I usually try not to get too personal, by keeping it to the expression of truth and keeping myself out of the way. But things I’ve recently read makes me to desire to step out this time. In writing this blog, I’ve noticed a couple of dynamics:
1. Most of the men who are aware of what feminism is usually stay away from what I write because I’m a professing follower of Jesus, therefore I must be a tradcon feminist.
2. The ones who are professing “traditionalist” Christians, however, usually stay away because I’ve completely and unequivocally declared myself as anti-feminist. In other words, I’m not a traditionalist (tradcon) feminist.
I don’t know how true that assessment is, but what leads me into what I have to write about today stems from that second statement. As I wrote before, there are two schools of thought that are postulated in current Churchianity when it comes to men and women and their roles in society.
Egalitarianism is the idea that men and women are exactly identical before God in both role and value. This mode of thought was born out of the secular feminist influence within Churchianity. This was addressed in the other post.
Complementarianism is the other mode of thought that is expressed within Churchianity. It’s generally expressed in the idea that men and women are different, have different things to bring to the table, and have different roles. I have brought the Biblical view of this out for husbands and wives before, and it should be clear where my position is on this matter.
However, I did not endorse complementarianism in my other post, for reasons that this post will get into now. The reason is this, as described in the other post: Scripture professes an equality of value between men and women in the sight of Christ Jesus:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
What all too often comes out in the writings of “traditionalist Christians” is that men were not created by God for the purposes of His glory, but were created for the purposes of woman’s glory. That is, the only value that men hold in “traditionalist Christian” circles is directly related to his utility to the woman. In other words, their view is that the only value men hold in society is in their service to women, and any man that is not under the personal rule of a woman is seen as dangerous.
This view comes out in the expression of men only in terms of husbands and fathers. This view comes out in the man-up rants. This view comes out in the non-Biblical support of chivalry, where a man’s sole and only purpose in life is to the service of women even to the cost of his own life (and if that isn’t proof that a woman’s life is valued more highly than a man’s, I don’t know what is). This even comes out in treating every woman as her own god, treating every word out of her mouth and every feeling she has as if they came from the Lord God Himself.
This inequality of value or worth of the existence of men and women comes out with tradcon feminists, especially when assessments of the rights of men or the MRA/MRM comes out. In reading the latest examples of tradcon feminism I’ve encountered, Sis writes (wb, btw), in her assessment of men in self-identifying as a traditionalist feminist:
I love men, they are awesome warriors, intimidating captains, fearless leaders, amazing lovers. I believe in chivalry, men are at their finest when their purpose is something bigger than maximizing their wealth and prosperity. I think women are at their finest when they are creating beauty and admiring the men around them. Women are designed to nurture, care and be patient with children and men. Men are designed to be strong and conquer the world. I don’t believe in equal rights for men and women, I don’t think women should be drafted just like men because we serve a greater purpose at home.
She is welcome to clarify, but note that she describes men only in terms that befit their utility to women or others, and also denies that men should have the same rights as women in society. Commenter Robyn in the same thread writes:
I’ve thought long and hard (and for many years) about this statement: “I don’t believe in equal rights for men and women …” -and I believe I finally have my head around it! It’s not that men and women are NOT equal – it’s that ‘equality’ shouldn’t come into the comparison.
Dipping into the numerous threads that now exist on chivalry in different places will produce a number of similar comments painting the life, liberty, and dignity of men to be lesser than women, insignificant, or even worthless compared to women. As well, it is not hard to find other expressions of such views. This is not the Biblical roles of men and women being expressed, this is tradcon feminism being expressed by “professing Christians”.
What do they get wrong when it comes to men and the call for equal rights? Egalitarianists confuse the God-given role women have as a lack of diminished value of life before God. Complementarians see the God-given roles men and women have, but have a lack of diminished value of men in the sight of God. Traditional feminism has lasted much longer than the secular variety, so they are evidently blind to it. The ham-handed handling of some parties to slide a H into the MRA acronym is an attempt to illustrate the nature of this problem: Men do not have the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as women do today.
The chart summarizes the arguments above. God-given rights are those things which moved the signatories of the Declaration of Independence to action, and include all things they saw essential to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. God-given attributes are the genuine (not tradfem defined) qualities that makes a man what he is, along with the proper roles that God expects man to play both in society and in His Church.
(Note: Tradcon feminists acceptance of “masculinity” as a God-given attribute is defined as it being such to serve women. Hence, the very essence of “masculinity” is defined by women to be of utility to women. This is unacceptable.)
The problem that any form of mens rights advocacy addresses isn’t that they are wanting man to have equivalent roles to women – in other words, MRAs have little to no concern with the last column. Personally, as a Christian, as long as the roles and attributes are proper, I have no concern with the last column. It is fully concerned with the second column, and that’s where my concern lies with this form of feminism. Feminism in all its forms have determined to erode and destroy what is proper in both columns.
Feminism doesn’t solely concern itself with Biblical roles in marriage. It has concerned itself with devaluing men in society. It has concerned itself with either the subjugation of men both legally and within the Church (via Marriage 2.0 and other methods) or the elimination of men in society. This goes not only for the secular variety, but the religious one as well.
The idea of complementarianism as expressed sounds like a good one when it comes to Biblical roles, but it’s all too often a cover for a complementarian view of the value of life of men and women. Women are the valuable ones, while the only value for men is to compliment women as their servants. This is as much feminism as the other kind of feminism. This is as much misandry, as the other kind of misandry. Feminism is feminism, no matter what appearance it takes.
What would you list as the God-given rights of men?
However, I did not endorse complementarianism in my other post, for reasons that this post will get into now. The reason is this, as described in the other post: Scripture professes an equality of value between men and women in the sight of Christ Jesus:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28)
I agree with this, I don’t think complementarianism contradicts this bible verse. We are equal in value but unequal in purpose and function.
Male and female life is of equal value, but we put it at risk in different contexts. Men protect women, women protect children and risk themselves to bring forth children.
Several women died int he shooting at Newton protecting their students. That was a form of chivalry.
Many women have died in childbirth and still do. Elspeths mother is one such woman, and when I had my last baby I had complications that would have certainly killed me if not for modern medicine and first world access to it.
If women were at home having dozens of babies as they use to (and which I advocate at a traditionalist) you would see the sacrificial nature of womanhood in fuller display.
Yes, Morticia is right. I was the last child born to a woman who died in childbirth. Medical technology, abortion, and birth control on demand has lessened to risks to women with respect to bringing forth life. But even in the 70′s tragedies still occurred and I’m sure they do today.
I think Cane asked an excellent question: What are the “God given rights” that any of us can lay claim to?
More importantly. the idea that men are only viewed through the prism of utility is a little off base to me. It is and has always been that those who are stronger bear more burden than those who are weaker. This is a Scriptural principle.
Most importantly, I view complementarianism through the prism of marriage. I don’t believe any man besides my husband owes me anything. I believe that every believer has a debt of love to other believers and that we each are required to honor and obey Romans 15:1-2.
Hmmm. I think you missed something. The MRM hates the patriarchal religions – just as the feminists did. When they utter words like “traditionalist”, “socon”, “tradcon” etc… They are merely taking the blame away from the left and away from feminists (a left-wing movement).
I too am starting to be convinced that the MRM is in fact 4th wave feminism.
Step out of the box and look at it – hatred of Judea-Christian beliefs, hatred of men – specifically straight men (white knight, mangina, pussy beggar, vagina worshipper etc…), hatred of “traditionalism” (which is a construct of the speaker – not something rooted in fact), hatred of chivalry (something that according to wikipedia – exists in literature only), hatred of right-wing politics, excessive praise of homosexuals (continuation of lesbian separatism), excessive focus on the negative aspects of sex (rape, pedophilia, sexual harassment etc…) – this leads to an increase in the “sex abuse” industry, increase in the abortion industry (many MRA’s think that the man and the woman should get to choose to abort an unwanted child – i.e. “accidental” pregnancy), and not the last – but the last I’ll list here – claiming of “victim status”.
It is my opinion (at the moment), that most MRA’s are simply continuing what the feminists started – destroying what is left of any hope of positive relations between men and women.
Many people leading the charge are the same ilk as the feminists of old – sexually traumatized lesbians…
Today’s Men’s Rights Movement is the beginning stage of a true Human Rights Movement which one day in the future – after the wrongs being committed by society against the male gender on behalf of the feminists has been both recognized and made right – will champion the rights of all humans instead of a targeted group based on gender or sexual orientation.
What is in question is if this Human Rights Movement can head off the coming attempt of gendercide – the planned reduction of the male population to a tiny fraction of its current size – which is the ultimate goal of feminism.
@ Elspeth
“More importantly. the idea that men are only viewed through the prism of utility is a little off base to me. It is and has always been that those who are stronger bear more burden than those who are weaker. This is a Scriptural principle.”
And where in society is it recognized that women are the weaker vessel? It may be a biblical principle, but it is a principle for people to heed and act from love, not forced upon them through the law, and certainly not to be exploited. This is a great way for women to have their cake and eat it too – “I’m your “equal”, but I get more rights (I will deny this), have less responsibility, feel entitled to chivalry, and that’s the way it ought to be”.
@ Ballista74
What are your thoughts on the feminine imperative? Fact or fiction?
I am no man’s “equal” in the temporal sense. And yes, I know that women have more rights. Which I don’t think is right.
OT but don’t know where else to post…Listening to “Family Life Today” and they were pushing a book called “Father Hunger” by Dennis Wilson. good mixed with bad. His definition of masculinity was the “glad acceptance of sacrificial (service?)” and, presumably, the women will fall all over themselves to follow. Oh, and this, if the man gives a teaspoon (of sacrifice?), the woman responds with a bucketful. What a differfence listening to this tripe with some red pill awareness.
First off, thanks for proving me right in more than an abundant way (and add Gregoire’s site, too). It’s not hard to take a step or two without stepping in the feminism and anti-man bigotry.
@Elspeth
Not hard to trip over this, either. Everything wrt to men is always in terms of husbands and fathers, ie usefulness to the wife. Also look at how most advertising is framed towards men – always to please the wife or family or draw women. One specific example is prostate cancer. Never framed for the health of the man or even at the man, but towards the wife – take care of your slave is the message. In other words, be attractive to women, be useful to women, be around longer for women. That’s “utility towards women”.
The error I find most all Christians and Churchians make about “Scriptural principles” is that they’re deluded into thinking that they are what is in common practice in the churches. Seeking to find out reality is a much better indicator of what is true rather than looking to Scripture and assuming what it says there is currently factually true and correct of what is going on. This is why I refer to Marriage 1.0 and Marriage 2.0. The latter is what is reality, the former is Scriptural.
@Scarecrow When an organization or group of people (namely “Christians”) has bigotry and hatred towards men to the point that it’s common and institutionalized. Men aren’t very supportive of giving up their lives, their possessions, and everything they are for the sake of marriage. Personally most men (myself included) aren’t very supportive of going extinct, either (especially given the average gendercidal views of the most of Churchianity now holds, re marriage). That said, I don’t agree with what was quoted on that external link, but I understand very well why the person expressed that view.
If I was new to such environments and was seeking Christ, I would turn around and walk out never to return. If you sense hatred, in most cases it is well deserved. Even in my own case, I’ve personally encountered a couple of Churchian environments where institutionalized hatred and bigotry of men was common. I walked out those places never to return, because I’ve gone well past thinking that what I see in “professing Christians” are an accurate reflection of who Jesus is, and have come to expect such behavior regarding either the fact that I’m not married, the fact that I’m a man, or both.
Again, if someone wishes my subjugation and eventual suffering and death (especially in a foolish sacrifice to the glory of woman), I’m not going to take it lying down. I’m especially not going to join up with them and be yoked to them. If you want positive relations between men and women, the only way that’s going to begin to happen is by ending the sex war currently in place against men.
@YouHaveMyPermission +1 on your comment, and yes it exists. I’ve addressed different parts of it in several posts.
.@FNG It’s quite on-topic as that kind of stuff is what this post is addressing.
Recommended reading – very good stuff (here’s something closer to what reality offers men)
LOL, thanks…I guess. I like you Ballista. There is power in your words when you use scripture. I encourage you to keep seeking, to keep proving, to find all your enemies and prove them wrong and to find where Men’s authority truly lies. I believe God is guiding you and the best place for me is to stay out of your and His way. Feel free to attack my words anytime you like for iron sharpens iron. Blessings!
The guy who wrote the recommended reading made one mistake, and I realize this sounds unfair to the uninitiated. He said he was certain someone could write a similar essay about what girls here as they grow up.
Yes, they could, and the stuff they hear would be stuff that originates…..with women….while twisting it around as if its male expectations. Im breaking zero new ground with this, the whole regime about men expecting this and that is a construct of women to increase the fodder they use to cry patriarchy and oppression, meanwhile, when it comes to appearance especially, sphere bloggers and readers know that its simply not true, that men prefer a pleasant wife, which is not the same as the adage “its whats on the inside that’s important” because that is yet another construct created to combat the idea of expected perfection….which they constructed.
OT I know but that claim of his jumped out at me.
I’m not entirely sure what it is you are saying but I am fairly certain that it is very insulting to me since you linked to me talking about women sacrificing our lives for our children as evidence of anti-male bigotry.
No, I linked to you talking about the expectation and demand that men sacrifice their lives, liberty, and propety for women at the women’s whim and desire and crassly invoking the name of Jesus in doing it as an evidence of anti-male bigotry.
All our lives are disposable. All. If you don’t think so you are reading the wrong Gospel.
[B: Then I guess abortion and murder is fine too since "all our lives are disposable". Bye-bye troll.]
Jesus laid down His life for us while we were still in sin. That doesn’t make us better than Him. The same perspective would mean that a man laying down his life for others is not necessarily saying they are worth more than he is.
It seems like you have to find error under every rock. We are quite messed up in our society, but past times have seen their share of problems as well. Keep in mind that some of the most passionate ended up persecuting others who didn’t meet their standard. We need to put forth the truth more then we need to curse the darkness.
People are ultimately set free by the truth of the Gospel. Paul did not preach against Diana of the Ephesians, for example, but his strong preaching of the Gospel completely overturned her worship, according to those who profited from that.
We all need to challenge ourselves and make sure we are holding up the truth more than cursing the darkness.
[B: I tolerate a whole lot more than most people know when it comes to the things I see on this blog. But one thing I will not tolerate is The Gospel used as an occasion for wickedness against men as the tradcon feminists love to do, which is what Morticia did (among other things). Bye-bye.]
Pingback: Random Comments and Stuff #2 | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Chivalry: Falling In Love With Shame | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Links and Comments #9 | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: A License For Profane Wickedness. | The Society of Phineas