If I read another pointless article about evangelicals and feminism, I am going to freak out, myself. Look, evangelicals: You know what your problem is? You don't have the tools within your theology to articulate a healthy anthropology, so your borrow it hodge-podge from politics. This is what happens when you don't have the Church and its Tradition. This is why every evangelical sounds like he or she is trying to split the middle on everything. Secular politics drives the discussion, and not the other way around.
I'm not a feminist, but you'd think I would have to be, to read crap like this. Me just telling you that forces me to say that no, I do not favor/apologize for rape or any other thing. I don't have any idea how much money a woman working outside the home should make in comparison to a man. I may have political commitments which define what I will not do in terms of means in addressing inequities real or perceived, but the truth is, it's the wrong discussion. Here's what I want to know:
Why are you choosing to be defined by what you do and produce? I actually agree that feminism's main goal is the equality of the sexes. The question is, "To what end?" Is the destiny of any man or woman a boardroom? We have "equality," we are in a good place when the numbers on a check are the same for all? Look, I love capitalism and free markets and all that stuff. But what is the true purpose or end of it all? Surely "equality" is not an end in itself. Dare I say, neither are markets. Which means that in them or in any other thing, we celebrate their proper functioning for an end.
How much of the current debate between the sexes (or more accurately, about the sexes) is framed in the negative? "Freedom from oppression," "Freedom from sexual violence," "Freedom from male domination," "Freedom from feminism"? Freedom for what? I'd say we have achieved equality: equality in nihilistic misery.
And this author shouldn't think I've failed to notice that he's written for The Daily Beast. How many non-liberals get away with concealing their political ideologies when presenting their "Christianity?" Or do some of you honestly believe only "Right-leaning" politics should be purified by Jesus?
I'm not a feminist, but you'd think I would have to be, to read crap like this. Me just telling you that forces me to say that no, I do not favor/apologize for rape or any other thing. I don't have any idea how much money a woman working outside the home should make in comparison to a man. I may have political commitments which define what I will not do in terms of means in addressing inequities real or perceived, but the truth is, it's the wrong discussion. Here's what I want to know:
Why are you choosing to be defined by what you do and produce? I actually agree that feminism's main goal is the equality of the sexes. The question is, "To what end?" Is the destiny of any man or woman a boardroom? We have "equality," we are in a good place when the numbers on a check are the same for all? Look, I love capitalism and free markets and all that stuff. But what is the true purpose or end of it all? Surely "equality" is not an end in itself. Dare I say, neither are markets. Which means that in them or in any other thing, we celebrate their proper functioning for an end.
How much of the current debate between the sexes (or more accurately, about the sexes) is framed in the negative? "Freedom from oppression," "Freedom from sexual violence," "Freedom from male domination," "Freedom from feminism"? Freedom for what? I'd say we have achieved equality: equality in nihilistic misery.
And this author shouldn't think I've failed to notice that he's written for The Daily Beast. How many non-liberals get away with concealing their political ideologies when presenting their "Christianity?" Or do some of you honestly believe only "Right-leaning" politics should be purified by Jesus?
Comments