women are less valued in churches. I don’t see any difference between her position and that of Germaine Greer, who has said “equality is not enough”. In a sense Greer is more honest—she openly identifies the feminist notion of Patriarchy Theory and endorses radical sweeping change to every aspect of social structure, and states that she has Marxist views on family and on life in general.
Shirley Taylor like many Christian feminists insists on the man part of Ephesians 5 and throws out the woman’s part. Submission is equal to being a slave in the minds of such people. But let’s tear away the veil: it’s just feminism. Women always the victims, men always the perpetrators. I have to be honest and say that if I knew that feminists were actually after genuine equality that I wouldn’t mind, because actual equality is about everyone doing their part to the best of their ability, everyone being given a fair opportunity, everyone taking responsibility for their own actions. I don’t reject the notion of feminism merely because I don’t believe in equality—it’s because I believe that they don’t stand for it, and I don’t like hypocrisy.
She even admits in a blog entry called “I don’t want to preach” that she doesn’t want to preach. She says in that entry that she doesn’t want to serve communion as a deacon. So really—why bother? In short—what is the real endgame here? What do these people want to accomplish? Well, the feminist endgame is destruction and then rebuilding—what exactly, they themselves admit that they don’t know. They just don’t like what is here right now.
In response to IAL’s post about hyenas, I was thinking that there is a similarity. Hyenas are intelligent animals but at the end of the day they’re just predators; they want to eat, raise young and prosper, but they’re hardly thinking about the rest of the ecosystem. Feminism seems to be exactly the same. They want to devour and maybe see tomorrow, but beyond that offer no genuine hope for the future in spite of their sweet sounding words. Whenever feminists are asked to behave in a just manner when they have a position of power over men, they abuse it. Whenever discussion of discontented wives frivorcing is discussed, feminists defend their right to do it. Whenever feminists are asked to speak up for boys and girls abused by women, feminists refuse to acknowledge that these cases exist in sufficient numbers to be concerned about it. Whenever men attempt to speak up on behalf of homeless men, men who suffered from domestic violence or men who are near to suicidal at the lack of contact with their own children or stepchildren, they are simply told that these are red herrings for men who are abusive. The general response of feminists to men in trouble is “look to your own, don’t bother us.” The position that feminists take, that women are downtrodden everywhere, that the power and agency they so blatantly have is not enough, makes it impossible to even discuss ‘equality’. They are a strange mirror like partner with the likes of Driscoll in shaming men who raise concerns.
So to me, ultimately you know people by the fruits of their labour. If what these people wanted was to be able to do good in the world, wouldn’t they just be doing it? Wouldn’t they be focused on how to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, bring peace to others? Who cares what your title is? I’m not ordained, I don’t have any lofty position. I’d be impressed by all this if there was some powerful message of the Gospel that wanted to be delivered, if there was an important movement to fight poverty or to teach young people valuable things, but I’m not seeing the slightest hint of that. What I’m seeing is envy and desire for power couched in pleading terms that make it look like a call for justice.
So going back to my opening paragraph, what is being sold? Nothing more than “come and be eaten, and I will be satisfied.” No thanks.