Some Problems Feminism Helped Cause…
March 31, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton
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.
Related posts:
- An Introduction to Feminism
- A Point of Departure
- Interview with Mary Kassian – Part II
- A Solution to Feminism
- What Fathers Do Best
- Interview with Mary Kassian – Part I
Posted in Culture, Gender Issues, Main Page, Roger's Posts
content rss
March 31st, 2006 at 6:11 pm
I appreciate the care with which you've written this, as it is obviously a premise for which you should expect some passionate opposition.
I agree with you that in so much as the feminist movement may have devalued staying at home with children, particularly for women who want to and choose to, this is a disservice to our society.
Though I have several questions with what you've written, I'd particularly like to ask about this. Regarding the exchange-ability of men and women, you mentioned that men are not able to bear children nor nurse. You didn't say here, but I would concede that on the whole, women tend to be more nurturing. In what ways, though, would you say these roles are not interchangeable? What disservice is a woman doing to her children if she does bear and nurse them, pump when at work, and allow her husband to be the primary stay at home parent? Particularly, what is lost if the husband has a better temperament to be home with the children, or is this premise categorically impossible?
In order to give you the opportunity to be a sensitive apologist, I disclose to you again that this is exactly the position my wife and I perceive ourselves to be in. She is a Pediatric Intensive Care Doctor whom we feel is gifted and called by God to carry this out as her ministry. I am a pastor who looks to stay at home with our children until they are of school age, because she is clearly a better provider for our family in the workforce, and we perceive my temperament to be better suited to it than hers for staying home with children.
March 31st, 2006 at 6:48 pm
Thanks for the thoughtful question Bill. My pastor is actually in a similar situation as you're in, so I'm not to far removed from those dynamics.
1) When we (meaning most Complimentarians) talk about roles and strengths, we're speaking in generalities. There are husbands who are actually better in nurturing situations than their wives and there are wives who are better in provisional situations than their husbands. We look at these as real exceptions to how God has generally gifted/created men and women.
2) I'm in no way suggesting that the ideal family model is that women stay at home with the family while men go out and work. The ideal family model, as I understand it, is that both men and women are home. Here, though, I'm touching on territory that will be covered in my next gender post, so I'll leave it at that.
March 31st, 2006 at 8:18 pm
The basic idea that men and women are generally created different, and that these differences are complimentary is something I have no difficulty affirming. I do not agree with those who believe that the general tendency in giftedness is concretely and absolutely necessary for every man and every woman. I am not suggesting that you have put that forward, but others have. There are many within the more conservative realm of Christianity who would find my wife and your pastor's wife to be derelict of their duties, and for reasons that I can not quite follow, a threat to the fabric of our society.
I bring this up again not because you are expressing these views, but because your arguments could be perceived to be supporting these views without your explicit disclaimer.
When I was a child, born in the 70's, it seemed popular to believe that there were no gender differences inherent to our males and females from birth. Rather, it was popularly believed that all gender differences were socially defined. As we, the children of this generation reached our twenties, we looked at ourselves, and at the children we were beginning to baby sit and raise and found that this premise just didn't ring true. While I and others like me could continue to affirm that a good deal of what it means to be a man or a woman, boy or a girl is culturally conditioned, there are obvious differences between males and females outside of any conditioning we wish to bring to them.
When we accept that we are generally different, it is not difficult to accept that we are complimentary. My view of it is not simple though. I believe there are a number of different dominance/sub-dominance constellations between men and women, for instance. There are men who are naturally more suited to be partners with more dominant women, and vice versa. In a number of other polar attributes as well, I believe we compliment one another as we come together in marriage. Some that are traditionally understood to be feminine are sometimes stronger in the male than the female of the pair and vice versa.
So, while I affirm general differences in the genders, and appreciate their complimentary nature, I am more flexible than some in my expectation of which partner would bring which attribute to the union.
I also, as I noted above, affirm the honor and worth of the role and the tasks of staying home and raising children. I have some sympathy for those who felt that they were constricted to a role that was not valued by society as the roles open to men were. I agree though, that when they proclaim that traditional motherhood is an unfulfilling and unliberated life, they have denigrated a noble and worthy calling.
As to your connection with the role of motherhood and abortion, I agree they are related, but I find the connection somewhat week. You noted that this was one of many contributing factors. I would agree that the general movement of women's liberation set an atmosphere of fighting for the freedom of women. I don't so much see a causal link from one to the next.
I am now going on to too many points, but Roger, I find that I affirm a good amount of what the women's liberation movement accomplished. Women now have the opportunity to use their gifts in the work force, to be paid fairly for that work, and held in the dignity and respect that their male counterparts are. This is not all at the expense of child raising and rearing, though I don't deny some of it is. Are there any products of the more recent women's liberation that you can affirm or appreciate, or do all those benefits I describe not fall under the radical feminism group that you are referring to?
April 1st, 2006 at 7:04 am
(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.)
Helpful discussion overall, thanks. My one quibble is I think the discussion of there being so few good fathers, and decreasingly few good mothers, is too easily put out there. My own experience is that there are lots of good fathers and good mothers (as well as lots of not-so-good).
“Very few men today are good fathers.”
Don't necessarily want to argue this, but want to register my dissent on this point. The place of fatherhood in our society is in tatters in many ways, and this does effect actual fathers, but there are plenty of men out there who are working hard to be good fathers and could care less about the cultural and philosophical nonsense that rages more on the coasts and cities than where they live.
April 1st, 2006 at 8:26 am
I also thought the statements about how few good fathers there were was problematic. Firstly, Micah and I, and many others who would read your post are fathers. If very few are good, by which you mean a small percentage, the likelihood that Micah or I fit into the very smaller number of “good fathers” is very small over and against the much larger number of “not good fathers.” It is hard as I read this not to at least suspect that you hold me to be a “not good father.”
This is a very significant charge, which you would find people respond to very defensively. If you want to say that there are very few good fathers, I don't suggest you wait a week to say what you mean by it, but rather directly explain both how few good fathers you think there are and why you do not consider others good fathers.
I also agree with Micah, that it is something you've thrown out there easily without any substantiation. I was inclined when I read it to write it off as the bluster of youth, as it wasn't founded on anything more than your personal impression.
April 1st, 2006 at 9:47 am
Not to nitpick, Bill, but how is your suspicion that something which Roger wrote a year ago means that he holds you to be a not good father founded on something more than your personal impression?
April 1st, 2006 at 2:19 pm
I agree that there are many good men who are trying to be good fathers. But my impression (perhaps because I've spent most of my time in So. Cal.) is that the majority of men with children are not concerned with being good fathers. I'm primarily thinking of inner city crimes and gangs. I think most of those problems would be solved had there been good fathers. Perhaps we don
April 1st, 2006 at 6:15 pm
Tim, I don't remember what you were referring to. I was just referring to this post here.
Roger, I wasn't trying to innappropriately personalize what you wrote, I was offering a reader response criticism. It wasn't my intent to suggest that you had any specific knowledge or opinion of me as a father. Rather, if the vast majority are indicted as poor, I would be concerned that if you did know of my parenting, you would judge it to be poor.
April 1st, 2006 at 6:20 pm
“And so Bill doesn't obscenely personalize my words again-”
Were you here referring to these comments, or a discussion passed?
April 2nd, 2006 at 11:31 am
There is much in this post that I think is great and that's why I hesitated with my initial comment, but I suppose that it's too late now.
Roger, if your general impression is based on gangs and inner-city Los Angeles (“I'm primarily thinking of inner city crimes and gangs”), then I really think you should heavily qualify your initial statement. If this is all you're going on, then you really don't have any reason to state categorically that “very few men today are good fathers”. It's just detracts from the good things in your article because you don't have a basis for such a sweeping generalization.
While I don't think Bill is correct to assume you think he's a poor father (this does I think read too much into it, and imo Bill should assume charity on your part), I also don't think it is improper for you to consider your audience when writing about these sorts of issues. If I were to expound on Aristotle's suggestion that the young should not engage in philosophy, using the example say of 23 year-olds writing about family and sex relations, and I wanted to argue that the vast majority of 23 year-olds knew very little about the subject, and I knew there were a number of 23 year-olds in my audience, I'd be careful that 1) I really had good evidence or a really good argument to think 23 year-olds weren't good philosophers, and 2) that I took into account that 23 year-olds would be reading my argument, and that there will be exceptions to the “vast majority”.
Just like we're careful when writing about Christian issues because most of this blog's readers are Christians (and thus it's not just an academic exercise), so when writing about fatherhood it is prudent to into account the extent to which fathers will be invested the content and presentation of your argument.
“I don't think we could really cite statistics either way, but I think we can agree that a significant number of men are not concerned with being good fathers and this has had devastating consequences.”
There are some statistics here that would be helpful, and I'd refer you to the work of Bradford Wilcox, a very serious Christian who is also a sociologist at the University of Virginia. His work would support a lot of what you've said (apart from the “few good fathers” line I suspect, though maybe there too).
And yes, we certainly agree that a significant number of men are not living up to their calling as fathers, and I think we'd also agree that radical feminism has had a huge part to play in this. After all, when one part of the message has been that women don't need men, and another part is that women can be as sexually libertine as men, then men hear that they can have free sex and that they aren't needed. Many listen and heed the message.
April 2nd, 2006 at 12:22 pm
I have in mind a number of things when I say “the majority of men with children,” and inner-city crime and gangs was first to come to mind. I'm also thinking of the high divorce rate, which certainly isn't always a sign of bad fathering, but often is. If just half of divorced families involve bad fathering, that's roughly 25%. But these men often have children with multiple women, and these days many men have children outside of marriage. Perhaps it's not really a good indication, but I think much of what is in the media is the result of poor fathering. Fight Club (one of my favorite movies) shows us the result of poor fathering, as does most other rater 'R' films. Additionally, the only good fathers I've met are committed Christians, and I don't suspect there to be very many of these comparatively. So all of that is wrapped up in my “impression,” for good or for ill.
I agree that “very few men” says more than I want to say, and is particularly a poor choice of words in light of an audience that includes a many good fathers. I think the need for sensitivity may be even greater than you suggest. When I generalize I usually think “those who aren't this way will be able to tell themselves apart.” But fathering (I'm guessing) is likely to be an area where is there is a lot of second-guessing. I'm thinking this is the case because one of my greatest fears in life is not being a good father, and if I have anxiety about it before I have children, I imagine I'll have much more should I be blessed to have them. So I can see how for me to say something like that may lead some fathers to have unintended angst about their own situation. I repent!
April 2nd, 2006 at 1:02 pm
First, I might be concerned, Tim that people might think you are being this terse with someone whom you have no relationship, so I want to make it clear to any others who are reading that Tim and I have a personal relationship that spans a decade of working together and friendship. I was his youth leader, later he assisted me as a volunteer in youth ministry. We worked together on camp staff for several years and he video taped my wedding.
Second, Tim, I wasn't aware that this was a repost of articles from a year ago.
Third, I regret that my feedback regarding my responses to your writing has been percieved to be unhelpful. I will in the future seek to refrain from being personal in my interactions with your writing – though I find that a genuine loss in our interaction – and interact in the more abstract and formal tone that Micah has.