The commenters over at gocomics.com are normally beyond lame. Today’s discussion of Non Sequitur, however, is priceless:
Posts Tagged ‘feminism’
Girl Logic
Thursday, July 14th, 2011Good Article for Women
Friday, February 18th, 2011Tracy McMillan lets women off a little too easy on a few points, but overall, she wrote a good article for the Huffington Post. Here’s a summary:
- You’re a bitch
- You’re shallow
- You’re a slut
- You’re a liar
- You’re selfish
- You’re not good enough
The last paragraph is especially good:
The bottom line is that marriage is just a long-term opportunity to practice loving someone even when they don’t deserve it. Because most of the time, your messy, farting, macaroni-and-cheese eating man will not be doing what you want him to. But as you give him love anyway — because you have made up your mind to transform yourself into a person who is practicing being kind, deep, virtuous, truthful, giving, and most of all, accepting of your own dear self — you will find that you will experience the very thing you wanted all along:
Love.
Patriarchy Is Good for Women
Tuesday, July 20th, 2010Matriarchy might look good in theory, but it’s about as useful as having all feet and no hands. (See 1 Corinthians 12.)
Says the Elusive Wapiti:
But what feminists didn’t realize at the time they took patriarchy out back and shot it is that patriarchy, among other things, lassoed men into socially constructive behavior and dutiful service of society as a whole. And women in particular. Freed from patriarchy, men were free to throw off the yoke of duty and other-focused behavior and could pursue their own self interests full-tilt. Which quite a few dudes did, and found that a world without patriarchy–the world that women all yelled and screamed and marched and burnt bras for–suited them just fine. And they thought that this world was the one that women wanted.
Hunting Pigeon Blood
Thursday, July 1st, 2010Another great new addition to the blogroll: Full of Grace, Seasoned with Salt.
Bereishit 5769 – An Help Meet for Him
Monday, October 20th, 2008Genesis 2:18, part 2
I will make him an help meet for him. According to Adam Clarke, the Hebrew for “help meet for him,” ezer kenegdo, “implies that the woman was to be a perfect resemblance of the man, possessing neither inferiority nor superiority, but being in all things like and equal to himself.”1 He was right to a certain extent. Eve was like Adam in that she was of mankind, and not animal kind, and in that she possessed both body and spirit while the animals have only body, but was not quite “a perfect resemblance of the man.” The physical differences between men and women are obvious. The spiritual differences are not so obvious, but they are evident in the Creation story, in many other scriptural references to the differently ordained roles of men and women, and in the practical roles into which men and women have almost universally organized their activities.2
Ezer implies more of an ally than a servant. In fact, David used that word several times to refer to God. In Psalm 33, he wrote, “Our soul waiteth for the LORD: he is our help and our shield.” And in Psalm 70, he wrote, “O God: thou art my help and my deliverer.” The term implies an ally, an indispensable supporter, a rescuer, and a man’s wife is certainly all of these things. There is nothing in the word to imply inferiority, but there is really nothing in the word that implies any kind of relationship at all except one of crucial support. The fact that she was made specifically for Adam’s purposes, and not for her own, however, demonstrates God’s intended purpose for her, to actively serve Adam, just as man’s purpose is to actively serve God. Stephen B. Clark wrote, “The description of the woman as a ‘helper fit for him’ implies that the woman was not simply to be, but to do. Her role is to be an active one in the support of her husband.”3 Eve was not created just to keep Adam company, and both men and women will live happier lives if they focus on their God ordained tasks. Women will be happier if they focus their lives on serving their husbands and rearing their children.
There is also no reason to suppose that women have no other purpose but to serve their husbands and bear their children. God has often used women as prophetesses to convey his words to mankind, and he has also given women the ability to take over leadership roles when men fail either through inability or abdication. Women might have their own missions assigned directly by God, but the vast majority of women will be happier and more fulfilled as wives and mothers, just as the majority of men will be happier as husbands and fathers. And a part of being a godly wife and mother involves willingly submitting to her husband in her role as his subordinate ally.4
1 Clarke, Adam. Commentary on the Bible. e-Sword v7.0.5. Copyright 2000-2003, Rick Meyers. .
2 Goldberg, Stephen. The Inevitability of Patriarchy. New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc., 1974. 228. “…the central fact is that men and women are different from each other from the gene to the thought to the act and that emotions that underpin masculinity and femininity, that make reality as experienced by the male eternally different from that experienced by the female, flow from the biological natures of man and woman…the women of every society have taken the paths they have not because they were forced by men but because they have followed their own imperatives.”
3 Clark, Stephen B. Man and Woman in Christ. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant Press, 1980. 20.
4 “Genesis 2:18 describes the man’s problem as being his aloneness, but it describes the solution as being ‘a helper fit for him’. Genesis does not describe woman as a companion to man but as a helper. As Von Rad points out, the phrase is not a romantic evaluation of woman. Rather it presents woman as ‘useful’ to man. A man’s wife is supposed to ‘do something’ for him, just as he is supposed to ‘do something’ for her. If she does not do what she is supposed to do for him (and if he does not do what he is supposed to do for her) deep interpersonal sharing will not make the marriage a good marriage.” Clark. Man and Woman. 22.
Divorce Is Not the Problem
Wednesday, November 28th, 2007Dr. Stephen Baskerville at MensNewsDaily wrote that “…until we understand that the principal threat to marriage today is not cultural but political, and that it comes not from homosexuals but from heterosexuals, we will never reverse the decline of marriage. The main destroyer of marriage, it should be obvious, is divorce. Michael McManus of Marriage Savers points out that “divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today’s challenge by gays.” The central problem is the divorce laws.”
He’s right that divorce is a problem and that the divorce laws are a problem, but he is way off when he says they are the central problem. The divorce laws are terribly perverse, but that is only a symptom of a greater problem that really is cultural. Or maybe I should say spiritual. The central problem with marriage today is feminism, rebellion against God’s prescribed order. The absurdities of no fault divorce, mandatory and draconian spousal maintenance and child support payments, default child custody laws, homosexual marriage, et cetera, are the logical end of rejecting the common sense of created order. In that context, divorce is actually an oft-abused remedy that God has built into his Law.
Here’s my ideal solution (as of today–I might change my mind later):
- Take marriage out of the hands of government. Do away with marriage licenses. The civil government has no legitimate role to play in deciding who may marry whom. Neither does the church.
- Replace marriage licenses and platitudinal “vows” that no one takes seriously with real marriage contracts that must be signed by the bride, groom, and at least one senior relative of each. Two would be better. If there are no relatives available, then a spiritual mentor, such as pastor, rabbi, or priest, would do.
- Reduce the government’s role in marriage and divorce to contract enforcement.
- Immediately eliminate government financed welfare for able-bodied adults and corporations. Gradually eliminate most other government financed welfare programs as well and eliminate the income tax to compensate. Charity is admirable and spiritually mandatory, but there’s no charity at the end of a gun.
- Institute a biblically based land and property reform. Every family gets its own land, which will be returned every fiftieth year without obligation. No land can ever be permanently sold, but can only be leased for a maximum term of fifty years. The only way that land can be permanently divided or transferred is through inheritance. Eliminate inheritance taxes. (I did say ideal and not necessarily practical, didn’t I?)
- Replace the judicial concepts of punishment and reform with restitution and removal. Scrap 95% of all laws and send all the lawyers to an internment camp on the shores of the Beaufort Sea. The ones we don’t just give to old Billy, anyways. All future judges in local courts must be unpaid and must be respected and successful men of the general public.
Then I think we might be getting somewhere. 
Feminism’s Unintended Consequences
Tuesday, July 18th, 2006At Eternal Bachelor, Duncan Idaho commented on an Independent News article:
When you take into account housing benefit and things like not having to pay Council Tax, prescriptions, etc, single mothers tend to have more income than single people and often more than a couple who both work full-time.
If you reward skank behaviour rather than punish it, you will encourage skank behaviour. Obviously.
This is both good and bad. The article states,
An extensive study published today reveals that girls as young as 13 are making a “career choice” by deciding to have children, since they see parenting as preferable to working in a dead-end job.
Most of the subjects of the report are not actually children–or at least they shouldn’t be acting like children. By the time a girl is fifteen years old, she should be behaving like an adult and she should have been well prepared by her parents to be a wife and mother. Fifteen is past childhood and on the border of womanhood. A nineteen year old should be fully a woman. That’s when she really should be having children.
At least these young women acknowledge that motherhood is a better career choice than desk-hood. But notice that I said wife and mother. Rampant bastardy and the subsequent rises in crime and socialism are products of modern feminism. Follow this ironic chain of unintended consequences: chivalry -> feminism -> licentiousness -> bastardy -> poverty and maltreatment of women. The feminazis actually wanted the process to go from bastardy back to more feminism and the further dissolution of the family. Unfortunately for them, you get what you pay for. The family is the foundation of a healthy society. If you lose that, you lose everything else.
Duncan Idaho essentially said the same,
It also shows that many girls do want to be full-time mothers rather than work full-time in a dreary office or factory. It’s feminism they have to thank for that. Fifty-years ago, before feminists drove women in to the workplace, it would have been easily possible – and encouraged – for a girl to get married in her late teens and have a far more worthwhile career of running a home and raising children. Feminists didn’t think women would want that – or, in some cases, knew women want that but decided that they, feminists, had more right to dictate what other women wanted than those women themselves. The more single mothers, the more cost to taxpayers, meaning it gets harder and harder for the few remaining traditional women to be full-time mothers and housewives.
So, whilst females used to marry young and have children, now many do the same but without the marriage bit, because the increase in the welfare state means the government can support a stay at home mother but the average man can’t. So women who want to be full-time mothers often have no choice but to effectively make the government the daddy. This makes the welfare bill rise further, starting a chain reaction whereby more girls will have to have kids out of wedlock just to be able to be a full time mother. On and on it will go until the welfare kittie is empty.
And then everything falls apart, and hopefully we can forget about all this nonsense and get on with family life the way God intended it to be.