This is one post in a series I do every Friday on gender issues. When I refer to points that aren't in this particular post, you can find them in our "Gender Issues" category.

One of the difficulties in discussing the problems of Feminism (by which I typically mean Radical or Second-Wave Feminism) is that there is never one cause for a problem. One of the reasons offered for going to war in Iraq was WMDs, but to think that was the only reason would be foolish. Likewise, many of the problems that Feminism has brought to us are not the fault of Feminism alone. However, in many cases it is the most motivating factor behind the problem.

The problems often revolve around the distortion of roles. Remember that in the Bible we find that men and women were created for different purposes and we were given different strengths to fulfill those purposes. This has mostly been understood as men being the provider and authority for the family, and the women being the nurturer and supporter of the family. Note that the roles are family centered. The Feminists from the ‘60s forward have declared that women should not find their meaning and value in family, but from education and careers.

It was the Feminists (Betty Friedan and Marilyn French in particular) who explicitly told women that unless they pursued careers they were somehow less human. You might recall that Teresa Heinz Kerry said that motherhood isn’t a real job. I don’t think she meant that it’s not a lot of work. Rather, she meant that it’s not that important. Through the onslaught of Feminist ideology in our culture many people have come to believe that motherhood is meaningless busy work. This is one reason that abortion became legal. It is no longer about the life of a child but about the choice of a woman to not let being a mother ruin her meaningful (i.e.: in career or education) life. If pro-life apologists were able to frame the debate around the unborn they would have won. But since the pro-choice apologists were able to make it a women’s rights issue they have won so far.

This worked because the abortionists were able to point to this new ideology that meaning and value is not found in family. So now we find family devalued, but more specifically, motherhood devalued. Fatherhood was devalued long ago, and as a result, very few men today are good fathers. We’ve witnessed the results of this shift over the past 60 years or so, mostly since WWII. It would be incredibly foolish and ignorant for someone to say that the absence of good fathers in our society has had no negative impact on it. Likewise, the value motherhood is continually in decline, and this is leaving us with few good mothers. We’re only beginning to see the outcomes of this shift, and in some ways I think it will be more devastating than the loss of fathers. (I realize that much more could be said about this, but I will allow you to think of examples from your own lives and experiences that evidence this problem as I move on.)

The core to Feminist ideology is that women are equal to men in every non-physical way. Not just that women can do the same things as men, but that women should do the same things as men. Sometimes as an afterthought they’ll say that men should do the same things as women, but that’s usually stated more out of an effort to be consistent than as something to be advocated. In other words, men and women are interchangeable. A man can chop down a tree, but so can a woman, and since she can she should. Of course there are physical limitations to this doctrine that the Feminists don’t want to talk about. Most women cannot do all the heavy labor and hard work that men can do, and men cannot birth and nurse children as women can do.

We are taught that roles can be traded or changed regardless of gender. Some of the out workings of this can be found in the homosexual movement. If the role of the mother and father do not require a man and a woman, then there’s no reason why two men shouldn’t raise a child. If men and women are interchangeable, then who’s to say that marriage has to be between couples of the opposite sex.

Feminism has changed how we understand the genders, what roles and goals we should pursue, and where women receive their meaning and value. It has downplayed the role of the mother and to some extent the wife, telling women that they’re not fully human until they get out of the house. Children are often asked what they want to be when they grow up more than they are asked what sort of person they want to marry or how many children they’d like to have; as if those goals don’t matter. It’s not that women don’t make good accountants or CEOs, many do. It’s that they are becoming good accountants and CEOs at the expense of becoming good mothers.

We must begin at an important distinction on a historical level. The term “Feminism” has been applied in various ways to various time periods and ideologies. Most simplistically, though, we can categorize feminism into two forms. The most historic form sought to restore the equal value of men and women within a culture. Movements that fall under this definition of feminism (either consciously or unconsciously) argued for equal treatment, rights, and appreciation in the public square. Women like Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who fought for the women’s right to vote in American, were feminists of this fashion.

The second form of Feminism is sometimes called the “second-wave,” while I prefer Radical Feminism. This form emerged in the 1960’s and sought (quite consciously) to establish functional equality between men and women. According to its proponents, women not only can do everything that men can do, but they should do everything men can do. This sort of Feminism has been incredibly damaging to the culture and its members.

Many people agree that this “second-wave” of Feminism was launched by Betty Friedan in 1963 through her book, The Feminine Mystique. In her book, Friedan argued that the traditional notion of women finding value and purpose in being a wife and raising kids was incorrect. Rather, women should find their identity in education and career. In essence she argued that in order to fully develop as human beings, women need to go back to school and back to work. Without doing this women can never find their identity and thus cannot become fully human.

This should sound familiar to those of you who’ve studied psychology. Friedan was a student of Erik Erikson, who was a student of Abraham Maslow, who was a student of Sigmund Freud. (How’s that for a genealogy of bad ideas?) Maslow’s most famous for his hierarchy of needs. His hierarchy depends on the fulfillment of lower level needs before higher level needs can be met. At the lowest level are our physical needs, like food, water, air, etc. The next level is safety, which is sometimes sought above physical needs. The third level is love and belonging. This includes both psychological/emotional needs as well as physical needs. After these needs are met, one seeks the fourth level- value from other people, or esteem. Finally, we pursue self-actualization. This is the driving force of life. We grow as individuals as we realize and utilize our abilities.

Erik Erikson continued Maslow’s work in his 8 stages of human development. Each of the 8 periods in a person’s life deals with different needs and will impact the person’s life depending on if and how those needs are met. For instance, at Stage 5 the adolescent (age 12-18) is faced with questions of identity. If the person resolves their conflict identities they will lead mostly successful lives. However, if they fail they will be indecisive and confused about their role in life (like in vocation, sexual orientation, relationships, etc.)

There are at least two basic ideas that permeate all of these thinkers. 1) Human beings evolved. The levels of needs and stages of development are applications of naturalistic theory to the evolution of the self. 2) Human beings are basically good. In order for human beings to realize their full potential they must have the capacity for goodness. It is only those whose environments impact them adversely who have great difficulty in self-actualization.   more »

Ms. Kipnis was right about feminism, in that its goal is to find equality with men. It seeks to overthrow a history of abusive male oppression, at least as perceived by the feminists. It is built on the historical understanding (whether right or wrong) that women have been treated as weak and inferior to men, and since this is not the case, builds an ideology centered on correcting this view. In my next Friday/gender post I will look specifically at the history of feminism. Towards that goal, we must first understand (as much as possible) the Biblical equalities and inequalities of women and men.

In any discussion of this matter I believe there is one essential place for us to start. We must begin with the essential equality between women and men. This too is where the Bible begins; the blessing of God’s creation (Gen 1:27). “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” As is often the case “man” refers to male and female (i.e. mankind). God created both male and female in His image meaning they are of equal worth and value. The image of God is never destroyed in mankind (though it is distorted by the fall), for His image is given as the reason for man not to murder (Gen 9:6). Despite the impact of sin, male and female still bear God’s image and are therefore valuable. We are more like God then anything else in the universe, and though we are not God, He has granted us value and worth in creation that renders every single human being equally precious and significant.

Furthermore, God created male and female as perfect complements of one another. In Genesis and in the New Testament we are told that in marriage husband and wife constitute one flesh (Gen 2:24, Mt 19:6, 1 Cor 6:16, Eph 5:31). Coupled with the recurring condemnations of homosexual activities, we find that male and female complement one another in such a way that no other beings can. Even though all females are made in God’s image, no two females can become one, and likewise no two men. God created human beings in such a way that no other union except for that of male and female can result in the beauty and glory of one flesh made in the image of God. To be united in this way in utter devotion of worship to God is the fullest sense of completion that can be had on this earth. So, male and female are equal in virtue of being God’s image bearers and of being each other’s only option for sacred union on this earth.

On the level of ontology, women and men are equal. That is, value and worth are equal for all who are ontologically human (in essence or nature), regardless of gender. Gender in no way diminishes ones ontological value. However, when it comes to functionality, women and men are not equal. The biblical view of manhood and womanhood is that we exist in ontological equality and functional inequality. That is, women and men were created for different roles, or purposes.
   more »

John Mark Reynolds commented on an interesting article posted on MSN: “Navel Gazing: Why even feminists are obsessed with fat.” By Laura Kipnis. After discussing some current literature on the subject she claims, “There's simply an irreconcilable contradiction between feminism and femininity.” Unfortunately, she ruins her incredibly correct point by continuing…

“…two largely incompatible strategies women have adopted over the years to try to level the playing field with men. The reason they're incompatible is simple. Femininity is a system that tries to secure advantages for women, primarily by enhancing their sexual attractiveness to men. It also shores up masculinity through displays of feminine helplessness or deference. But femininity depends on a sense of female inadequacy to perpetuate itself…

Feminism, on the other hand, is dedicated to abolishing the myth of female inadequacy. It strives to smash beauty norms, it demands female equality in all spheres, it rejects sexual market value as the measure of female worth. Or that was the plan. Yet for all feminism's social achievements, what it never managed to accomplish was the eradication of the heterosexual beauty culture, meaning the time-consuming and expensive potions and procedures—the pedicures, highlights, wax jobs on sensitive areas, "aesthetic surgery," and so on. For some reason, the majority of women simply would not give up the pursuit of beautification, even those armed with feminist theory.”

What I understand Ms. Kipnis to be saying is that there was no female voice prior to femininity and feminism. Rather, each of these ideologies was a reaction to masculine oppression throughout history. In the sense, both femininity and feminism are relatively new on the historical scene. (This is what I see behind her comments, but perhaps I’m reading too much feminist thought into it.) For feminists such as Ms. Kipnis these are liberation movements.

Bell Hooks is said to have defined Feminism as the struggle to end patriarchy. From her perspective, and many like her, patriarchy is sexist oppression- a power play to limit the rights of women. Following this line of thought, the return of patriarchy is an awful thing.

Is patriarchy oppression? Certainly most of us can point to horrible men who have mistreated their wives and children, and perhaps much worse, based on the idea that they have authority over them. But is this the norm of patriarchy? Not really. This is the image 43 years of radical feminism has left us with. They tell us that when men are in control bad things happen.

Contrary to popular feminist belief, patriarchy is not necessarily abusive. Patriarchy simply means that men are the standardized leaders. Having leaders does not necessitate mistreatment. Sure we can think of bad bosses or supervisors we’ve had, but most of us have had plenty of fine experiences under the leadership of another person.

Christian patriarchy teaches that men (generally) have been gifted by God to be leaders in their families. It also teaches that husbands are to love their wives just as Christ loved the Church (Eph 5:25). So on this view, those men who abuse their wives abuse their callings as men of God. Patriarchy as oppression is an abuse of patriarchy, not the defining picture of it.