Objectify This

Recently I stumbled upon this website run by that beacon of truth and goodness, the Christian Right. In fine form, they announced at the beginning of the page, “FEMINISM IS EVIL! Beware of the feminists, many are LESBIANS!” Ah, yes, such tolerance and open mindedness is exactly what we have been taught to expect from our Christian siblings. I’m going to rebut some of the points they make, in the interest of respectful dialogue, despite the site’s admission that they’re “not going to sugarcoat this article in an attempt not to offend anyone.” Right. 1. “Feminism is rebellion against God’s AUTHORITY!” Hmmm. Actually, in the original language of the Bible, God is referred to as both male and female - see this paper from Dr. Margo G. Houts, Professor of Religion and Theology at Calvin University. This suggests that divine power is both male and female, implying that a movement for female power does not undermine “god’s authority” but strengthens it. 2. “ I don’t know where the term “feminazi” originated, but it accurately describes the Feminist Movement.” The term was first popularized, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, by the U.S. talk show host Rush Limbaugh, a man that Ronald Reagan once called “the number one voice for Conservatism in our Country.” It would be fairly easy to make a case that conservative foreign policy resembles Nazi foreign policy in some ways — conservative foreign policy seems mostly concerned with broadening the empire of American corporations at great cost to foreign human rights, while Nazi foreign policy was concerned with broadening the empire of Nazi domination at any cost to non-Nazi party-affiliated human rights. Feminists, however, are concerned with liberating women, and not at any cost to human rights, because human rights are our aim. 3. “So many pastors today are afraid to preach against the evils of feminism.” Yes, because feminism is not actually that scary. 4. “The truth needs to be upheld!” Amen. And a woman, too. 5. “America’s churches, marriages, and homes are being destroyed by the vile feminist agenda.” This seems like fear mongering. Feminists are not a threatening army, and have not yet, as far as I am aware, attacked any buildings, either churches or homes. Even those lesbians that we’re being “ware” of are fighting for the right to get married. If anything, feminists support broadening the scope of marriage, not destroying it. 6. “Women are now filing for divorce at TWICE the rate of men because of feminism.” This link leads to a diatribe by Fathers for Life, not any kind of proof to back up this claim. I would point out that in most states, in order to get married, these women must be heterosexual, so their divorces are not the kind of “evil” lesbian feminism we’re trying to be “ware” of here. Regardless, because men can be feminists and women can be chauvinists, even if the statement that women are filing for twice as many divorces as men were true, the second clause “because of feminism” is not necessarily the obvious conclusion. 7.”A godly man is a threat to the feminist’s agenda, because he believes that a woman’s place is still in the home, baking cookies, knitting, and caring for the children (1st Timothy 5:14).” Ok, now let’s get this straight: feminists can choose to stay home, bake, care for kids, knit (see knitted womb on right) or even go to church, if they choose to. The problem, for a feminist, is the godly man’s agenda of being able to choose for her that she will do these things. This limits her agency. The above link of “Feminist’s agenda” leads to some serious propaganda about feminism, including the idea that feminists “hate femininity,” “reject God, nature and scientific evidence in favour of their political agenda,” and “refuse to debate, don’t believe in free speech, and suppress dissenting views” — which are clearly not true, at least not in my eyeliner-toting, science-studying, debating-this-site-right-now experience of feminism. 8. “Of course, hen pecked husbands and sissies are exempt.” Ahh, so it’s not a question of whether the woman stays at home at the behest of the godly man, but whether he has the monopoly on power or she exercises control over him, too. Since feminists have better sex (see my post Keep Your Socks On, I’m Cumming for more on why equality leads to more satisfaction for both parties), I would suggest that there are benefits to the sharing of power that the “godly” man’s male-and-female God (see #1) would support. Of course, at the same time, I don’t support partner abuse of any kind: if women are battering men, those men should be seeking divorce, according to the principles of feminist doctrine. 9.”I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some are already turned aside after Satan.” —1st Timothy 5:14.” Right. This line is from the description of what to do with young widows according to the Apostle Paul. This is not, as it might seem, an injunction that women not work outside of the home but a desire to see them work rather than “idle” about and “turn to Satan”. An argument definitely could be made that working outside the home accomplishes the same thing. 10. “What feminists are really saying is, “We don’t believe the Bible is God’s Word, and we absolutely REFUSE to allow men to have exclusive authority.” Well, regardless of whether or not the Bible is God’s Word, the original Bible refers to a God that is both male and female (see #1), but which the church presents as only male. This suggests that the church would prefer to refuse God’s Word than accept that men might not have exclusive authority. It’s true, feminists don’t believe men have exclusive authority; but we don’t believe that women have exclusive authority, either. 11. “Thus, women preachers demand EQUALITY in the leadership of the church.” Seems reasonable. 12. “Wives demand EQUALITY in the leadership of the home.” Right. 13. “This is exactly what Lucifer said in Isaiah 14:14…

“I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.“

Satan didn’t want to be greater than God, he simply wanted EQUAL in authority.” Uh, right. The parallel here between Satan and feminism is real, because both of them wanted equality within a preexisting power structure. However, Satan was neither a woman nor a feminist, and few feminists would align themselves with Satan, so the analogy stops there. Just as feminism, like many egalitarian platforms, supports a subversion of hierarchies in general, it might legitimately be argued that the egalitarianism which lead to the use of both male and female interpretations of God in the original language of the Bible (and The Old Testament) undermines any conception of male and female as less than equal, or indeed as separate beings. Indeed, the focus on the differences between ourselves should not outweigh our attention to our similiarities, for we are overwhelmingly similar beings — seeing as we are, on the DNA level, 99% identical to chimpanzees (before insertions and deletions are taken into account, and 96% the same when they are) and any two of us are 10 times more similar than that. So exactly where does the basis for male authority lie, if not in God or in biology?

I would argue that it’s a part of our culture — a culture that would be shocked if anyone were to publicly propose a racial or ethnic or religious supremacy, but which barely bats an eye when we affirm gender supremacy.

Call me Satan, call me evil, or call me a threat to the godly man, but don’t call me a cog in the machine of gender supremacy. And as my grandpa always says, please don’t call me late to lunch. (And if it’s soul food, God, someone save me some ribs.)