We
may all be familiar with the feminism that demanded that women be held to the
same standards as men and not be discriminated against, but be treated as equal
to men, and allowed just as much right to place as active of a role in society
as men and demanded that women and men be treated as equals in the workplace.
And
we are even all too familiar with the feminism that despises the traditional
and biblical family structure, demands that women place the pursuit of an
education and career above marriage and family, poisons the minds of women with
misandristic ideology and against their Creator, affirms and celebrates
immorality and perverseness, and demands selfishness instead of selflessness.
But
Samantha Kamman, the author of this piece from The Christian Post tells
us of another branch of feminism that most may have never heard of:
It
is what she calls the "feminism of care," which she says advocates
for motherhood and family. It is the
form of feminism that calls women back to the traditional role of being a
homemaker whose sole or primary role is the upkeep of the home and the care and
upbringing of children.
But
the feminism that we are familiar with is what is called the "feminism of
freedom," which argues that women must have the right to enter the market
for the sexes to be equal and it is this feminism of freedom which has largely
prevailed over the “feminism of care” and which has morphed into a selfish,
depraved, misandristic, anti-Christ feminism, beginning with the legalization
of abortion as argued by Mary Harrington of the heritage foundation, cited by
Kamman:
It's
my contention that that back and forth, which really characterizes the women's
movement from the late 18th century and the writings of Mary Wollstonecraft up
to the second wave, was definitively won by the feminism of freedom with the
legalization of abortion [1]
We
have all been made to believe that feminism as we know it began in the early
twentieth century, starting with the women’s suffrage movement, but the
Christian Post item claims that the foundation for the modern feminist movement
may have its roots going back to the industrial revolution:
Before
the industrial revolution, women who lived in an agrarian situation could work
around their familial obligations. But now, if they were expected to go out and
earn a wage, that raised questions about how to balance work alongside raising
children. [2]
If
this is the case, on the one hand, it did give women the opportunity to become
more self-sufficient and not as reliant upon a husband’s salary, but on the
other hand, there was the danger of holding down a job detracting from her
responsibilities to her husband and children and especially if they had to work
long hours, even late into the night.
I
did notice, however, that the article did make a contradictory statement about
women’s economic dependency or independence:
women
became economically dependent on the wages men earned as they began working
outside of the home due to industrialization. [3]
How
were they dependent upon the wages of men when they were earning their own
wages? That doesn’t make sense.
But
that is all beside the point. There is
one extreme that demands that women be confined to the four walls of the home
and dependent upon the wages and provision of a man.
Then
there is the other extreme that has despised the traditional and biblical
family structure calling it oppressive to women and demands that women have to
put aside marriage and family in order have equal standing with men and I have
maintained that both are wrong and have considered myself a centrist on the
matter.
While
there are differences between the genders in terms of physiology, mentality,
and how the two react to different situations, and even in their natural
interests, neither are inferior to one another in terms of capability or
intellect, and neither gender is morally superior or inferior to the other
because both are created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26) who has created one
law for all people, (Num. 15:16) who has established one means of redemption
for all, (Jn. 3:16) who is no respecter of persons, (Acts 10:34) but who has
created all people and both genders equal to each other (Gal. 3:28, Col. 3:11)
and it is on this basis that I believe women are just as entitled to pursue the
occupation of their desire as any man is and should not be prohibited from
doing so as long as the occupation that they are pursuing is a respectable and
honorable and is good and pleasing in the eyes of God and not one that is evil
and that the thoughts and opinions of women carry just as much weight as those
of any man.
God
has instilled in each man and in each woman the respective gifts, skills, and
interests that are in accordance to the respective calling that He has called
each to and as to what God has called each man and each woman to is between
them and our Creator; it is not for us to determine and neither should be
prohibited or kept from exercising the gifts and skills that God has imparted
to each as He expects that each man and each woman exercise to the best of
their ability the gifts and the skills that He has instilled in both (Mt.
25:14-30, 1 Cor. 12, Eph. 4:11) which means the callings, gifts, and skills
that God instills in women are not necessarily meant to be confined to just the
home as has been demanded by tradition and culture n past times, but rather,
they, like men, are expected to exercise the very attributes, gifts, talents,
and skills that He has instilled in them where He sees fit.
And
as to what a woman is to do with her life and what her place in society is,
that is between her, God, and if she is married, her husband as well and
whatever a woman feels called to pursue, rather than discouraging her from
pursuing that calling, she needs to be encouraged to pursue it and wished
success in fulfilling that calling and even given what support she can be given
just as we would any man.
Now
there are women who may be quite content with the traditional full-time
homemaking role and if that where their convictions and interests lead them,
then so be it, but if their interests lead them beyond that, then I’d say, so
be it as well.
But
while I do see the traditional family structure where the husband is the
primary or sole bread winner and the wife is either the primary or sole
caretaker of the home and children, I also understand that for economic
reasons, it is not tenable for every couple, but for those to whom it becomes
tenable, I would encourage them to pursue that structure if that is what they
decide they both want and if we want to see that traditional family structure
become mainstream, it is not just spiritual reform that we need, but also
societal reform and restructuring so as to eliminate the hinderances and
barriers to the formation of that traditional structure and that could require
the diminishing and even the complete elimination of those elements within
society that have placed the traditional household structure out of reach for
many families.
And
while that traditional household structure should be encouraged for whom it is
made tenable, at the same time, women should not be subjugated to a state of
dependency upon the man for her financial and material needs and if there is
any reason as to why women should, at least to a certain extent, remain in the
workforce, pursue higher education if that is their desire, or even pursue some
form of vocational training is so that they might diminish the likelihood of
being left destitute or trapped in a tyrannical situation from which they and,
if they have any, their children might need to escape from because even if
their husband is able to land a job or career by which he can earn enough money
to support that ideal traditional household structure, the wife still needs to
be prepared to be able to provide for herself and her children if there is any
in the event that:
1.
She is widowed.
2.
Husband leaves her.
3.
Husband suffers a debilitating injury or illness that prevents him from working
4.
She faces a tyrannical situation from which she needs to escape.
So
when advocating for the traditional family role, the advocates thereof cannot
present it as the only viable option, but should only present it as the ideal
setting to be pursued by those for whom that is made tenable and with the
understanding that the traditional structure is not always within reach for
everyone, and neither should they shame or condemn any women who desire to
enter into the workforce, pursue an education, a career, take an active role in
society, or become active in some form of ministry, but if they want to see the
traditional family structure become a mainstream way of life again, they need
to address what is keeping that out of reach for many, identify what those
barriers are, and find out how they can be dealt with.
But
what also needs to be done is undoing the lie in the minds of women that
abortion is necessary in order for them to have equal standing with men in
society. “the second wave, was
definitively won by the feminism of freedom with the legalization of abortion,”
[4] Mary Harrington
was cited as saying.
Erika
Bachiochi further went on to explain:
It
seems to me quite obvious that when you elevate the capacity for women to, as
Ruth Bader Ginsburg would put it in her scholarship, to become equal citizens
on the same footing as men through the right to abortion, and you claim that
that right is necessary for women's equality and women's citizenship, then it's
pretty easy for all of the market institutions and including public
institutions to sort of say, “Great! We'll join right along with you!” [5]
But
there are many women who, when faced with an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy,
chose to keep and raise their child and were still able to achieve success in
society and be able to provide more than enough for themselves and their
children. It might not have been easy
for them at first, but by the grace of God and with the proper amount of
support, they were able to go onto live fairly independent and self-sufficient
lives and the only ones who can undo the lie that a woman has to have an
abortion in order to do well in society and gain even ground with men are those
women who, in spite of being single mothers, were able to do well for both
themselves and their children without the support of a man who should have been
there for them.
Women
serve a role and a purpose both in the home and outside of the home and it is
very vital that as Christians that we find a proper balance between the
feminism of care and the feminism of freedom.
There is no reason why women necessarily need to choose between one or
the other. Under the right spirit, it is
possible for there to be a feminism that is one of both care and freedom; there
is no reason why the two should necessarily conflict and how a woman is to find
that balance that results in a feminism of both care and freedom is between
her, God, and if she is married, her husband and once that proper balance is found
in the Lord God Almighty, it will do a lot to close the gender gap between men
and women that persists but should not and it is bad enough that the gender gap
exists within the unbelieving world, it should never exist within the body of
Christ when there should be a perfect unity between the two sexes as God
intended to be in the beginning and the unity that men and women need to be
seeking with one another is that of one faith, one doctrine, and one baptism as
was intended by Christ Jesus Himself. (Eph.
4:5)
If
there could be a feminism that is a feminism of both care and freedom, perhaps
women would no longer see the traditional family structure as an object of oppression
and any choosing to pursue being a full-time homemaker, they would only be
doing so because that is what they have wanted and out of a sense of personal
conviction and neither would they have to feel shame for pursuing dreams and
ambitions other than being a full time homemaker if that is what they choose as
well as each and every person is given their respective passions, interests, gifts,
and skills for a reason
End
notes:
1. Samantha Kamman, Christian Post
Reporter “How did the sexual revolution overtake traditional feminism? Scholars
discuss,” The Christian Post, April 27, 2023
https://www.christianpost.com/news/how-the-sexual-revolution-overtook-traditional-feminism.html?utm_medium=notification&utm_content=headline&utm_source=onesignal&utm_campaign=2023-04-27
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
Scripture
references:
1. Genesis 1:26
2. Numbers 15:16
3. John 3:16
4. Acts 10:34
5. Galatians 3:28, Colossians 3:11
6. Matthew
25:14-30
7. 1 Corinthians 12,
8. Ephesians 4:11
9. Ephesians 4:5
For those who like my work and wish to make a financial donation, you can donate to Contender’s Edge at:
Ko-fi
No comments:
Post a Comment