Skip to main content

Define Your Terms, Part 9000

Politics is about power. We need to frankly acknowledge this. This sphere of human life is about the acquisition of power for oneself or others. It need not be a negative; it may often be necessary, and depending on the ends and the means, even conducive to the good of all. If you align yourself with a political movement, you align yourself not only with the ends of that movement, but with the means of its achievement.

Feminism is a political movement. It has transparently secular ends, for one thing. And what is the end of feminism or feminisms? The replacement of a perceived patriarchy with a matriarchy. It is women in power over men. It isn't hard to find or see. If we forget that all political movements are about power, we can easily delude ourselves, aligning ourselves with various secondary effects, or in opposition to numerous injustices against women. But if we say we are feminists, we get more than we likely intend. There is no doubt of it.

Don't say, "I'm a feminist" when you mean, "I intend to affirm the full personhood and dignity of women, in opposition to x, y, and z." Feminism does not aim to achieve harmony or balance; it aims to achieve power and dominance over men. This is the frank reason why heterosexual feminist women struggle to find husbands, or whatever we are calling it now. And this is why the men of those feminists are weak; it's a power relationship, and they've chosen to submit. Submission is not inherently bad, but if one submits to a poor leader, or for an end that is degrading to one's dignity, it's obvious. And that's why women who are not entirely intent on dominating men end up resenting those men.

Camille Paglia is on her way to being something other than a feminist, if she hasn't been exiled already, because she is beginning to see that its goals are not desirable. Would it be that we all did!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con

Just Sayin.' Again.

One interesting objection to this chart has been to say that one gets stuck in a "loop" that doesn't resolve. This is a thinly-veiled way of putting forward the argument that we don't need absolute certainty in religious dogma. But Fred Noltie already dealt with this in the comments on another post. And to the specific objector, no less. I'll be blunt: The only principled thing to do is put down your Bible, resign your pulpit, and lead tours in Europe. Because a man must be able to distinguish dogma from human opinion, and this epistemology doesn't allow us to do that. One of dogma's distinguishing characteristics is infallibility; another is certainty. Without this, essential characteristics of God Himself are put into question. If we say that the most important Person any person could know is God, and the content of that knowledge (doctrine) is the means by which we know Him, it must be certain. This Reformed argument that certainty is a dangerous or un