|
"Social progress can be measured with precision by the position of the female sex." Karl Marx 1
Today's political arena is filled with much talk about individualistic human rights. No group seems to have dominated this sphere as much as those in favour of women's "equality". How is it that feminism has become the human rights standard instead of merely the critic of its abuses? Equality and rights are important concepts in our society. They are said to be foundational to freedom, liberty, justice and peace. But, how is it that the once original patriarchal meanings to these terms have now a Marxist interpretation imposed upon them? (Refer to preamble of the Canadian Charter of Rights.) Marx and Engels saw Christian Patriarchy as foundational to the capitalism they wished to destroy. Engels wrote, "With the emergence of civilization came private property and the state, as well as the more rigid patriarchal family based on male domination and the subordination and dependence of women and children....at the cradle of women's oppression was the establishment of a rigid patriarchy and system of male privilege."2 Women's liberators have adopted the same rational as Engels by using his version of equality to appeal to the sacred trust (i.e. human rights) of our society as an excuse to turn our ethics upside-down. Engels and Marx interpreted equality on the basis that everyone should have equal authority and equal means to the control of economic production whether they are male, female, rich or poor. In a sense, they believed when an ideology and religion distinguished between the gender, the result was inequality. The reason they called this inequality was not out of fairness, but rather envy for property or the social position someone else had. As feminists increasingly gain control in our society, this envious attitude has become more evident through the use of "politically correct" language which refuses to address anyone by gender. Positions of authority have now become sexless; for example, spokesman has become "spokesperson" and policeman - "policeofficer". They have been changed in order to make these positions more socially acceptable for women to usurp them. The reason why these names have been changed is to change the idea that these jobs are exclusive to men. They want women to virtually take over every position of authority (any masculine job) so as to ensure that this socialist concept of egalitarian uniformity may take place. Feminists should be commended for their efforts to bring about awareness concerning spousal and child abuse. However, the issue can easily be solved through other means which are Christian in nature. For example, community groups can be set up where family visits can be arranged to provide counselling on a regular basis. If there is abuse occurring, then it can be handled in such a way as to keep the family together and not to tell the wife to leave and then divorce her husband as feminists may like to promote. Only in extreme cases should the spouses be counselled to separate, but only that they may have time to work out the differences. Within many Christian circles, counselling has been strongly emphasized especially before marriage even takes place. In God's word, husbands are commanded to love their wives and the wives must submit to their authority. When these tasks are in any way disobeyed or abused, pain and suffering is likely to result. Feminists, with their egalitarian mentality, encourage women to rebel against patriarchy. In doing so, they actually compound social problems. A wife who refuses to listen to her husband because "she doesn't have to listen to anybody" is rather incurring her husbands wrath. They have now expanded the meaning of abuse to include anything whereby the husband/father exercises his headship (authority as father) in any way. For example, when husbands wish to have control over the family finances or does not wish their wives or children to do something, it is deemed abuse because it is "infringing on their wives rights". Feminism, in its defiance of Christian Patriarchy, in this way has already begun to erode the structure of our society into the sea of anarchy and vagueness with their encouragement of wives and children to rebel and to speak in a non-distinguishing manner between the sexes. As Marxism acknowledges only humanistic atheism as it's religion. It holds to no God given absolutes. Consistent feminism follows the same logic, by acknowledging no God given absolutes in gender roles within power relations. With the justification of liberating women from the male oppression of "stereotyping" traditional roles, feminists seek to redefine the decision making process within the family to make it more "equal". To accommodate the new "alternative" relationship, they have coined the notion of an "equal co-partnership" which creates confusion as to who has the final say. This is especially true when a child requests permission to do something. One parent may say "yes" and the other "no" in a given situation. Would a majority vote solve this problem? One such solution was put forth by Elizabeth Datsun Gary, a leading feminist "theologian(?)" who preached that the "power pyramid" of patriarchy has to be scrapped. The order: God, males, females, children, animals, plants then minerals has to be eliminated because they all lead to oppression and exploitation of the lower levels. All of these levels, Gary suggests, should be seen on an equal basis.3 This would therefore make the Creator no longer Lord over His Creation and make rocks just as important as children. The next logical step to this confusion is that children hold the same authority as their parents. This would contradict the commandment of God that children should obey their parents. (Ephesians 4-5) The scripture further says in Ephesians that wives should "submit to their own husbands as unto the Lord". What God means is not that women and children are less human than then their counterparts, but rather that we all should humbly admit our lesser position of authority as we submit ourselves as inferiors to God. "Whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted." (Matthew 23:12). Fundamental to a healthy society is an attitude not one of mutual equality but rather one of esteeming each other greater then himself, especially those in authority. The greatest example was that the God and Creator of the universe humbled Himself and put on Himself an inferior position of a man who saw His Father in heaven as greater than Himself. (John 1:1-14;14:28). He did not take advantage of His equality with the Father in order to lift Himself up. Hence, such a humble act motivated the Father's declaration that every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. (Philippians 2:5-11). As Robert Dabney, a theologian during the genesis of modern feminism in the late 1800's, noted the obvious next step to women's suffrage was children's suffrage; then finally asses as well. The resultant anarchy and rebellion that feminism can promote when everyone is screaming out "I am equal!" will, in like manner, propel the moral decline of our society.4 Perhaps the greatest victims of the moral decline due to feminist movement are the children. They are seen as a hindrance to the mother's career. Their solution to this problem is universal, free, state daycare. Many propose that when more women are out in the workforce, women can be less reliant upon men for their incomes. Of course, when mothers are in the workforce, daycares become more attractive to them. Someone has to look after the children while they are at work. This shrugging off of parental responsibilities unto the state, in the writer's opinion, results in alienation between the children and parents. I found that when I was a child, my parents were no longer the centre of my life. My teacher became a higher authority and my social life at school was more important. As a result, the relationship I had with my parents deteriorated and they became mere inconveniences in my daily life. Daycare weakens the social life of the family by separating parents and children, thus making it harder for them to communicate. It is the God given duty of mothers and fathers to raise their own children and not the state. John Conway, in his book The Canadian Family in Crisis said that "...universal childcare is an open admission that the family is dead..."5 Children in these state run institutions are being indoctrinated with feminist/socialist propaganda. One can only visit the public schools to see feminist revisions taking place in the textbooks and nursery rhymes. The male heros have now been given female names and the children are being read stories about homosexual relationships in such a way as to promote and accept them. In such state run daycare, the children are being taught that the their destiny in life is infallibly their choice. If the will of the parents conflicts with that of the child, the will of the child is almost law. Otherwise, the parents are infringing on the child's "freedom of choice." Since 1961, this expression has been used when contraceptives were legalized by the state. There were proclamations made demanding that husbands stop refusing a woman's freedom of choice to have an abortion. They wanted the right to do whatever they wished within the confines of there own bodies. Certainly, feminists would not agree with their reasoning on a larger scale. Take for instance Iraq. It claims to be a sovereign state. She refuses to accept what another stronger nation says she can do within the confines of her own borders. The U.S. deplores the genocide of the Iraqi Kurds. The Iraqi's continued its agenda in defiance of the U.S.' threat of retaliation. God declares that no innocent blood shall be shed, "Thou shalt not murder". An unborn child is not guilty of any capital crime. The only capital punishment that there is in Canada is the crime of being an unwanted fetus. It is ironic how many feminists are against capital punishment and yet demand that the state should execute unwanted children. Since there is an authority (i.e. God and men) who condemns such action, feminists, like Iraq, have pushed on out of spite. Free abortion on demand has since been on the top of the agenda. It is interesting to note that in China and the former communist East Germany, abortion was free on demand. There, clinics have been set up to counsel young teenagers to abort their baby even against the will of the parents. In fact, they are told that the parents do not even need to know. Again, the Marxist/feminist notion of government intervention into all spheres of life is permeating into our society when the parents have no control over their children. George Orwell, in his book 1984 describes how in a socialist totalitarian state, the children were pitted against their parents. This is very fundamental to a socialist's agenda to gain control over the next generation. For if the state controls the minds of the children, it controls and ensures the next generation will carry on to secure the contiuity of the State status quo. The fact that not all communist countries treat women the way feminists would like them treated is due to that country's own deviation from marxist ideology. A marxist, fundamentalist country would be consistently feministic. The instigation of a feud between the family and the state by the elimination of traditional roles in marriage is taking a severe toll on our children. They are left with the dilemma whether to obey their parents or whims of the "politically correct" state institutions. Delinquency is on the rise as the notion of "equality" with those in authority is continually taught. Many children may now feel that no one has the right to tell them what to do. One reason feminists cry out against male authority is that some men in the past have abused their authority. "Some men have abused their authority, therefore, take it away from all men." This is the same battle cry that Marxists use against the upper classes in order to agitate the masses to rebel against them. As this logic stands, we should abolish the police force because, there are some corrupt officers. This may be partly why children do not have the respect for policemen that they used to. "You can't touch me, I'm equal!", they are saying. Women should not be looked upon as mere slaves as feminists claim that they have been treated. What there should be is social order. Both men and women should be treated equally before the law and with the same respect as fellow human beings. Feminists dishonour their very femininity when they take on the masculine roles that God has given to men politically, socially and economically. Scripture says,"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a women to teach nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression".(1 Timothy 2:11-14). It is the responsibility of the head of the household to be heard and to make known to the community what the desires of the family are by alone voting. Whether or not women or children are capable to accomplish this task is not the issue, the issue is whether it right to usurp the authority that does not belong them in the first place. For the feminists, the exception to the rule abolishes the old and creates a new. Indeed, there is no more honourable and noble place for a women to be than to raise her children at home. (Titus 2:4-5). Her rewards may be to raise up a godly generation that will greatly benefit society. Slavery and oppression are only words to belittle one's service to God, which is the greatest freedom anyone can have. Little investigation is needed to see how freedom is suppressed in today's Marxist/Socialist countries. Marxism and feminism have then proven to be the true enslavers and oppressors of society. Parents should have every right and freedom to homeschool their children and should not be forced to give up this responsibility to the state. Time has revealed the destruction and chaos of the former Soviet Union and East Germany. Thus is the fate our society as feminism sucks us into its moral social vacuum of non-absolutes. Dabney predicted well our present situation, "When the family shall no longer have a head, and the great foundation for the subordination of children in the mothers example is gone; when the mother shall have found another sphere than her energies; when she shall have exchanged the sweet charities of domestic love and sympathy for the fierce passions of the hustings; when families shall be disrupted at the caprice of either party, and the children scattered as foundlings from their hearthstone,- it requires no wisdom to see that a race of sons will be reared nearer akin to devils than to men. In the hands of such a bastard progeny, without discipline, without homes, without a God, the last remains of social order will speedily perish, and society will be overwhelmed in savage anarchy."6 Fine. By Theonomist June, 1993 Return to Theonomist's Homepage
BIBLIOGRAPHY
|