Feminist ideology has profound implications for the family, business, the economy, politics, the military, marriage, sexual preference and identity, childrearing and education. Those beliefs and practices which have previously been the bedrock of our society, through which people, marriages, relationships, legal systems and children have benefited are being called into question, deemed to be outdated and disbanded with. "Society has gone through massive social upheaval, and we are now living in new uncharted waters. What we see as normal today is in fact, in the history of mankind, very abnormal. Because we have never seen this in the history of mankind before." (Phillip Jensen, prodigal world, 2003)
Coercion
The bible presents mankind as both originally created in God's image and equal but different, however this original perfection of complementary relationships is broken now as the world has become fallen. Feminism ignores this and works against human nature and biblical realism with humanistic utopianism. As further evidence is presented that undermines feminism, such as men and women differentiation feminism will continue to be implemented by censorship and propaganda to both disguise failure and coercion and to encourage acceptance of its ideals. "Evidence will have to be ignored," alternative ideologies suppressed, and "persuasion will give way to coercion." (Levin, The feminist Mystique," page 25) Allan bloom, author of the well-known The closing of the American Mind, points out that the feminist vision, although claiming to bring freedom, ends up sacrificing the very thing it claims to achieve in favour of equality. Its goals are so "unlimited and unconstrained" that it "ends, as do many modern social movements that want abstract justice, in forgetting nature and using force to refashion human beings to secure that justice."
These coercive tendencies, like the presuppositions and comprehensive vision of feminism, are shared by so-called Christian feminists as well, who have infiltrated all denominations even evangelicalism. "They have the same tendencies toward education and "reform," the same suspicion of full-time motherhood, the same support for abortion, the same sexual "tolerance," etc., as the secularists. They differ only in their special focus on applying these within the Christian community."(David j Ayers, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 2006, page 321)
Abortion
Such coercion is evident with the campaigning for abortion from both those within Christian circles and those from the secular world. Although, less obvious, abortion is the natural outworking of the feminist ideology that denies biology and the universal "nurturant" female sex role. Feminists view womens reproductive capacities as their only significant difference with men and as the barrier to be overcome for full participation in the male world. "Particularly when combined with the feminist emphasis on sexual "freedom," abortion becomes a necessary component of the mainstream feminist vision...nurturance and relationship orientation, then, to the extent that they are acknolwedged as a special contribution of women, can be turned toward the public arena rather than "wasted" on home and children alone." (David j Ayers, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 2006, page 322) The feminist sociologist Kristin Luker, in a lucid and fair comparison of pro-life and pro choice worldviews, recognized the clear role of the rejection of biology and sex role differentation in promoting abortion:
"...whereas pro-life people believe that men and women are inherently different and therefore have different "natural" roles in life, pro-choice people believe that men and women are substantially equal, by which they mean substantially similar. As a result, they see women's reproductive and family roles not as a "natural" niche but as potential barriers to full equality... [M]otherhood, so long as it is involuntary, is potentially always a low-status, unrewarding role to which woen can be banished at any time. Thus... control over reproduction is essential for women to be able to live up to their full human potential." (Lurker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, p. 176)
The bible presents mankind as both originally created in God's image and equal but different, however this original perfection of complementary relationships is broken now as the world has become fallen. Feminism ignores this and works against human nature and biblical realism with humanistic utopianism. As further evidence is presented that undermines feminism, such as men and women differentiation feminism will continue to be implemented by censorship and propaganda to both disguise failure and coercion and to encourage acceptance of its ideals. "Evidence will have to be ignored," alternative ideologies suppressed, and "persuasion will give way to coercion." (Levin, The feminist Mystique," page 25) Allan bloom, author of the well-known The closing of the American Mind, points out that the feminist vision, although claiming to bring freedom, ends up sacrificing the very thing it claims to achieve in favour of equality. Its goals are so "unlimited and unconstrained" that it "ends, as do many modern social movements that want abstract justice, in forgetting nature and using force to refashion human beings to secure that justice."
These coercive tendencies, like the presuppositions and comprehensive vision of feminism, are shared by so-called Christian feminists as well, who have infiltrated all denominations even evangelicalism. "They have the same tendencies toward education and "reform," the same suspicion of full-time motherhood, the same support for abortion, the same sexual "tolerance," etc., as the secularists. They differ only in their special focus on applying these within the Christian community."(David j Ayers, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 2006, page 321)
Abortion
Such coercion is evident with the campaigning for abortion from both those within Christian circles and those from the secular world. Although, less obvious, abortion is the natural outworking of the feminist ideology that denies biology and the universal "nurturant" female sex role. Feminists view womens reproductive capacities as their only significant difference with men and as the barrier to be overcome for full participation in the male world. "Particularly when combined with the feminist emphasis on sexual "freedom," abortion becomes a necessary component of the mainstream feminist vision...nurturance and relationship orientation, then, to the extent that they are acknolwedged as a special contribution of women, can be turned toward the public arena rather than "wasted" on home and children alone." (David j Ayers, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 2006, page 322) The feminist sociologist Kristin Luker, in a lucid and fair comparison of pro-life and pro choice worldviews, recognized the clear role of the rejection of biology and sex role differentation in promoting abortion:
"...whereas pro-life people believe that men and women are inherently different and therefore have different "natural" roles in life, pro-choice people believe that men and women are substantially equal, by which they mean substantially similar. As a result, they see women's reproductive and family roles not as a "natural" niche but as potential barriers to full equality... [M]otherhood, so long as it is involuntary, is potentially always a low-status, unrewarding role to which woen can be banished at any time. Thus... control over reproduction is essential for women to be able to live up to their full human potential." (Lurker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood, p. 176)
Denigration of Motherhood
Besides entailing a persistent negativity toward the intelligence, character, and worth of full-time homemakers, these views severely under-represent the extent to which women, like the Kibbutzniks, willingly forego status and career aspirations in favor of child care. A large study found that only 19 percent of American families followed the "careerist" pattern advocated by feminist (duel career couple with children cared for by an unrelated person). four out of ten families followed the traditional pattern of a full-time mother and provider worked, child care was always provided by one of the parents or a close relative. The rest were "single parent" homes (William R Mattox, Jr., Is the traditional family dead?, 1988). 65 percent of American homes with children under five provide day care primarily through the parents. Some use flexible scheduling, but 54 percent of those primarily use mothers at home (Family Policy, Who will Care for the Children, 1988 p 2). Furthermore, a recent Harris poll indicated that full-time motherhood is an ideal for the vast majority of Americans. 82 percent feel that the best child care is that provided by a mother at home. Many, including a large percentage of those misleadingly classified by the Department of labor as "working" or "full time working" mothers (Family Policy, Day Care Attitudes, 1989, p 5), are turning down material reward in favor of the next generation, just as the Kibbutz women did. This is not only more effective for the raising of the child and more natural for the wife, but also just as cost effective in most cases as two working spouses. The costs of having two working spouses; such as having two mobile phones with increases phone bills, two cars or increased travel expenses, the cost of day care, and more tax due to the family being put into an upper tax bracket all mean that it is no more advantageous that having the husband providing, not to mention the time sacrifices on the child and relationally with the husband as both spouses have less time together.
Though the vast majority of society rejects the notion that women should persue careers over motherhood, Gilder writes:
"Most feminist proposals seem designed to establish the working mother as the social norm by making it impossible for most male providers to support the family alone. The feminist attack on the social security system for giving house wives a right to the husband's benefits after he dies the subsidies for day care; the affirmative action quotas for women who pursue careers outside the home- all such measures seek to establish the careerist woman as the national standard and incapacitate the women who tries to care for her own children." (Gilder, Men and Marriage, pp 151-153)
Divorce
The feminist revolution has made an enourmous contribution to the soaring divorce rate. And what else would we expect, given that feminists' consistently pessimistic evaluations of marriage. Feminists directly promote eased divorce restrictions, a fact usually ignored in the popular media. (Davidson, The failure of Feminism, pp 242-243) Indirectly, the kind of practical, often financial independence fostered in the "new woman" has been consistenly linked to a heightened risk of divorce. (Scott J South and Glenna Spitze, Divorce Determinants, American Sociological Review, vol. 51, No. 4 (August 1986), pp 583-590) This is made worse by the incredible fact that, after having encouraged easy divorce laws (partly to provide a vehicle of escape from "male oppression") and denigrating the institution of marriage, feminists continually stress the need for women to develop the skills and outlook necessary to be able to provide for their families on their own. Why? They are likely tto have to do so, it is preached, because of the high divorce rate! (Davidson, The failure of Feminism, p 283) Feminist Judith Bardwick has described and lamented the causes of divorce as follows:
"We can predict a higher divorce rate when the criteria of success in marriage change from family, integrity, security, and contentment to happiness in which people are to grasp opporunity to feel vital; when compromise is judged to be a sign of inadequacy; when "doing your own thing" and "getting yours" are legitimized... [W]hen divorce is easy to obtain... when the negative costs of commitment are emphasized... when selfishness is idealized as autonomy... and moral responsibility is to the self rather than to the relationship, divorce increases... Commitment involves not only mutual feeling but also interdependent obligation." (In Transition, pp 120-121)
Interestingly, however, she fails to realize how severely she indicts the very feminist system she promotes as we compare the secular feminist Bardwick's ideas with the social-contract marital vision presented by Christian feminists Scanzoni and Scanzoni:
"In an equal-partner marriage, both spouses are equally committed to their respective careers.... furthermore, there is role interchangeability with respect to the breadwinner and domestic roles.. a woman should have autonomy and should find her fulfilment in her own achievement endeavors rather than through second-hand enjoyment of her husbands' success. Under these egalitarian sex-role norms, a woman should be free to pursue her own interests without subordination to those of her husband and children." (quoted in Pride, The Way Home, pp 18, 21)
The effects of divorce, which feminism contributes to, could not be overstated: Long-term psychological traumatization of children which in many cases drastically lowers self esteem and self worth which in many cases leads to depression (Judith Wallerstein, Second chances: Men, Women and children a decade after divorce, 1989), the loss of a complete set of sex-role models leading to confusion in sexual identity for both boys and girls (Neil Kalter, Long-term effects of divorce on Children: A developmental Vulnerability Model," American Journal of Orthorpsychiatry, vol 57, no 3, October 1987, pp 595-597) not to mention heightened financial instability of single-parent homes which leads in many cases to psychological stress, enhanced poverty and vulnerability to juvenile delinquency (which, for many, leads to adult criminal acivity). (Wallis, Onward Women, pp 85-86, Wilson and Hernstein, Crime and Human Nature, pp 124, 245-253, 476-481)
"Like all aspects of feminism, this too is rooted in feminist' rejection of the biological sex role differentiation. Sex-complementarity demands interdependence, and heterosexual interdependence at that. The completion of the two as "one," the essential glue of family and society, implies a mutual need of the other. But where maleness and femaleness are arbitrary and interchangeable, autonomy becomes possible and interdependence is rendered optional and fragile. " (David j Ayers, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 2006, page 330)
Confusion of sexual identity
However the evidence points the other way. Baumrind, in a very thorough study, found that sex-types parents and their "stereotypical" children were much more competent and mentally well adjusted tahn were the androgynous sets. (Baumrind, Are Angrogynous Individuals More Effective Parents?) Role reversals did not fare well either. As Carson states, "[Baumrind] reported clear correlations between feminine fathers and cognitive incompetence in girls, and between masculine mothers and socially irresponsible boys" (The Androgyny Hoax, p 7) In research testing the relationship between androgyny and "neuroticism.. assertiveness, and self esteem" Ray and Lovejoy discovered that "those who were andryogynous were generally low scorers on the three indices of mental health." (The Great Androgygy Myth: Sex Roles and Mental Health at Large, The hournal of Social Phychology, vol. 124, no 2, Devember 1982, p 237)
The attempt by feminists to prevent "sexism" in children by (forcibly) exposing them to cross-sex tasks and experiences, based on the androgyny ideal, or the similar notion that sex roles are arbitrary and should be "selected," has been proven extremely harmful and damaging to the child. (Davidson, The Faulure of Feminism, pp 245-246) Showing that little girls acquaire their sexual identity (feminine) naturally, but that boys are more fragile, Harvard researcher Dorothy Ullian "warned that cross-sex play and other 'sex role interventions could psychologically cripple little boys." (Carlson, The Androgyny Hoax, p 8) Sara bonnet Stein's extensive stidy on unisex child rearing revealed a tremendous resistance among children to being made to be "gender neutral." (Sarah Bonnet Stein, Girls and Boys: The Limits of Nonsexist Childrearing, 1983) For example, when given the same toys, children do different things with them; given blocks, the tendency is for boys to build roads, while girls build rooms and houses.
If such feminist attempts for unisexism and androgyny were successful we should be creating children complete in themselves. They would not need "oneness" with the other sex, and thus (given optional sexual outlets, which they have today) they would not need marriage either. As the sad record of illigitimate children, "single parent" homes, and the pathological violence and personal instability of unattached, single men have shown us, 105 we cannot aford to disconnect people from marriage this way, as the feminists..have done. And we can't afford to deprive them of their sexual natures. The truth is, in a way, as the androgynists claim. The masculine and the feminine do need to be brought together in one body. God has provided us a means, and it produces children, homes, stability, and love. It is marriage. Our sexual conditions are not crosses meant to be transcended, overcome, or escaped. In this fallen world, we have enought of those. Rather, they were given to us to be celebrated and embraced." (David J Ayers, Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 2006, page 330)
No comments:
Post a Comment