Perhaps NOW’s strongest argument is that men and women are indeed equal and ought to be treated as such. One of the many hard places to get stuck against in this discussion is the multifaceted nature of the organization. It really is true that the “want it all NOW” which makes it difficult to critique the organization as a whole. Part of NOW’s mission statement is a prime example of this conundrum, “Our purpose is to take action to bring women into full participation in society — sharing equal rights, responsibilities and opportunities with men, while living free from discrimination.” I gladly concede that women ought to share equal rights and opportunities with men. Yet hidden between those two innocent truths lies the dastardly word responsibilities, with which I simply cannot agree. Every woman ought to have all the same rights and opportunities as a hangman, but never his responsibility .
This quasi-agreement comes from an equivocation in the feminist’s rhetoric. The terms “equal” and “identical” have become basically interchangeable. This sort of equivocation may go undetected in the soft science of sociology, but imagine the devastation that could be caused in one of the hard sciences for such an inconsistency. Hydrogen and helium may be equally valuable in the sight of God and man, but any chemist would scoff at the concept that the equality made them identical. In fact, many of the tragic effects that one would expect from such a chemical confusion, can be seen in the dissolution of the American family. Castrated men, who behave like women, have given rise to women filling the gap that has been created, and, operating under the devastating equivocation, begin to act like men, and thus destroy their femininity.
Liberal Theology, Liberal Politics
6 years ago
8 comments:
Perhaps the issue isn't women having the same responsibilities as men, because a lot of women will and do by the nature of their situation, and it won't be wrong at all.
I'd put forward that the problem "hidden between those two innocent truths" is women not submitting to their husbands. Which is quite different, though overlapping.
Ty, I think you're right on. The thing that I like is that you kept the rightful place of the woman rather than diminishing it. Too often we male reformed Christians like to sit in our little heads-of-households circles chanting "men, men, men, men, men" as if we're trying to conjure up the god Testosterus. We tend to forget that Christ wasn't born to Joseph, but to Mary. The world's Salvation comes from woman; it is her seed, not his, that will crush the serpent. That said, you nailed it.
As per the responsibility thing, that's definitely an issue, I'm not sure if it's the issue. I'd go with Horace if he threw in "federal authority" for husbands, so we can include widows, unmarried women, etc. When women submit to the men God has placed over them to protect them, and when men realize that they're not to be owners but protectors, we might actually start to get somewhere.
As per God's natural design for the family, the woman's rightful and God ordained position is at home. This is not a position of lesser importance, and does not in any way diminish her value to God. God's curse on men and women, after the fall were different. Women were to endure the pain of child-bearing, while men toiled out in the world providing for their families. If women want to work outside of the home, they are then adopting for themselves the man's portion of the curse as well as bearing their own. This results in constant striving for equality and sometimes even authority over men. This could also go the other way. There are men that are afraid of leadership and taking responsibility, and therefore willingly give it over to the women. Stepping outside of God's model for the family, is destroying the family from within.
I disagree with Kaleb. Women aren't to submit to some "federal general" headship authority of "men". One woman is to submit to one man. That is her husband. If she is a widow then she is in submission to the Church (like a man), and if she is unmarried, her father. But the world is not set up to be women under men. It is designed to be 1 woman under 1 man.
I have no idea what NOW is but nice post. Although... I would say that women are not entitled to all the same oppertunities as men, if you get the driFt of where I am going. Likewise men are not tentitled to all the oppertunities of women. I think it is a good general assumption but when you get into the particulars it could get wierd.
Horace, you said what I was trying to say much more gooder than I did. I was just trying to get to the point where we include widows and older unmarried women. By no means do I think that women as a whole are subject to men as a whole. Like you said, one woman under one man. Sorry bout that.
So a little quick post maintenance.
Horace: I agree with you, however the point of the paper I pulled this from deals with feminism's attack on femininity, my major point being that they seek to be identical to, rather than equal with men. The ultimate responsibility that the feminist desires and i refuse to relinquish is that of husbandship.
Caleb: I think I understand that you aren't in disagreement with Kenny, but I appreciate his precision. If some guy try to assert authority over one of my girl friends or sisters just because of his gender, I'd feel obligated to and justified in nocking his lights out.
Ashley: I appreciate the post, I'm not sure if your trying to point out that I missed something, or if your just hardily agreeing. Either way, your absolutely right. If I were to be foolish enough to try to describe one gender as better than the other, the office of woman would certainly be my choice. eve was queen of the garden, Adam was the gardener.
Amberleigh: That is why it is not good for man to be alone. the men all focused on responsibility and you pointed out something I had not thought enough about. I guess when I was writing that I was thinking that most of the opportunities that women ought not have fall more under the responsibility category. ie. women shouldn't have the opportunity to be in the army because they should not have the responsibilities of being in the army.
Thanks so much for the comments everyone.
Tyler,
I was heartily agreeing with you. Sorry, but every time I comment on something that I am passionate about, I tend to automatically take up the offensive position. It throws alot of people off. Sorry again.
~Ashley
Post a Comment