Hooray for feminism! Remember the days when the exciting world of excessive drinking, vomiting, fisticuffs, incontinence, and generally making a public spectacle of oneself was a male bastion?
Not any more!
Boy, women have come a long way since those bad-old days of Betty Crocker and June Cleaver. If only our grandmothers could have seen this great day of liberation (sniff).
I can hardly wait to see the next domino fall.
38 comments:
In spite of this, hoardes of young feminist girls continually mock and ridicule the idea of the homemaker and the June Cleaver model. Do they not think that one day this sort of return to Roman decadence might one day also be looked down on? Some of the remarks I receive indicate that they think that innocence and goodness are dangerous, or something. What kind of harm did the Betty Crocker types of the past, do to women? Yet, the young girls are trained from an early age to laugh at them or look down on them. The feminist ideals have not dignified women. They do not want to sew a pretty dress, say bedtime prayers with children, keep a house clean and safe, or bake a cake, things that were once highly admired and valued. Such things are scorned, in favor of more "sophisticated" things, which are the very things that bring them down. As the preachers of the 1930's used to say, equality gives women the right to smoke and drink and behave worse than a man. They warned us of this many decades ago, and it has come true. This equality was supposedly for the right to vote. I'd give up the right to vote if it meant less threat for women to become addicted to substances or have so many emotional and mental problems.The right to vote hasn't helped that at all.
Interesting article, Father Hollywood. I'm not sure much has changed, because I believe there were many women who "quietly" drank. Maybe the difference is the rage behind the drinking now.
Lydia, I find you comments interesting also, as I have noticed a HUGE trend towards crafting and homemaking, evidenced by all the crafting blogs. It appears to me, that Generation X and Y is indeed rediscovering sewing, baking, and nesting. It may have taken a bit, but is that really surprising, due to the Boomer generation that raised us (me)?
Many women in there thirties, even just on the Lutheran blogs alone, are home schoolers, and are raising their kids to pray and homemake.
It's always sad when people take complete leave of their senses and make a horse's back end of themselves. However, both genders have been doing it since the beginning of time. Unfortunately this "anything goes" culture of ours has more to do with this love of public humiliation than anything else.
Certain sorts of women have been misbehaving ever since Eve first did. So have men.
But when women do it, our *right to vote* comes into question???
It seems to me that the early "feminists" would also have been shocked by this behavior. I don't think those women wanted to run amok, they merely wanted to be able to have their vote count.
Their modern counterparts are not counterparts in the sense that they want to be more than equal.
I like being able to vote, but I don't want equality to men. I am a woman, and like that just fine. Let the men be gentlemen and the women be ladylike, and that would be a huge step to restoring a sense of propriety.
Dear Lady Lydia:
I'm honored to have you as a visitor to my blog. My wife is a reader of www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com. You all are doing the Lord's work there!
Anyway, thanks for your comments. I guess Betty Crocker and June Cleaver had to be vilified in order to push an agenda of egalitarianism and careerism among women.
I would hope that the early feminists were simply ignorant of the cultural trajectory they were placing womanhood on. But who knows? Maybe this is what they were after all along.
The most heroic women to me personally are my late great-grandmother (a godly widow who raised three young children), my mother (a stay-at-home mom who read the Bible to us kids and prayed with us), and my wife (who has a Bryn Mawr degree and MicroSoft certification, but nevertheless believes those things to be of far less value than running the household and being a full-time wife and mother).
To the vast majority of men and women today, these three heroines would be seen as victims at best, as pathetic losers and wastes of human potential at worst. Paradoxically, I do believe a woman in an apron wields more power than a woman with four stars on her padded epaulet; a woman reading a Bible to her children is by far more powerful and making an eternal difference in the world than a woman taking the presidential oath on a ceremonial Bible.
I believe there were a lot of at-least unforeseen consequences of the "equal rights" movement. My own church body, which is seen as almost right-wing to the extreme, has embraced egalitarianism to a large degree. I was struck by a recent publication from our world mission organization that was selling logo-bearing shirts. The models, one a man and the other a woman, were identically dressed - khaki pants and masculine shirt. And it is a rare thing indeed to find a Lutheran woman covering her head in church these days - though it was typical only a couple generations ago.
Ironically, we have a professional deaconess program whose logo features a representation of the biblical Phoebe - complete with a veiled head. But I have never seen a deaconess wearing a mantilla - and in fact, they often wear trousers or in some cases miniskirts as part of their deaconess "habit."
Recent rulings in our church body have green-lighted women church presidents, women theology professors, and even women elders in congregations (who have oversight over our pastors) - but since as of this time women are not actually ordained into the pastoral office, there is a sense of false security in our synod that we are maintaining a biblical doctrine of vocation when it comes to womanhood.
And I'm with you on the much overrated right to vote. I'd gladly surrender my own "right" (privilege actually) to cast a ballot for either Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum if our country were filled with women like my great-grandmother.
The hand that rocks the cradle is much more important than the hand that votes.
Dear Lutheran Lucciola:
You're right that there are no new sins. But I think the difference is that women used to see public drunkenness as unladylike, and hence something to avoid - certainly not aspire to. But now, we see middle school girls idolizing the Sex in the City characters, and their hapless mothers quite often are okay with this.
There has definitely been a cultural shift over the past few decades that has redefined "feminine" from that which is cultured and refined towards an ideal that simply mimics the lowest common denominator of male trashiness.
"Anything a man can do, we can do worse" seems to be their motto.
I think your observation is spot on that there is a subculture of younger Christian women who are rejecting feminism and are instead seeking the now-marginalized Christian biblical model of femininity. I find the traditionalist Catholics and the conservative Reformed Christians way ahead of us in this movement, but it isn't unusual for us Lutherans to be the cultural caboose (Bishop Pitelko once told us we're 30 years behind everyone else).
Whether this "little rebellion" can grow to be a movement within Lutheranism is yet to be seen. I sure hope so!
Dear Anastasia:
I do believe the suffragettes set a ball into motion that they honestly could not see where it was going (even though the prescient G.K. Chesterton certainly did - see especially his "What's Wrong With the World" written in 1910 - it is almost eerily correct in projecting the trajectory).
The same egalitarianism and rejection of the biblical and traditional doctrine that women were primarily created to be submissive helpmeets to their husbands and keepers of the home resulted in the suffrage movement as well as the movement toward feminine careerism and the drive to act, look, think, and talk like men.
I can't speak for Lady Lydia, but this is where I see the linkage between the "right" to vote and the current self-degradation of womanhood.
Dear Thursdays:
The beauty of the divinely established economy of the home is that the civilizing and moderating force of femininity reins in the excesses of testosterone-driven aggression.
But without that sort-of centripetal force, men are increasingly more vulgar and women are increasingly eager to join them in the name of "equality."
I think this is why, as you point out, people of both sexes seem to want public humiliation, just as Jeremiah prophesied in Sunday's OT reading according to the historic lectionary (Jer 8:4-12) that people don't even know how to blush anymore!
This is obviously nothing new, but this relationship between male and female is novel in the span of the Christian West. It is so pervasive that even most conservative Christian women embrace elements of feminism without realizing it.
But I am grateful for the many women who are throwing off the shackles of feminism for the freedom of the gospel.
Dear Orianna:
Thanks for your comment. I agree with you about "unintended consequences".
I don't think voting in and of itself is all that big a deal - especially given the manipulation that goes on behind the scenes in politics anyway. But I do think the same philosophy (gender-driven egalitarianism) that pushed for women's suffrage, the ERA, Title IX, abortion on demand, etc. is giving us this kind of thing - and I think it was inevitable.
Denying women the vote won't fix the problem, but if women cared more about submitting to their husbands than they cared about wielding political power - that would roll back the cultural forces that has given us the spectacle of women trying to imitate the very worst behavior of men.
Women need to want to change before anything will change. They need to see what this is doing to their daughters to want them to be more like their grandmothers. Without that desire, the situation will just continue to crumble and rot even further.
Father Hollywood:
This head covering you refer to, is that a necessary thing? I'm not sure how that would enrich my faith, to be honest. It's a cultural thing that wasn't my culture to begin with, unless the woman was a black widow. Maybe a few centuries ago, but not anything recent.
And drunken wildness isn't new, Anastasia is right. Look at the flapper movement in the roaring 20's!
I don't know, these secondary, outward appearance things can really clog the law and gospel sometimes.
Dear Lucciola:
Who said anything about necessary? Non sequitur. And it really isn't a matter of "centuries" but rather decades. It was the norm, rather than the exception, for a lady in the 1950s and early 1960s to have her head covered. She certainly didn't wear midriff-baring, cleavage heaving, tattoo-exposing tops to the Lord's House. A great cultural shift happened around the time of Vatican II and the birth control pill.
I find it hard to believe that there is no cultural link between when modesty in church was the norm and when there were no news reports of drunken female brawls on airplanes vs. the present. Feminine modesty in attire is a pretty good indicator of the odds of the acceptance of drunken female brawls.
I believe that the cultural forces that replaced feminine hats with casual unisex attire in our churches are the same forces that have been continually lowering the bar regarding femininity in general.
And yes, the flapper phenomenon makes my point! Christianity has been the dominant cultural paradigm in western civilization since 315 AD, but one has to go into the 20th century to find short skirts, trousers, bobbed hair, and public emulation of masculine behaviors becoming culturally normative.
And look how far it has gone in less than a century since the "flappers." By comparison, "flappers" seem downright tame to what we see today.
Women getting plastered and beating each other with fists and vodka bottles is not a matter of the gospel, but rather is a matter of the law. And the fact that they are women is indicative of the cultural sinful rebellion against the vocation of womanhood in addition to the sins of violence and shameful behavior.
While I'm no feminist, yet several things about this discussion strike me. The first, already mentioned, is that there is no talk of *men* forfeiting their voting rights because of misbehavior (unless it is actually criminal, of course, in which case a convicted person of either sex loses that right).
The second is that while public drunkenness (for example) is considered an *additional* sin for females, as a violation of their true womanhood on top of everything else. It is, but let us take note that it is also and equally a violation of true manhood, Jesus Christ being the Yardstick.
The third is that when it comes to submission, only women are mentioned. In fact, a Christian woman is to submit to her husband, a Christian child to his/her parents, a Christian servant to his/her master, and *every* Christian is called to submit to every other Christian and even to non-Christian authorities. Turn the other cheek, walk the second mile, etc.
The fourth item to notice is that the bit about a woman submitting to her husband only works if the husband performs his corresponding vocation, which is to cherish her as he cherishes his own flesh and to be to her as Christ is to the Church. Othewise, under the guise of virtue, we're advocating simple oppression.
What ought a Christian woman to do if her husband does not behave as a Christian man? Well, I think my patron saint, Anastasia the Deliverer from Poisons, set us a good example. She prayed that her abusive, pagan husband would either convert or die. Meanwhile, she submitted. (He died.)
Dear Anastasia:
I must not have explained myself very well, as you're concluding things opposite to my point, which is this:
God has established the universe as a hierarchy.
God has dominion over man, man has dominion over animals. Within mankind, the husband has dominion over the wife, and the parents have dominion over children.
Every form of sin is some kind of rebellion against the hierarchy.
Paganism and false religion is sin against man's submission to God. Ditto for husbands who do not take care of their families. Feminism is the sin of women refusing to submit to men (normally, her husband, but she may be called to submit to her father if she is unmarried, or her pastor in spiritual matters). There are many ways children rebel against parents.
There are even examples of species-based egalitarianism, that seeks to equate humans and, say large primates - which is a refusal to submit to God's hierarchical order in which man, made in God's image, has dominion over animals.
Feminism is one particular type of this rebellion against the created order, one of many - but it is a culturally dominant form that has worked its way into every facet of life in our society. Egalitarianism fuels democracy, and that combined with feminism, has resulted in a shift of the woman's role in society and in the home. This is why today's families are far less likely to be patriarchal - which is the scriptural model.
Men have been getting drunk and beating each other senseless since the fall. This is not to condone it by any means. But the vocation of Christian womanhood involves being a helpmeet, helping men to resist their testosterone-fueled tendency toward the vulgar and violent. Boys, in particular, learn how to treat women, from their mothers.
Before feminism took root, even the most base of men removed their hats and refrained from vulgarities in the presence of women. Now, women are almost *offended* if men will not curse and belch in front of them.
But feminism has given women a new charge. Instead of being a check on masculine bad behavior, they are now encouraged to partake in the name of "equality."
As a result, sin has spread even further, to men and women alike. Just as Eve's first sin of rebellion against the hierarchical order of creation brought on Adam's sin of aiding and abetting her - resulting in bringing death to mankind - we see the same today being worked by feminism.
This is not to excuse masculine sin by any stretch, but I would like to call upon women to be a force for nobility instead of crassness - as I believe it is part of her feminine vocation.
For example, a man is responsible for his own sins of lust. However, women who dress in skin-tight jeans or mini-skirts share in sin by leading men into sin. The facile, feminist response is to say: "Well, the man shouldn't be looking." True. But the women should respect their bodies and the men around them by dressing modestly - as St. Paul implores. The "right" to wear provocative clothing is not part of our evangelical freedom.
Let's be honest here - tight jeans, short skirts, and tight skimpy tops were not designed that way for wholesome health reasons, such as making sure the wearer gets her share of vitamin E from the sun. This attire is intended to arouse. So, don't be shocked and appalled when these clothes do what they were designed to do.
But today's culture encourages neither modesty nor moderation. Women have far more power than they realize, but they squander it by misusing their freedom to dress like trollops when they could be using their God-given power to lead men away from sin, toward love and honor.
If you want to see men "behave as Christian men" - a good start would be to surround him with women who are not openly in rebellion against the created order. But if you want to see both men and women act like swine - and continue to get worse - let's keep doing what we're doing in this disintegrating culture.
Feminism is utterly diabolical - and no amount of pointing the finger at men can make the devil a good guy.
I will gladly give up my "right" to vote (which isn't a right, but rather a privilege) in exchange for a culture where women are not pressed into rebellion against the order of creation by church, state, society, and even their own families.
The devil has been leading men to sin through women since the start. Note St. Paul's progression in 1 Tim 2:9-15 - in which he bundles together the questions of the role of women in the Church, feminine submission to men (not only her husband), feminine modesty, and her salvation within her role in the order of creation.
Note that St. Paul, in arguing for modesty among women, is not arguing for immodesty among men - but he is pinpointing a particular strategy of the devil to use female rebellion and immodesty as a way to lead men and women alike away from God.
This is why the spectacle of drunken women brawling with each other is more shocking and harmful to society than if men engaged in the same, equally sinful behavior. Satan is not only leading them into sin, but attacking a God-given check on sinfulness.
When women vacate the pedestal, they make join the men in standing in the mud and hence remove their ability to clean the mud off of others.
I hope that clears things up.
Yes, thanks, that does clear up some things.
Not all.
Yes, I certainly agree there is a created order of things we need to observe. It just isn't exactly gender-based. It's function-based, with the various functions assigned to each sex according to that sex's suitability for it. Nurturing children, primarily for women. Protecting the family, primarily for the husband/father. Being the living icon of Christ for the parish, that requires a spiritually mature man. Etc., etc.
It's not exactly that women are to submit to men; it's that women, like men, are to submit to those in authority over them. A wife, to her husband. A minor daughter, to her father. A parishioner, in spiritual matters, to his or her parish priest and also to her spiritual father (or mother) if that is somebody different from the parish priest. And all Christians, for love's sake, to one another.
And I don't think women belong on any pedestal just because they are women; only saints belong there, saints of either sex.
Women don't belong in the muck, either. Just as men don't.
And it's just as much men's job to lead women out of sin as for women to lead men out of it. We are all to lead each other out of sin. We are all responsibile for curbing our own hormones *and* for assisting each other in that task however we can. Pastors, for example, need to crack down on clothing, especially in church. (Church clothes should be not only modest, either, but also neat, clean, pressed, well-mended, nice clothing. No fashion statements, but not everyday stuff, either; God is worth dressing up for!)
Women might not rebel so much, at such huge and devastating expense to our society, if all this were rightly understood: equal status, different roles.
Dear Anastasia:
The article in question (and my discussion of it) was not about men's conduct. For there is no disagreement there, that men getting drunk on a plane and being violent is utterly sinful and repugnant. But what I am referring to is the *cultural shift* that has taken place regarding the role of women in God's created order.
Ironically, this dragging down of women hasn't elevated men, but only dragged down everyone. It is today more acceptable for men to be swine - and for the women to join them in the mud.
Do you deny that there has been a cultural shift in our society over the last half-century in the way we look at sex, and that this has been overwhelmingly negative? I could not imagine any Christian woman arguing that sex attitudes and cultural mores are healthier today than they were in the "bad old" days of Betty Crocker and June Cleaver.
What was once considered repulsive for being unladylike no longer enters the equation, because the role of woman within God's created order has pretty-much been abolished. We are no longer men and women, but "persons". In the name of equality, masculinity is normed by femininity, and vice versa. This appeals to our culture's sense of fairness and democracy, but is repugnant to God's patriarchy.
You keep using the word "equal" here. It doesn't apply. I'm not referring to equality of people before God (as Paul in Gal 3:28) which is absolutely true, but I'm rather addressing the differences between the sexes in vocation and the created order. Men and women simply do not have equal vocations or hold equal places in the order of creation. This is why the vast majority of men, but 100% of all women, are disqualified for the pastoral office.
That is the curve ball feminism has tossed into our highly egalitarian culture. It is a hijacking of the nature of equality in the very way that Gal 3:28 is hijacked by advocates of women's ordination.
It is indeed a sin for a non-ordained man to usurp the pastoral office. It is not merely an *equal* sin when a women does the exact same thing, for her sin is compounded by being a rebellion against not only the honorable vocation of layman, but also that of womanhood.
A man who murders another man is charged with a crime. A man who assassinates the president is charged with an additional crime. For he is not only a murderer, but also guilty of "regicide" - an attacker of the created order.
Sin is sin. Women getting drunk on a plane and beating each other up have to answer for this sin just as men do. But there is a sin that we bear culturally, the sin of egalitarianism that denies the God-given role of women to embrace their womanhood, and not simply ape the most loathsome of male crudity.
Your statement that it is equally our jobs to curb each others' hormones shows how feminism has influenced your way of thinking. Men and women are simply titilated differently. Only feminism imposes an utterly unnatural and unrealistic "equality" here.
A man taking off his shirt to work in the yard is not going to lead a woman to sin as if a woman taking off hers would. A man wearing a pair of snugly fitting trousers is not the same as a woman wearing them. These differences are innate and biological.
But when women adopt male attire, they are denying that this is incongruous with their femininity, that the slacks cling to their hips, buttocks, and other parts of the anatomy in a way that it simply doesn't for men, and furthermore, the way men look at women is different than vice versa. Men are more easily led to sin by visual stimulation than women. It's biological, and it's a fact, as politically incorrect as it may be.
Men shouldn't show their cleavage at the communion rail - but for quite different reasons than why women ought not. It's not just six of one and a half dozen of the other (which is what the egalitarian-feminist notion of equality wishes it to be).
[And in the interest of disclosure to some of the people who haven't read our previous threads, it needs to be said that when Anastasia uses the word "church" or "churches," she does not believe Lutherans or Protestants are part of the Christian Church. Likewise, when she is explaining the role of pastors, she does not believe that I (or any Lutheran or Protestant pastor) am an ordained Christian pastor.]
Yes, there has been a cultural shift, and yes, it has dragged everyone down. And yes, it does involve women not knowing their proper roles. And I very much miss women who were ladylike. I still use the Betty Crocker cookbook.
And yes, men are tempted differently from the way women are. More visually. So what constitutes modest dress for a woman or a woman should take that into consideration.
I didn't say it was equally our job to curb each other's hormones, but that it is our OWN job. AND we should assist others to the best of our ability as well. All of us, men as well as women. Acknowledging that the ways in which each gender does this will differ somewhat.
Men and women have different, but nevertheless equal vocations. That is, women's and men's vocations are of equal value and equal status. (The Galatians vers.) But their respective functions or roles are of course far from identical; one of feminism's big mistakes is to try to make them the same. They aren't; they are very different.
And that is why women are not to be ordained. (Or at least that is one reason.) Not because they occupy a lower or inferior rung in the created order. But because a priest must be a living icon of Christ, both inwardly and outwardly, and a woman just can't do that.
My position on Lutheran or Protestant clergy is not "you aren't". It's "Unless the Holy Spirit should reveal it, how am I to know who you are?"
P.S. And I don't even own a pair of slacks.
I have to say, Anastasia is onto something here.
But let me tell you all something very interesting. Since I have become Christian, I have actually gotten MORE attention from men when I dress modest, than when I were a simple pair of jeans.
Maybe it's a German Lutheran man thing, I don't know. Odd, though.
But let's keep something in mind. Everyone has the tendency to "play a part" when they put on some clothes, be it little house on the prairie, a motorcycle leather jacket, or whatever. And I certainly don't think my wearing a regular fitting pair of Levi's on the street is something traumatic.
Anyway, it's been nice chatting!
And wait a minute, what is wrong with "bobbed hair"?
It's stuff like that that just gets legalistic. I don't understand why short hair is a problem now. I didn't cut my hair because I wanted to "be like a man", I cut it because I thought it looked better on me.
???
Dear Lucciola:
I'm not sure I understand your point about getting "more attention" now that you dress modestly - that sounds like a good thing, like the kind of attention a Christian lady should be getting instead of the kind of attention women get when they wear clothes of a less-modest nature. If the implication is that somehow "anti-modesty" is called for in Christian circles to detract from masculine attention, I wouldn't agree with that - but I can't imagine that's the point you're making.
Again, I don't think an appeal to modesty and an observation that our culture has moved pretty harshly away from that is anything radical or legalistic.
You're free to wear whatever you'd like, but my personal opinion (and frankly, the opinion of a lot of men, if truth be told) is that skirts and dresses are not only more modest, but more feminine.
I mentioned "bobbed hair" because *you* actually raised the issue by invoking the "flappers" from the 1920s. The bobbed hair was one of their trademarks, and it was not merely a fashion statement. It was a deliberate act of rebellion at that time (a great treatment of this is in the amusing novel Cheaper By The Dozen). It's simply a historical fact. Up until that time, Christian women embraced the Pauline exhortations in 1 Cor 11. The flappers had a specific agenda to rebel against authority in general. It went along with the smoking, drinking, and party-girl lifestyle. Maybe the "bob" is just plain easier to clean vomit out of. ;-)
Of course, this doesn't mean this is the case today. This discussion isn't about you, but about cultural customs throughout history. Until very recent times, women strove to look and dress differently than men. The "unisex" look is recent in terms of history. There is a correlation between these changes in customs and changes in attitude toward Scripture and authority.
Nevertheless, I think there is a Christian witness in women looking unabashedly feminine and leaving some things on their anatomy hidden. There's just a whole lot less of that these days - among believers and non-believers alike.
I've written a blog post of my own on this subject...
http://www.anastasias-corner.blogspot.com
"You're free to wear whatever you'd like, but my personal opinion (and frankly, the opinion of a lot of men, if truth be told) is that skirts and dresses are not only more modest, but more feminine."
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
I have continued this on my blog....
Father Hollywood - Thank you again for your very insightful and well written comments here. Good stuff. Thank you for the time you take to speak the truth with such grace. My husband and I enjoy your writing.
And for the record, my daughters and I wear hats or mantillas during worship.
About the connection between women's rights and the current trend of a young woman's head in the toilet: first of all the right to vote was already being considered in congress, as the nation grew to maturity. The feminists of the time were pushing the issue and taking credit. There are many sources available which show that women could vote before women's lib, and that measures were being taken by the government to allow it to all women. This was before the "suffrage" movement. But the idea that women were "equal" to men may have given a lot of young women other ideas. They may have reasoned that a man gets to go to a pub and drink, so why can't a woman. He can wear dungarees, so she should be able to wear breeches too. I do remember a time when women were not allowed in the bars, and some bars allowed it but only in a separate entrance. Women wanted equality so they observed that men "get away" with a number of vices, so why can't they? Very young women today certainly would stick up for their right to drink like the men do. If a man can do it, why can't they? So that is the false view of equality that I see them getting, which extended from the right to vote. It was not the message intended but none the less it may have come from that feeling of equality. Being equal to someone is not necessarily an advantage. In the "olden times" we knew that sometimes being at a disadvantage was an advantage and could use it as a stepping stone to something better. Modern feminism was a social engineering program designed to give women careers instead of families, in order to be "equal." It has not been that great of an advantage, as so many of them now have to work. A hundred years ago most men would not have allowed their wives and daughters to go unprotected by the way they dressed or wandered about by themselves. Today we are seeing the result of the new freedom. It may not be directly related to the vote, but the mentality is there: she is equal so she should be allowed to do whatever anyone else does, even if it is bad for her. The scriptures speak of her as something special, which is a different picture than society portrays today.
"In spite of this, hoardes of young feminist girls continually mock and ridicule the idea of the homemaker and the June Cleaver model"
This has nothing to do with being homemakers, or even feminists; it has to do with young people being heavy party addicts. Politics and the homemaking issue have nothing to do with it, and homemaking and partying are certainly not mutually exclusive.
As for the June Cleaver model, I've never been to a wild party and I intend to be a homemaker, but even I make fun of Cleaver. Again, totally separate issue.
"It seems to me that the early "feminists" would also have been shocked by this behavior"
Yes they would have; they were wives and mothers who simply wanted to have votes and voices without being shoved behind.
"Maybe the "bob" is just plain easier to clean vomit out of. ;-)"
Oh indeed, what a hilarious thing to joke about.
Oh indeed, what a hilarious thing to joke about.
I'm reminded of the comic by the quadriplegic cartoonist John Callahan that shows a man in a bookstore at the counter with a bewildered look on his face. The sour woman behind the counter says: "There is no humor section. This is a *feminist* bookstore.
I don't think it's funny that people get drunk and vomit in their hair, and this makes me a feminist with no humor? There doesn't appear to be a trace of logic in that indication; I guess I've stumbled into a "patriocentrist" bookstore, then.
Dear Jennifer:
I don't know whether or not you have a sense of humor - but from the small sample of your writing we've seen so far, well...
But if you're going to call names, please be accurate. I'm not a "patriocentrist" - for that would put the father in the center. No, indeed, in the divinely ordered scriptural family, the model is the cross, and Christ is at the center ("cruciform" and "Christocentric" are perhaps more helpful words).
Rather than "patricentric," I think a better term is "patriarch" - from Greek for "father-headship" (which is, of course, repugnant to feminists and others who likewise seek to make Scripture contort to their opinions rather than submit (the dreaded s-word!) to the Word of God.
So, if you must use a label, how about "patriarchist"? And my "bookstore" always has a humor section. If you're funny, you're welcome to stick around and join the party - even if we vehemently disagree with you (like the Tom Tomorrow political cartoons, I nearly always am 180 degrees from the guy's politics, but he's always so darn funny and searingly witty, I always laugh my head off at him).
So, lighten up! Please! I know feminists are capable of humor (they weren't always dour and bereft of joy). Sometimes they just need a little nudge. Lack of humor typically results from people taking themselves too seriously.
I think patriocentrist is a better label for the group that blames feminism for every dumb female action and considers women leaders the equivalent of Satan spawn. Speaking of labels, didn't you decide I was a feminist right off the bat even though I never claimed such?
I do have a sense of humor, Father Holly; I laughed my lacy socks off at the idea that women shouldn't go to college, for example. But my sphere of humor doesn't include issues like this which even you, I believe, thought or appeared to think serious at first. Didn't you post this thread to point out how serious drunkenness and wild parties are? Your joke rubbed me the wrong way because you seemed to be making fun of misguided young girls and girls with short hair at the same time, neither of which deserve mockery. Plus, just for you to consider: I've seen many people claim concern about women like this, making entire threads about it. Only, as it turned out, they really enjoyed just mocking these women. Some of them took unadulterated glee in the misfortunes of these women, from finding humor in their misery to scorning them with fire-hot mockery, and sometimes advertising their misfortunes for the sole purpose of verbally blowing raspberries at the feminist movement (nyah nyah nyah, the feminists are stupid and we are holy!) I take you're not really like that, nor would you want people to see you thus. In that case, you'll probably want to guard your words a little more carefully.
Dear Jennifer:
(sigh) You're still not funny.
I can't help but think of poor Marlin in Finding Nemo. He was a clown fish, but the poor guy just couldn't tell a joke.
But by the end of the movie, he did find his groove so there's hope.
As far as your being a feminist - you did leave a few "bread crumbs" like Hansel and Gretel:
1) Using words like "patriocentrist" - nobody else talks like that
2) Referring to women as "people with wombs" (I mean, really...)
3) Listing one of your interests as "women's rights"
4) Describing your fantasy to be a "benevolent queen and priest"
5) Having no sense of humor
I do have a little experience with the patter of feminism, since my wife is a Bryn Mawr graduate (Oh, Lordy, have we heard it all!). But the best part of my dear wife's Bryn Mawr experience was watching Camille Paglia systematically destroy the hypocrisy of the "gender feminism" of the academy - right in front of the worst perpetrators.
We listened to Dr. Paglia (who is, for some of Father H's "he-man-woman-hatin'" readers) one of *my* favorite academics, literary critics, and analysts of culture, who also happens to be a self-identified feminist agnostic lesbian.
Her lecture began at 7pm, and we stuck around until 1 am and she was still going strong. We had her sign the books we brought from home (we have all of them) and she was most gracious. A small woman, but absolutely grand presence and intellect.
Paglia is a scholar who is smart as a whip, courageous, witty (wickedly so!), has intelligent things to say even when I disagree with her, and she is not one to throw around hand-wringing "victim words" like "patriocentric" or whine about how oppressed women are today. She would say in her East-Coast Italian-American accent: "puh-LEASE!"
A Paglia bookstore would certainly have a humor section.
The point of my post is not a generic criticism of parties and drinking, but rather something more subtle - to point out how social conventions of "equality" for women have only served to *drag them down* to the level of the worse behavior of men. And this was indeed one of the goals of feminism.
You've come a long way, baby!
O-kay, it appears we're stuck with our labels. Very well then.
Dear Patriocentrist,
I wasn't attempting to be funny; in case you missed my original point, I don't find the topic of this thread funny at all, unlike you occassionally seem to. I was actually being generous in giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you meant no offense.
"You're still not funny."
Well then, I guess we're more equal than you thought.
To answer your points:
1) "Using words like "patriocentrist" - nobody else talks like that"
Actually they do. I got that term from a woman who's actually a complimentarian; she just got sick of people putting males before God. Believe it or not, some people other than feminists actually get tired of this.
2)"Referring to women as "people with wombs" (I mean, really...)"
I was being sarcastic. I think a great deal of women and believe they have every right to preach; my point was that, when it comes to preaching, the only real difference between men and women is that women have wombs. And for some reason, the same men who oppose their preaching are the ones who focus so exclusively on their wombs that they appear to believe women are only here to reproduce.
3) "Listing one of your interests as "women's rights""
I also mentioned motherood as one of my interests, which I guess doesn't count once I'm labeled as a femmi.
4)"Describing your fantasy to be a "benevolent queen and priest" "
And this is offensive because? Once again, there are millions of Christian women who believe women have every right to be queens and priests and who do not carry the secular term of feminist.
5)"Having no sense of humor"
Here's a friendly note: just because someone doesn't like your jokes doesn't mean they have no sense of humor. Try not to be so sensitive.
I'm not a victim in the least, nor do I believe women are for the most part oppressed. However, belief systems like the patriocentrist one do sicken me.
And btw, you left plenty of crumbs yourself for your identity as a patriocentrist.
1) Making fun of drunk women or even women who, God forbid, cut their hair.
2) Your mockery of female ministers as Barbies in skirts.
3) Your connection between intelligent women voting and immature girls getting drunk. I mean, really.
4) Your apparent desire to think of me as a feminist and probably seeking out my profile just to prove this, which I find cute.
5) Your tacky humor at young women's expense.
6) Your touchiness when someone doesn't find your tacky humor funny.
Sorry buddy, you're just as much doomed to a label as I am.
"You've come a long way, baby!"
Indeed we have: we now have female doctors, lawyers, ministers, preachers, professors, and so much more. The patriarchy movement, on the other hand, is flailing. All they do now is whine about how Clinton came close to winning and attempt to keep feminism in the dust by the ridiculous logical leap of linking intelligent female voters with drunk juveniles.
Just for the record, my intention was not to come here and argue; although I think you're misinformed about some things, I got the general impression that you meant well and had actual concern for these girls. Now, however, after you've pretty much mocked me and proven that you don't really care how you sound, that impression has been pretty much crushed. I'd hoped to give you another perspective of how you might sound to others, and you retorted by accusing me of having no humor; hardly the response I expected from a concerned man. I rather wish you'd given me more of a chance as a person and a sister in Christ before you wrote me off a humorless target, but ultimately that's not what's important: getting to those who are without Christ is.
I find it interesting that you prefer an agnostic feminist's views to those of a woman like me, who is very much a man-lover, heterosexual, and Christian. Were you ever concerned for her soul, since she was an agnostic and a lesbian, or did you just have a good time laughing at her humor? If you really are concerned for women like this, you may wish to spend less time laughing and more time offering real concern and counsel. Otherwise, you're not going to have anyone listen to you except for those who agree already, and/or those who find a feral pleasure in making fun of lost souls. I don't think you're really like that, Holly, inspite of your dismissal of me personally, so by all means prove my original impression of you right and show that you have regard and compassion for those you believe to be lost.
Love, Angry Feminist
Dear Jennifer:
I don't think this is your kind of blog. But thanks for dropping by and leaving your comments.
You're right, it's not. Thanks for your concern and I'm sorry for any misunderstandings.
God Bless
"Women getting plastered and beating each other with fists and vodka bottles is not a matter of the gospel, but rather is a matter of the law. And the fact that they are women is indicative of the cultural sinful rebellion against the vocation of womanhood in addition to the sins of violence and shameful behavior."
Come on, be honest. You can't blame feminism for this.
Post a Comment