Here’s a post showing different pro-life views from Reason to Stand.
Excerpt:
Why is abortion always treated as a Catholic issue?
I get highly annoyed when people speak of issues such as abortion as if they were purely the invention of the religious right and devoid of any other supporters than “the crazy Christians”.
So to help put things in perspective, here are several secular sources who, like Christians, thought that abortions were a bad idea. Boldness liberally applied by myself.
Here’s one of his sources:
“There are five kinds of evil Karma which are difficult to extinguish, even if one were to repent of them. What are the five kinds of offences? The first one is killing the father, the second one is killing the mother, the third one is abortion, the fourth one is to injure the Buddha, the fifth one is to create disharmony among the Sangha assemblies. These five types of evil and sinful karma are difficult to extinguish.” -The Dharani Sutra of the Buddha
And another:
“The law enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing humankind.” -Josephus, 1st century Jewish historian
The post has even more viewpoints.
WINTERY KNIGHT 
I’m pretty sure all patriarchal religions appose abortion. It’s one of the many ways religion is used by those in charge (men) to oppress those not in charge (women).
LikeLike
Karen, are you in favor of sex-selection abortions? If not, why not? It’s just a lump of tissue right? It’s the woman’s body, it’s her choice.
LikeLike
I am in favor of letting the woman decide; whatever that decision may be. If she decides to abort based on sex, so be it. I may or may not agree with it, but it is not my decision to make.
LikeLike
Thanks for replying honestly Karen. I’m against sex-selection abortions.
LikeLike
Interesting.
Are you in favor of letting a woman to decide to kill her baby just before giving birth?
LikeLike
Or how about killing the baby just AFTER it has been born? If it is ok to kill it 5 minutes before birth why is it not ok to kill it 5 minutes after birth?
wgbutler777
LikeLike
Karen,
You should know that in the period of time of the early Christian church the majority of the converts to Christianity were female, primarily because women in the Roman empire were forced by the patriarchy to have abortions.
In the pagan culture of Rome, women were actually seen as inferior and second class citizens, and Christianity appealed to Roman women because they were viewed as equal with men in the eyes of God and treated much better by Christian men.
Christians were actually criticized by the pagans for allowing women to worship with them!
Truth is a strange thing, isn’t it?
wgbutler777
LikeLike
I highly doubt soooo many aspects of this statement. There was a very long time when rome was having growth problems because of a decline in birth rate and instituted laws forcing couples to have children. There may have been cases where slaves were forced to have abortions, though I have doubts on that too.
Many of the pagan cultures actually worshiped women and/or allowed the to worship with them, so to cherry pick a pagan culture or two and claim that christianity, which has always subjugated women, treated their women better does not bolster your argument.
LikeLike
Please cite some evidence to support your claims.
LikeLike
Wintery, I know you asked Jerry, and this probably doesn’t count as “evidence” as you may count it.
But it is a video made by a Christian woman who sought after the history of women in Christianity and was disheartened (perhaps even grieved) by what she found.
I love Jesus. I love the church. I love the men and women of the church, especially those who are trying to make a real difference in this dark world.
But every once in a while, I wish that more Christians would get their heads out of the sand concerning the sins in our history and the sins in our present.
Wg, I haven’t forgotten.
Hope to respond soon, because I see that I do need to clarify some things.
:)
LikeLike
Great video, Mara.
LikeLike
I hadn’t known that opposition to abortion was so universal. Of course, if Karen is to be believed, that’s because patriarchy is universal. Of course, if certain kinds of atheists are to be believed, moral laws are universal because they are instilled by evolution, which means that patriarchy provides an evolutionary advantage.
And around and around we go.
LikeLike
Originally, Feminist were pro-life.
Origianlly, Patriarchal civilizations gave the father the right to choose life or death for the child. The mother had no choice. Haven’t you ever heard of Roman men sending their newborn out to die if they either didn’t want to support a child, the child was the wrong sex, or the child was unhealthy?
This issue, infanticide, goes way back, long before abortion. And men were in control of it, clear up until the 1800 or 1900s
Susan B. Anthony fought for the right for women to KEEP their children, not have abortions when their men demanded them to.
Even now, pro-choice isn’t always pro-choice. Often it is the young woman’s boyfriend or parents that are pushing for abortion.
My parents are on the board of a home for pregnant single girls. It’s a home giving them job skills and whatever is needed for them to not abort. This is because the supports that they should have, parents/boyfriends don’t want to be burdened.
(same parents who handed her a condom rather than taught abstinence. Same boyfriend who didn’t want to use the condom nor offered any other form of birth-control while pressuring her into sex before she was really ready for it.)
Abortion isn’t always about a woman’s right to choose. Women often receive a lot of pressure to do what other people want.
The issue isn’t as cut and dry as either side tries to make it. Just like everything else, it is far more complicated that.
LikeLike
Actually, Roman law prohibited abortion (though the abortion of illegitimate children and those in the poorer classes were liberally overlooked) and that society could hardly be considered strictly patriarchal or even uniformly religious (though they had a pantheon of gods).
No, the secular case against abortion rests on the simple fact elucidated by Proverbs 14:28 that “A large population is a king’s glory, but without subjects a prince is ruined.”
That is, its all about the population and abortion is wholly opposed to a strong population. Low populations invite cultural takeover (as many Roman politicians explicitly wrote about), economic frailty (with a lack of sons, how can a man maintain a large estate?), and general societal breakdown due to the necessary breakdown of string nuclear families.
It might surprise some people, but near the end of the Roman empire Emperors and politicians recognized this fact (importance of strong families) and started heavily promoting family through economic incentives (which included child tax credits) and deterrents (which included a general ban on abortion as well as strengthened penalties for infidelity).
While it may be popular to paint abortion as a “women’s rights” issue or a “personal choice” (interestingly, limited only to the woman and not inclusive of the contributor of the other half of the chromosomes, but I digress), the truth is that abortion has never been anything less than a societal issue.
LikeLike
Perhaps that was true towards the end of the Roman Empire, but not toward the beginning.
Infanticide was so much a part of their culture that even the legend concerning the beginning of the Roman Republic was that Romulus and Remus were abandoned infants cared for by a she wolf. Romulus eventually slew Remus and founded Rome.
Also, the Spartans, the ones Wintery quoted their women, “Come back with your shield or on it,” they also practiced it, leaving unwanted newborns out to the elements.
Instead of natural selection, it was papa selection and one of the ways they become a lean, mean, fighting race as in “300”.
It’s well known that before abortion became popular in China, that infant girls were abandoned all the time, even before the one-child limit enforced by communism. Little girls simply were not valued by that patriarchal culture. They wanted sons. Now that they have abortion and sonograms, they don’t have to wait the nine months to see if it’s a boy or a girl.
Abortion is not a woman’s right to choose in China. It is a governments right to control population and a culture’s right to prefer males over females as Wintery’s post on the issue points out.
If there is any question. I am pro-life.
I’m only recounting history for the sake of saying, killing babies, born or unborn is not new, nor has it been a woman’s right to choose for the lion share of history. It being a woman’s right is only a very recent development, a little fly speck on the time-line of history.
Men getting all indignant about it at this point seems a bit silly in light of the historical record. It’s all fine and dandy as long as it’s a man’s right but becomes suddenly eeeevvvviiiillll when it becomes a woman’s right.
To me it’s always wrong. But to men (it seems to me)it is especially wrong for a woman to do it. I could be wrong in my view, and forgive me for a bad attitude. But it really does seem like it.
LikeLike
Wes:’While it may be popular to paint abortion as a “women’s rights” issue or a “personal choice” (interestingly, limited only to the woman and not inclusive of the contributor of the other half of the chromosomes, but I digress), the truth is that abortion has never been anything less than a societal issue.’
While it probably appears that I’m nit picking and that you and I are at odds on this whole topic, I’ve been thinking about this ‘contributor of the other half of the chromosomes’ bit and societal issue.
I agree with the societal issue idea. But as long as it ‘appears’ to be a control issue, men controling women’s bodies, rather than a personal responsibility issue, (i.e. women starting to take responsibility for their actions and respecting this wonderful gift of God called reproduction, the creation of human life.) pro-life doesn’t have a snowball’s chance.
This is why, even though I’ve had trouble with Wintery’s previous harshness towards women and personal responsibility, I also agree. It is the best approach.
ASA half the chromosomes, all I can say is this…
I think (most of) the men commenting here represent a minority. You all DO take the responsibility of reproduction very seriously and don’t plan to plant you ‘seed’ willy-nelly all across the fruited plain.
Other men are not so. They look at seed planting as their divine right and privilege as men and don’t give a flip about that seed once planted. Their only concern it to find fresh meat, new ground for planting.
Once the seed is planted, it’s over for them, whether the seed takes root or not.
Not so for women. They may have contributed only half the chromosomes, but they contribute ALL the care, unless the man chooses to help. And even if the man chooses to help, it’s still completely the woman’s body that is sacrificed for the sake of the child. And in a culture obsessed with slender, cellulite and stretch mark free bodies, it is a high sacrifice indeed. (Christian?) Men jeering at fat women in Wal-mart dragging children behind them is all the proof I need concerning this very real and dear sacrifice of the woman’s body for the sake of children.
So technically, I understand what you have to say about half the chromosomes. In a situation where the man DOES take full responsibility, his concerns should be a matter of importance to the woman. Realistically, since it is the woman’s body which is the host and the only body that takes the hit, I do think she should have the biggest say in the matter.
But of course, being pro-life as I am, I think if she doesn’t want to be pregnant, then she should just say “No”. Or if she doesn’t care about Christian values or is married and doesn’t want a baby right now, at the very LEAST she should say, “Birth Control” and take that responsibility on herself.
Make no mistake, ALL the chromosomes are sapping the life, youth, and slenderness out of her. It’s her body that takes the hit, alone. No one else’s.
LikeLike
“It’s her body that takes the hit, alone. No one else’s.”
I’m a father myself, and it’s not easy both physically and mentally. And it breaks my heart every time I read/hear that kind of thinking because it undermines fatherhood.
It kind of saying a father has less ‘ownership’ of his off springs because its the women who give birth.
Well, if I could give birth I would have chosen to give birth to my children for my wife like how I would take life’s hits for her!
In fact I’m so jealous that my 1+ year old son is more attached to her than me!
Then there’s this. Everyone age. By not having children, a woman might be more slender for another few years, but in the end everyone lose their youthfulness (unless you’re blessed with rare genetics or regularly seeing cosmetic surgeon, but either way it won’t last that much longer). And then there’s this fact that some people are not slender whether they have babies or not!
“They may have contributed only half the chromosomes, but they contribute ALL the care, unless the man chooses to help.”
I agree, but that’s a problem with the law. The law should make men more responsible. Also, there are mothers who abandon their children too you know, it’s not a male thing.
LikeLike
I know, Anon.
Nobody challenged me on this one until you did. I guess they are all too polite.
When I thought about it later I thought about the hits my husband took because he took the responsibility of his fatherhood seriously. And by the sweat of his brow and the using up of his youth, he helped me take care of our children.
Bottom-line. Parenting should be a partnerhood.
Whereas the man is not able to carry and bear children, so the wife helps him there.
Whereas the woman is made vulnerable, first by her body being designed to have kids, and then made more vulnerable when she actually becomes pregnant, the husband helps her there.
When one abandons or ‘aborts’ their part of the partnership, well, it’s not a good thing, whoever does the abandoning/aborting.
LikeLike
Hi Anon:
Are you suggesting that women who have abortions do it because they are afraid of getting fat? That doesn’t show very deep insight for someone who has the concerns you do.
I would agree, though, that the law should make men more responsible. If they were, there would be fewer abortions.
One way to look at this is as follows: every time you have unprotected sex with someone not your wife, put a hundred thousand dollars in the bank. That’s the cost of a child’s college education.
LikeLike
“Are you suggesting that women who have abortions do it because they are afraid of getting fat?”
No, read the comment again.
I’m sure there are women out there who do, but I don’t believe that most of them went with abortions because they’re afraid of getting fat.
I was just saying that everyone will lose youthfulness whether they have kids or not.
The media’s message is “Ha, you’re fat coz you have kids!”, but I’m saying … even if you don’t have kids, you will become old too. You might not become fat fat, but either way you will lose that youthfulness you once treasured.
Also, men don’t get pregnant, but look at old men, most of them (especially family men) are fat too!
“I would agree, though, that the law should make men more responsible. If they were, there would be fewer abortions.”
That’s right. But it’s also chicken and egg situation. Abortion makes men less responsible, because now it’s “I don’t want to raise the child, abort it or you raise the child on your own!”.
In this generation, abortion has been made a convenient choice.
So in some ways, you can’t blame the young men for pressuring their women to take abortion: it’s free, it’s easy, it’s available, and it’s ‘recommended’ by the media and the state.
It beats being responsible for a child for 20-30 years sometime for a lifetime! And I’m sure most weren’t married, so there weren’t that long term commitment in the first place.
LikeLike
Mara,
Speaking as a man, I am not “indignant” that is a “woman’s right”. I see abortion as murder and an evil act, no matter who is responsible for it.
I do get annoyed when I talk to radical feminists who rant about “the patriarchy” and a “woman’s right” as though the act of killing an innocent life is somehow liberating.
All this proves is that the men AND women are born with a strong sin nature and an impulse to act selfishly to appease their own desires, in direct rebellion against God.
wgbutler777
LikeLike
Most of you (outside of Wintery) have had unprotected sex and that means that the unplanned pregnancy you rail against may be your own. So go easy on the women, dear. You wouldn’t want to be in her shoes. And unless you can get inside her head, I’d refrain from hurling the “selfish” label, which is frankly more selfish coming from a man because it required nothing from you.
Just saying.
LikeLike
wgbutler777: “All this proves is that the men AND women are born with a strong sin nature and an impulse to act selfishly to appease their own desires, in direct rebellion against God.”
Can’t disagree with you. Selfishness begets selfishness. And the selfishness of the one feeds off the other.
What, if anything, can the church do about it?
Do you think there is anything that the church can do differently to reach the hearts of people?
The hearts of radical feminists?
Do you think talking about abortion is the way to reach the heart of a radical feminist?
I only ask because I believe that God is interested in reaching every people group, including the radical, secular, feminist.
And I feel, for the most part, the methods used by the church fall quite short.
LikeLike
Do you know what I think would work? Emphasizing truth. Yes. How about we tell people that God really exists and that Jesus rose from the dead, and that we can know it. Then we can host debates with Christians and atheists, and have astronomers and biochemists lecture on the origin of the universe and the origin of life, and ancient historians present the evidence for the resurrection. And maybe some philosophers can address philosophical objections from evil, suffering, and religious pluralism.
Where are you going? Come back!!! What, you don’t like truth?!!!
LikeLike
There you go again, Wintery. Going after the mind rather than the heart. :) :) :)
As long as the feminist senses that her uterus is more important to the pro-life movement and the church than her heart and soul and even her very life, you lose your audience before you start.
I asked – How do you reach their hearts? Not – How do you reach their minds.
If their hearts are closed off to God, the gospel, and the church, don’t even think you can get to their minds with reason. And without reaching their hearts you’ll never have any influence over how they choose to use their uteruri.
LikeLike
My take on this is that only God can convict a person and draw them to Him.
Jesus said in John 6:44 that “no one can come to Me unless the Father which sent Me draws him, and I will raise him up on the last day.”
It’s not really about refining the message. The only thing someone can do is preach the Gospel and tell people to repent and be baptized, and let the Holy Spirit do the rest.
When God draws people to Him He reaches them on a level they can understand. For some it may be a message of love and forgiveness for a wounded heart, for others it may be a divine revelation that there is indeed a God who created the universe and everything in it.
There is no one size fits all, but the Holy Spirit will works with each person as that person needs, and bring the right people into that person’s life with the right message.
wgbutler777
LikeLike
God does the revealing of truth, but we should be examples of what we preach and too often, there is a lot of preaching of the truth and not enough living of it.
“Preach the gospel and when necessary, use words.”
I think that’s the right approach.
LikeLike
Yes, you might think that. It’s very popular because it allows people to replace the words of the Bible, as well as logic and evidence, with feelings. But it’s nowhere in the Bible. Otherwise Jesus, Paul and the apostles would not have spoken, nor would God have left us a written account of his Son stepping into history to save us from sin and Hell through his atoning death on the cross.
LikeLike
Feelings? What are you talking about? This is about walking the walk.
LikeLike
I think this says it all: James 1, 19-27
19 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath:
20 For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.
21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.
22 But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.
23 For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass:
24 For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.
25 But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.
26 If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.
27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
LikeLike
It lists some works that those who are Christians should do as part of their religious practice.
But Christians don’t believe that works only save. We think that people are saved by faith. Faith is trusting in something you have reason to believe is true. So what is the thing that Christians trust in that saves them? And what are they saved from?
We believe that a confession of faith in Jesus as Savior and Lord saves. Sincerely confessing that Jesus’ sacrifice is an atonement for our sinful rebellion against God is what saves us. Not good works. Christians (Bible-believing Christians) believe that salvation is a gift from God, and that it is based on faith. Faith is an active trust in Christ as Lord and Savior.
Read a little more in James, and you find this in James 2:14-28.
So faith is separate from doing good deeds. Good deeds are a sign to others that a person is saved. When others ask if a person is saved, they point to their works.
But being saved itself is a gift from God to all of those who confess that Jesus was the Son of God and that his death was a sacrifice for their sins. Salvation by God’s grace, accepted through faith in Christ, the sole mediator between God and humans. Here’s a summary.
What would you say about traditional Christian creeds like the Nicene Creed. That’s the most widely-used creed in Christendom, dated 325 A.D., and it talks about believing Christ’s substitutionary atonement to pay for our sins and to make us right with God, through no effort of our own. His death was payment for our rebellion against God (Savior), and now he follow his example (Lord).
Would you agree with that creed? It pre-dates the Christian Science movement, which Christians regard as a late-developing cult, by hundreds of years.
LikeLike
BTW, WIntery: you say that this religion is a “cult,” but you don’t seem to know much about it. For example, it is Bible based. One of the tenets is “We take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life,” just as you and other Christians do.”
You can see the other tenets here: http://christianscience.com/christian-science-tenets.html
LikeLike
From James 2:
14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?
I ask you Wintery, outside of your penchant for argument, what works do you have? Surely, a man as prolific as you who love Jesus must have many.
LikeLike
I was feeling bad that I couldn’t get back here and respond to wgbutler sooner. But seeing so much input from others, I’m glad I was prevented. I’m enjoying the exchange.
LikeLike
Mara,
Getting back to your original point. Please correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to have this mindset that the pro-life movement is primarily concerned with controlling women.
Nothing could be further from the truth. I don’t want to control anyone, nor do I want them to control me. I do not concern myself with what a woman does with her uterus. But when it comes to saving an innocent life (an unborn baby) my morality compels me to try to intervene on behalf of the unborn child.
The issues you and others raised are secondary to the question of “is an unborn baby a human being that deserves to have the right to live”? I say yes, with no intention of subjugating or controlling anyone but every intention of protecting the innocent.
Wgbutler777
LikeLike
Yes.
This is where we disagree, strongly.
The issues of injustice against women is continually swept under the carpet by those who do not understand the magnitude of the problem. Or don’t want to.
Abortion is at the end of a lot of things, things that should have never happened. Injustice is at the beginning and drives the issue. Even if some/most of the abortions are fully and strictly a selfish birth control, there are enough coming from incest, rape, date rape, statutory rape, coercion, manipulation, that you cannot address it properly unless you address the whole.
Address the injustice and misinformation at the beginning, then you can influence the women who see abortion as the solution.
This is a classic example of Men Are Like Waffles and Women Are Like Spaghetti (It’s a book by Christian authors. Look it up.). You see only one thing, one box at a time and ignore everything touching this issue.
I want the child saved, too. But not at the expense of the woman. I believe they can both be saved, but not by ignoring the woman, the issues in her life, and the events that led up to this.
You and I agree, abortion isn’t the solution. We disagree on where to start addressing the problem. I’m more for, “a stitch in time saves nine.”
I’m not sure where you want to start addressing the problem.
I believe touching the hearts of women with the magnitude of God’s love will save more babies than protesting abortion clinics.
If a person feels called to protest the end of the problem, go for it.
I prefer to go for the root.
It’s a lot easier, cost effective, and better use of my time than chasing down dandylion seeds being blown about on the wind.
(If I sound angry, I’m not. I’m just passionate about this issue. The issue of women falling through the cracks and the church failing to hold out the safety nets for them. The baby is not the only casualty.)
(Am still going to get to how Jesus comes with gifts but this distracted me.)
(Also wg, I believe when you say you don’t want to control. I understand where you are coming from. I’m just trying to get you to understand where I’m coming from and where feminists are coming from. They aren’t as mean and nasty and hopeless as some in the church paint them out to be.)
LikeLike
Mara,
Actually I’m for anything that truly reduces abortions, and think that there are many ways to do that.
I’m not sure that handing out birth control and telling people to be careful is an effective way to do this. (I’m not saying that this is your position, but it seems that many liberals argue for free birth control as a way to reduce abortions).
“..Abortion is at the end of a lot of things, things that should have never happened….”
Well, I agree with this too. And one of the big factors in this scenario is the absence of a father in the life of a girl. Studies show that girls raised in fatherless homes are far more likely to be promiscuous and have abortions than girls raised in homes with father figures. Feminism teaches that men aren’t necessary for the raising of children, and produces disastrous consequences in society.
“..If a person feels called to protest the end of the problem, go for it.
I prefer to go for the root.
It’s a lot easier, cost effective, and better use of my time than chasing down dandylion seeds being blown about on the wind…”
I wouldn’t be so quick to minimize abortion protesters. In fact, in February someone who was protesting at an abortion clinic got physically attacked by a woman on her way to get an abortion. But the woman ended up deciding not to abort the baby. So this abortion protester ended up saving a life!
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/02/22/woman-who-assaulted-a-pro-life-protester-cancels-abortion-and-thanks-protester/
Personally, my favorite approach to help pay for ultrasounds so the woman can see their baby. This is also a pretty effective way of helping to protect unborn babies.
“…If I sound angry, I’m not. I’m just passionate about this issue….”
And God can use your passion to reach out to some of these people and make a real difference in the world, both for the children and the mothers.
wgbutler777
LikeLike
wgbutler,
Of course I have to agree with you in general because you are not wrong, in general.
But specifically, I see that the church has failed miserable in reaching feminists because the go to the table with mouths full and hands empty.
Looking at Jesus, we see that He never went anywhere empty handed, figuratively speaking. He always had something to give, whether it be a miracle or a gift in the form of words.
You’ve heard the Proverb, the gift makes room for the man. It’s true.
When the church talks to feminists, they offer very little, except servitude to men and empty promises of fulfillment in marriage and motherhood, something that means nothing to many of them right now and may never mean anything.
Not only this, the church wants to ‘take away’ what feminists believe the do have, sovereignty over their own bodies.
Do not be mistaken. It’s not just a question about morality. It is also a question about control.
Men used to have control over the product of the womb. Now women do. And all feminists see the church trying to do is take that control away, making them vulnerable to men again like it used to be before women gained liberation. And they are angrily opposed to ANYTHING that might appear to set them back.
The church seems to be saying that women don’t have control over their own bodies. Their bodies belong to the state, or their men.
(soapbox alert)Certain preachers saying that a wife saying “no” to sex once in a while is sin does not help the matter. BTW. You cannot prove that a woman saying no to sex to her husband once in a while is sin. Denying him for some time, you can make a case. Using sex to control and manipulate, definitly sin*. But a wife saying no is not a sin. Men who want lots and lots of sex no matter how their wives feel make up these rules. And feminists see through this and recognize it for what it is. Sin on the part of the men of the church, saying they speak for God on the matter when really they speak only for their own libidos. *Note on manipulation. If a woman’s ‘power’in a marriage is reduced down to the point that the ONLY power she has is sex, then I hardly blame the woman for using it. However, the relationship between husband and wife should never have to deteriorate to this. (end of soapbox.)
I have more to say about Jesus bringing gifts and how the church can learn from Him.
But I get sick of seeing my long posts and want to keep them shorter. Plus I have to get my daughters to school and myself to work. See you in a few.
LikeLike
Mara,
Thanks for responding. I’m at a bit of a disadvantage due to the fact I am using an iPhone. I’ll write more later on this evening though.
Wgbutler777
LikeLike
Wg, thanks for your patience and for hearing me out.
I’m also at a disadvantage. My high school daughter is going to Washington D.C. for a National Youth Leaders Conference.
I’m a nervous wreck 1.) getting her ready, and 2.) Sending my baby girl so far away from home.
But I’m proud of her.
So since we are both unable to keep after this today, I’ll post the rest of my concerns over abortion and feminists tonight and look forward to your responses.
Thanks.
LikeLike
Mara,
Thanks for your latest response, and good luck to your daughter in Washington D.C.!
Regarding your 8:36 AM post, it seems as though many of the things you bring up are unrelated to the issue of abortion and are secondary issues.
But for the hay of it, lets go over some of the things you mentioned.
“…He always had something to give, whether it be a miracle or a gift in the form of words….”
What is your suggestion specifically? Are you saying that we need to offer more financial resources to women in crisis pregnancy situations or something else?
“…When the church talks to feminists, they offer very little, except servitude to men and empty promises of fulfillment in marriage and motherhood, something that means nothing to many of them right now and may never mean anything….”
Ir’s really sad that in our culture women are taught to devalue marriage and motherhood, and see it as some form of bondage. God certainly didn’t design the family to be that way and I think it is part of a larger attack on the family overall in our society.
As we see the family undermined, we see society reaping catastrophic consequences that will just continue to get worse. The reality of the situation is that mankind (including feminists) have utterly failed at coming up with a better way to live and model society than the ways given to us from God in the Bible.
As an aside, studies have shown that married women with one lifetime partner have the greatest amount of sexual satisfaction. There really are many rewards for doing things God’s way.
http://www.palmettofamily.org/Reports/Marriage/HTMLRpt/marr01.htm
“…The church seems to be saying that women don’t have control over their own bodies. Their bodies belong to the state, or their men….”
Well, the Bible does say in I Corinthians 7:4 that
“…The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does….”
and seems to command spouses in marriage to meet the sexual needs of their spouses, but again, that is a secondary issue to the issue of abortion.
With regards to abortion, what about the unborn human beings body? Who should have control over that? Does the state have a vested interest in protecting the unborn baby’s body? Why or why not?
wgbutler777
LikeLike
I want to get back to my original question. How can the church reach feminists? I said to not go empty handed and in addition, to not go and try to take away what little they already have and believe their life depends on.
Let me give an example of Jesus giving.
The woman at the well.
She was an outcast to society, marginalized.
The first thing He gave her was this. He didn’t treat her as less than human, but rather AS a fellow human being. He talked to her where others wouldn’t. And He didn’t behave “holier than thou”.
Where other men in his position would have looked down on her, He asked her for a favor.
He gave her the gift of acceptance.
That’s something we have to give. The best antidote to the spirit of rejection is the spirit of acceptance.
When she questioned why He would talk to her (i.e. treat her like a fellow human being rather than a dog) He turns and offers her something, even better, Living Water.
He offered her eternity.
We have this to offer too, but many have a strong wall up against this due to church abuses and rejections of Christians in the past.
When He asks about her husband, she’s honest about not having one and instead of rebuking her He comments on her honesty.
When she starts to talks about worship and theology He reveals a deep spiritual truth to her… true worshippers will worship in Spirit and truth, and the kind the Father seeks.
(another gift she was ready for.)
When she mentions the coming Messiah, He reveals Himself to her.
After this encounter, she no longer carrys the stigma of “outcast of society”. She’s emboldened, empowered, and able to speak to the men of the village with no shame.
This is the transforming power of encountering Him.
The key to reaching the lost is to find out what their need is and to seek to fill it.
The feminist is telling you what she needs.
She needs empowerment. She feels marginalized.
What she doesn’t realize is that the right to abort is a pretty shoddy form of power and is pretty much dung compared to the power that Christ offers.
What people don’t realize is that many (not all, but many) of these angry women have a reason to be angry. Just because they misplace it on men who have never hurt or controlled them doesn’t mean there isn’t a very real anger they need to deal with.
Somewhere along the line, their power has been stolen, a boundary has been crossed, their voice has been stolen, an abuse has occurred that was never met with justice.
They have been marginalized.
And they are fighting to get their power and their voice back. And if it takes screaming to be heard, that’s what they’ll do.
No, when I talk about giving, I don’t mean money. I’m talking about the interacting. I’m talking about listening. I’m talking about looking past a little of the anger to see what the real problem is.
What is the real need?
Acceptance (like Jesus accepted the woman at the well BEFORE she even knew who He was)
Encouragement to her voice (like Jesus encouraged the woman to talk to Him and didn’t shut her down even if what she said, most of the time, was uninformed)
A listening ear. This is a big one, and I’ve found it goes a long way with pretty much anybody. And it’s through listening that you will eventually get to what really ails them, to what they really need. And even if you can’t help to the extent you would like, just wishing you could, helps, it’s a form of acceptance.
Note. Jesus is the one who does the real healing. Jesus is the one who can reach down into that wounded, marginalized heart and turn it into an empowered and warrior woman heart. But often His hands are tied because the church rejects and judges feminists as a bunch of man hating, baby killing Jezebels.
Also, large parts of the church think women aren’t supposed to be empowered, but rather subjugated. (I don’t feel this here. No one ever told me to shut up because I was a decieved female who didn’t know squat.)
This is getting too long so I’m going to wrap it up with this.
Wg, I agree that being a wife and mother is a blessing and not a curse. But trying to fulfill that calling, thinking you are less-than because you are a woman IS a curse. Or if a woman feels controlled and marginalized, she’s in no condition to be a wife and mother. She needs healing and strengthening first. She also needs to know that she doesn’t HAVE to be a wife and mother in order to please God.
One more thing. Sooo sorry. Promised self – no more long posts. Can’t keep that promise :(
With all this talk about the family being undermined, one thing is being ignored. Some of this undermining is going on within the church in the form of teaching rigid gender roles.
Also sweeping the abuse that occurs in some ‘Christian’ families under the rug is producing more feminists and Atheists than what polite Christians really want to know about.
Sorry for this choppy, disjointed attempt at communication. I know what I mean, wish I could express it better and had time and freedom to give examples of some successes I’ve had in this area.
LikeLike
I could not disagree more, and I believe that your view is to blame for many of our social problems. Everything you said is wrong, and we need to do the opposite or civilization itself will be destroyed. Moreover, your view is completely opposed to Christianity. It’s the refusal to set moral standards, and the substitution of “compassion” (i.e. – social programs) that has destroyed the moral fiber of society. You don’t think that women should be bound by the moral teachings of the Bible at all, you prefer to read your feelings into the Bible and call that Christianity. You misread the Bible and do not do what the Bible says. Go and sin no more.
Here’s what we need to do with feminism. Don’t accept it. Don’t include it. Don’t tolerate it. Marginalize it. Weaken it. Fight against it with every argument and evidence we can muster. Because feminism is anti-Christian, and it’s responsible for countless misery and social costs today. It’s a force for evil. EVIL.
We can start by having women make better choices based on reason and evidence, and taking responsibility for their errors in judgment rather than expecting to escape the consequences of their own actions by stealing their neighbors money through social programs funded by taxes. We’re seeing the fruit of your view today, though, in the breakdown of the family and the ills that result from it.
All of this can be blamed on the feminism and the feminization of the church which you advocate. It’s not Christian. It’s ANTI-Christian. And ANTI-Bible. And it causes pain and suffering as it becomes adopted by individuals and government. The way back from destruction is to replace postmodernism, relativism, skepticism, emotivism, irrationality, subjectivism, antinomianism and feminization in general with Biblical Christianity – which has no place for feminism or ammorality. Moral standards. Moral judgment. Proper feelings of guilt and shame. Repentance from sin. Personal responsibility. Facing the consequences of sin. Restraint. Chastity.
The real need that women have is to take moral standards seriously, and to restrain their selfish pursuit of pleasure by respecting those moral standards. They should not to think that they have a right to taxpayer-funded happiness when they do wrong. Rejection of moral standards in the area of sexuality is destroying the family, and feminism, and feminized softening of the Bible, is the main culprit.
It’s feminists, including Christian feminists, who are responsible for the massive loss of liberty due to increased goverment programs, which causes families to have less money, and marginalizes fathers. Feminists caused abortion, no-fault divorce, hook-up sex, out-of-wedlock births, challenges to traditional marriage, and the expansion of day care and public schools.
I think that insofar as your tolerance of women’s bad behavior leads to suffering and harm in children and elsewhere, you are contributing to the amount of evil in the world. When I tell a woman “do not have sex before marriage”, that saves a world of harm for her and for her husband, for her children and for taxpayers, and for God himself. Moral standards are biblical. And denying moral standards and personal responsibility based on emotions and intuitions is not only harmful in the here and now, but it is anti-Christian.
LikeLike
To Wintery, who believes he has the answer to everything:
Physician, heal thyself.
LikeLike
Wintery: “Moreover, your view is completely opposed to Christianity.”
No, my view is against legalism, phariseeism, and religious bondage.
I believe in moral absolutes. You play, you pay.
All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There is no one righteous, not one. Our own righteousness is as filthy rags.
Jesus went about doing Good.
He was Light in the darkness. Life that came against death. I’m not reading that into scripture. It says it… point blank.
The darkness is sin and the power of death over people. The people of darkness can do no better than to walk around in darkness, until they get the Light. That’s a biblical principle. I didn’t read it into the Bible. It says it plain and clear.
The Light needs to come into these women, the Life, the LOVE. Then instead of hating their own babies, they can love them. And with the support of the church, they can either give them up for adoption or do what is needed to keep them.
Wintery, don’t tell me you don’t like empowered women. They are all over your site. The women you display, Michelle Bachmann, Star Parker, Michelle Malkin, even Anne Coulter for pete’s sake. These women have what the feminists long for, empowerment.
The feminists hate because they have learned hate. They have been hated. When they learn love, then they can love.
I heard one of their champions, a lesbian, admit that she was abused, thus exposing that her homosexuality was not genetic, but the result of sin against her. And sin begets sin. She’s carrying on in what she has learned. Sin was sown into her. Someone sowed to the wind, and now the rest of us are reaping the whirl wind of her hatred.
I’m sure she never meant of undermine the claim that her lesbianism was genetic, but she did.
Sowing and reaping are Biblical principles. God writing His laws on our hearts is a biblical principle. It works from the inside out, not the outside in. Good trees producing good fruit and bad trees producing bad fruit are biblical principles.
You can attack feminists all you want. You won’t make them go away. Your attacking only fuels their fire and makes more converts.
And Jesus never says to attack your enemies. That’s rock solid Bible right there.
Being Christian is being Christ-like. It’s not becoming the morality police. It’s showing the people of darkness (on the road to death) that the path of Light leads to Life.
I am so sorry that you have bought into the lie that feminism is the root of all evil. But, alas, what can I do. The lie is strong and men love to believe it. It distracts them from what can really be done to change the world.
Having a scapegoat has a long and sordid history.
I’m very discouraged over the strong need for it.
LikeLike
Good come-back. I pushed you pretty hard there (again) and you came out fine.
I’m laughing out loud at how good, delightful and charming you are.
We’re going to disagree, and what’s more, I’m right, and you’re wrong (just the last 3 paragraphs). But good job. A fine response.
“Wintery, don’t tell me you don’t like empowered women. They are all over your site. The women you display, Michelle Bachmann, Star Parker, Michelle Malkin, even Anne Coulter for pete’s sake. These women have what the feminists long for, empowerment.”
Awesome. I’m inclined to agree with you just for that. It’s just well done. Well done. I admire you and approve of you. Just give up this darn feminism! I have other ways of calling men to account for their worthlessness. We don’t need to use that. We can use the Bible.
LikeLike
I don’t get both your obsession with “feminists.”
Please name the “feminists” that you are talking about. Do you mean modern women who take their own empowerment and the fact that they are the equal of any man for granted? That would include Michelle Bachman and Ann Coulter, btw. Though they would never identify themselves that way.
Feminism has been completely absorbed into our culture. It has done good things for women, for children and for men! Men don’t benefit from these stupid gender stereotypes, anyway. Wintery, that includes you!
LikeLike
Amanda Marcotte (Pandagon blog), Harriet Harman (UK MP), Naomi Wolf. Feminists.
LikeLike
So you are writing all these long blogs about these three women? I think not.
LikeLike
Aren’t we a pair, Wintery?
As an after thought to my 3/30/10 7:25 pm post, I almost told you how much I appreciate being able to speak my mind here and that your allowing it was one form of generosity, a way of allowing a woman her voice, even when she disagrees with you.
And then your 8:25 again shows your desire to allow women their power/voice and even to affrim it rather than slap her down.
How can we disagree so much yet like each other so well?
It’s refreshing actually, to be able to just talk about the issues, to disagree, and yet to feel no need to attack the person.
As far as giving up feminism…
I’m already pro-life, pro-smaller government, pro-family.
I think, by your definition, I’m not a feminist.
What am I supposed to be giving up?
LikeLike
Oh gosh, Harriet Harman is a terrible woman lol. I’m SO glad that she isn’t running for the leadership of the Labour Party, I was sure she was going to. She is currently the leader of the opposition here, and that’s bad enough as it is :S
LikeLike
My take on the discussion:
Mara seems to be saying that we need to be nice to feminists and reach out to them in a spirit of love as many of them have been wounded in the past (such as the example of the lesbian she mentioned).
Wintery seems to be saying that we need to stand firm on Biblical truth and not make any compromises and keep preaching the Word.
I don’t see why we can’t do both. We can stand firm on Biblical truth and not make any compromises and still reach out with love and gentleness to those who have been wounded.
Of course, many have hardened their hearts and will not accept the truth no matter how it is delivered. Many feminists are downright hostile and VERY vicious to traditional Christian values and have declared themselves to be sworn enemies of Christianity. The two female bloggers that worked for the John Edwards campaign immediately come to mind:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201632.html
People like this have to be confronted with courage and resolve. When they attack the family, Christianity, chastity, and unborn children the truth has to be defended with tenacity and strength.
But others, like the woman who attacked the pro-life protester at the abortion clinic and repented of her actions, need to be treated with gentleness and forgiveness when they turn their hearts in the right direction. How ironic that the pro-choice crowd ostracized her after she made the decision to keep the baby and the pro-life demonstrator forgave her and refused to press charges!
I think there is a place for the Maras and the Winterys of the world. Mara can minister to the troubled and frightened teenage girl who has just found out that she is pregnant and is considering abortion, and Wintery and myself can go after the John Edwards bloggers and the feministing.com writers. The body of Christ has many members and functions.
wgbutler777
LikeLike
Yes, you’re right of course. I’m a lamb with people who repent, and Mara knows that. Everything I say is for women are not repentant. Once they take responsibility for their own actions and choices, then the love, compassion and forgiveness can begin! Yay!
The women in the Bible that Jesus is kind to are all repentant. They are not happy with their mistakes – they are sorry. They want to change, but they want support. I see no problem with rolling out the red carpet for them.
One thing though – I am against all government aid, and for incentives for more charity. The stigma for doing wrong should remain, but there should be lots of people willing to give generously, perhaps helped along with tax breaks.
LikeLike
Wintery,
I agree with you about the government support. Even though it seems kind of heartless, in the end it removes more misery than it causes when people realize that they will have to suffer from their own bad choices, and causes fewer bad choices to be made. It’s called tough love.
BTW, completely unrelated to the topic at hand, what was your take on the Genesis 1 framework hypothesis I mentioned in another thread?
wgbutler777
LikeLike
The guys putting forward the framework theory seem to be OK (Westminster and Wheaton), so it’s probably a live option for evangelicals – not a compromise position. But the interpretation s too figurative to me.
I was concerned with this part in teh Wikipedia article:
“Despite enjoying the support of many biblical scholars, the framework interpretation is rejected by several widely read systematic theologians, including Wayne Grudem and Millard Erickson, who deem it an unsuitable reading of the Genesis text.[9][10]”
I know these two – they are authors of the two best systematic theologies out there, I think. Both are old-earth, so they are not rejecting framework because they are young earth. So I still like day age better. I don’t really like Gerald Schroeder that much – it just sounds weird to me. But I should look into all this more!
LikeLike
This entire discussion about repentance is amusing.
Questions:
1) who is most in need of repenting? Men or women? (and what statistics do you offer for your reply)
2) who is most likely to be successful in enlightening the individual as to the need to repent? God? A fellow brother (or sister)? Someone you do not know? Someone who does not know you? Someone loving or angry? Yourself, alone with God?
3) do you think that people who need to repent are influenced most by people of their own gender? Or people of the opposite gender?
LikeLike
Everyone need repentance, no body need it less.
LikeLike
McSpinster,
I’ll take a shot:
//
1) who is most in need of repenting? Men or women? (and what statistics do you offer for your reply)
//
Both are in equal need of repentance. Men are not more evil than women are and vice versa.
The evil that men exhibit tends to be more violent and psychotic, and includes things like addiction to pornography, etc. Most prison inmates are men. The evil that women exhibit tend to be more conniving and relational based.
Neither one is worse than the other. But they show that both men and women have inherited the sin nature from Adam and tend to reflect it differently based upon their biological and psychological makeup.
//
2) who is most likely to be successful in enlightening the individual as to the need to repent? God? A fellow brother (or sister)? Someone you do not know? Someone who does not know you? Someone loving or angry? Yourself, alone with God?
//
I think it depends on the person. Some people respond better to people they know, others respond better to strangers. If God is drawing someone to Him He will use the most effective means to reach that person.
//
3) do you think that people who need to repent are influenced most by people of their own gender? Or people of the opposite gender?
//
I’m not really sure, you could make a good case for either position. On the one hand it would seem logical to have a woman try to influence other women since she would be better able to relate to their situations. And it makes sense for women to go into strip clubs to talk to strippers, rather than men, for obvious reasons.
On the other hand, conservative Christian women get absolutely ripped apart by feminists and liberals as some kind of traitor to the cause of womanhood. It’s kind of like the way black conservatives get labeled as “Uncle Toms”, etc.
So ultimately, I don’t know which is better. I don’t really concern myself with it much and just try to be available to be used by God in whatever way He sees fit.
Are you Christian Scientist? I have to admit that I don’t know anything about them. Can you give me what they are about in a nutshell? I’ve always been curious, especially when I see the Christian Science reading rooms with the free water.
wgbutler777
LikeLike
Hi WG:
I wrote a post specifically with your question in mind. Hope it helps.
McSpinster
LikeLike
McSpinster,
Yes, I got the post. WK sent it to my email. Thanks for the info!
wgbutler777
LikeLike
McS: “Please name the “feminists” that you are talking about.”
This actually is very allusive. Part of our problem is in the definition of this term.
Feminists, to Wintery, seems to be all female, liberal democrats.
When I tried to answer Wg, I was actually referring to the frothing at the mouth, man-hating kind at the grass roots level, the strongest branch of the anti-male, pro-abortion movement. The ones you would encounter in the blog sphere and spitting venom at pro-abortion rallies.
And I never used the word compromise. I don’t compromise my view on abortion. But using my view on abortion as a hammer to decimate an already wounded and dying spirit is neither Christian nor effective.
These souls are walking wounded. Even though they walk, figuratively they are bleeding and dying on the Jericho road and they need a neighbor to pour in the oil and wine.
The point I’m trying to get across is compassion.
In a zeal to save the baby, many, unknowingly, crush further the already crushed in spirit. This should never be.
This field of the deeply wounded is not for the faint of heart, nor the insecure.
It takes sensitivity of spirit and to the Holy Spirit to find the ones that are ready to stop fighting against the Healer of their souls.
When I saw one of these angry, every-man-is-a-pedophile women, my heart broke over two things. One – Her pain and bitterness.
Two – Her deep misconception of men.
She had been so robbed of knowing good and decent men, I wept for her. And I asked God, “Can these kind be reached? God, do you love these kind? Are you big enough to heal even them?”
Then God sent me one.
And I’ll tell you, it’s like being in the burn unit of a hospital dealing with 60-90% coverage of the body with third degree burns.
I’ve already said more than I should because I feel very protective of her.
But I just wanted to let you know what I’m talking about and why.
So Wg, I guess you are probably right.
There ARE those called to the abortion clinic. I love the story of the one gal who turned a apologized to the protester she assaulted.
And I see where Wintery, on a political level, deals directly.
But on the personal level, on the blog, when you encounter the most angry of them, do me a favor and keep in mind, ‘bleeding and dying on the Jericho road’ rather than ‘scourge of man that must be squashed.’
These are human beings we are talking about. They are women that Jesus died on the cross to heal, save, deliver, and yes, even empower to do mighty things for Him.
We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, powers etc.
Don’t lose sight of that.
LikeLike
I see that you are speaking of different “feminists,” Mara, than Wintery. I do think he tends to generalize, as you said.
Frankly, I am very surprised at how much venom the term “feminists” elicits on conservative website. I live in the most liberal city in the world. I would be hard pressed to tell you who is a feminist, aside from some of the writers and shapers of the third wave, I don’t think I’ve had a conversation about feminism in the last 10 years except with people who are angry at them but somehow speak about them as “all angry women” but never as specific individuals they might actually have a chance of influencing.
I think it’s always best to deal with the individual and always feel that argument may have the appearance of being effective but I don’t see a correlation between argument and anything other than opposition/more argument.
People learn their lessons in the quiet moments when they’ve run up against a wall and have to ask themselves how they got there. Lessons learned on the end of someone else’s diatribe are seldom long lasting ones. They aren’t conversions, at least in the sense that they are reasoned out and deeply felt. This is a different approach to Wintery’s, to be sure, although I don’t think I am wrong in seeing in him a combination: a reaching out to those he knows, but for those he doesn’t, a certain amount of finger-wagging, complete with support from multiple sources.
LikeLike
McS :”Frankly, I am very surprised at how much venom the term “feminists” elicits on conservative website.”
It’s the product of a fundamentalist negative view of women based in the greek(pandora) view that women are the spawn of satan and the down fall of men, the cause of all the grief in the world.
Feminism is the F-word of conservatism. Which it really shouldn’t be. Just because one wave of it hi-jacked the term and made it about abortion and disrespecting men and seeing no need for fathers doesn’t mean that’s what it’s all about, or the original intent.
Also, often it was the church who opposed change, as in, southern chruches were pro-slavery then later anti-civil rights for African Americans. The same goes for the women’s sufferagist’s movement, where all the women really wanted was the right to vote and own property. It was too bad so many churches fought against women’s rights back then. That was the start of bad feelings right there.
Hard to explain. I’ve dealt with it a lot. When men hear the F-word, their minds often shut down and their defenses go up.
Just like when some feminists hear pro-life, their minds shut down and their defenses go up.
Wish I could get men and women to see past the negatives these terms incite. But the roots of hatred go back far and reach down deep on both sides.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s too bad. I have to say, I always loved feminism for speaking out against pornography and trafficking in women and girls, for changing the rape laws so that women weren’t presumed guilty by virtue of what they had on, of offering protection for victims of domestic abuse of allowing women to say “no”. Used to be you couldn’t protest anything. If someone told you to do something, you were expected to–even if it was bad for you. I also loved that women were gaining access to education and jobs (when I was 14, I actually pushed our school administration to let me take shop. Thereafter, all boys had to take home ec. They had to make ties and learn how to make pancakes!!) Now men take pride in being good chefs and good dads. I see this as the benefit of feminism. I don’t know a single woman who would say that men aren’t important and that fathers aren’t. If this is a feminist issue, then I’d like someone to tie it to a particular feminist agenda. Names, please. Because women want men to be good fathers! Feminists and non feminists alike.
Anyway, that’s enough for now. TIme to walk the dog.
LikeLike
This is good:
“when I was 14, I actually pushed our school administration to let me take shop.”
And this is bad:
“Thereafter, all boys had to take home ec.”
You set in motion forces that caused the very problems that have led to so much unhappiness. The very thing that you praise is the thing that now causes women and children incredible suffering and pain. Your ideas, enacted into law and enforced by activist courts, diminished the distinct character of men and the roles of husband and father, and caused damage to millions of innocent children by breaking up their families.
Feminism, as understood and stated by you, destroyed the family. I know these things aren’t obvious to you, but what seemed innocent to you then is the cause of the 40% out-of-wedlock birth rate today. If women need to have sex like a man, then they will. But contraceptives, pregnancy, abortion, divorce, STDs, in vitro, breast cancer (from abortions), domestic violence, drug addiction, crime, gangs, etc. all aspects of sexual immorality and family breakdown, costs money.
Government programs will have to be funded in order to pay for the social costs. As more and more money is handed out, the need to find a good man diminishes. Men stop being good because there is no point in it – they get sex for free without having to be good. The withholding of sex civilized men, forcing them to focus on being protectors and providers instead of irresponsible predators.
As social programs increase, men’s role as protector and provider is taken over by government, day care and public schools, etc. There goes the family. Children raised without a father incur more social costs. The cycle repeats. All because you thought that men and women were identical – and that’s what feminism is.
A good book to read on this is George Gilder’s “Men and Marriage”.
LikeLike
Hi Wintery:
I knew you would hate that!! Weird. I know you so well!!
Sure, it was dumb of the administration to make boys take home ec. It’s not like my taking shop meant that boys needed to do the opposite. But this is what the administration did in response. And the boys learned how to make pancakes. Surely, such manly men wouldn’t be undone by learning how to make a flapjack. After all, that’s what cowboys made–out in the OK Corral!!
And how is my taking shop a source of women and children suffering? I made a fricking jewelry box out of pre-cut wood even though I knew how to use a band saw, a table saw and a jigsaw at home (my dad had a shop). This caused damage to millions of children? This led to 40% of out-or-wedlock births? Oh Wintery, you crack me up!
LikeLike
No, you should DEFINITELY take shop.
I want you to anything that men can do that you really want to do, and face NO OPPOSITION to that. I’m all for it. No subsidies and affirmative action though!
But just because men act like irresponsible, out-control idiots when it comes to sex doesn’t mean that women have to be forced to act like men by the state, and state-run schools. That’s the point I don’t like. Just leave women alone to have their fathers, their families and their childhood. Leave them alone – stop trying to push them into sex – it just hurts them and that’s not right. It’s not right.
LikeLike
Affirmative action–to take shop?? Seriously…I’m pretty good with a hammer. Can swing it was the best of them. And I also like to bake. My best confection was a Gingerbread house. See: I’m not against such things-as long as it’s my choice. And I do think it would be a little weird if a guy liked making Gingerbread houses, but then again, my favorite guy was a pastry chef. He made a mean cake. He also wrote poetry, was a photographer, rode a giant off road motorcycle and climbed mountains. A very manly guy. But a chef!
No, I am not in favor of the state forcing women to act like men—or vice versa The shop class i took was elective (mind you, this was a long time ago), back when girls rebelled because they were forced to wear skirts to school).
And I don’t know where you get this notion that feminists want to separate fathers from kids. I am one of the biggest advocates of dads there is. Every kid needs one. Seriously! And pushing kids into sex? Where the heck did you get that one? I’m not sure why you think there’s a correlation with my taking shop, but Wintery: I’m the Spinster. I think that both girls AND boys need to be more prudish. That’s totally my schtick.
LikeLike