by Connie Chastain*
By now, people who've read a few of my essays likely know that my opposition to feminism is rooted in my religious beliefs, which form the basis of my cultural, political and all other views. Almost everything about my beliefs make feminists and progressives absolutely bonkers, but nothing drives them insane like this one, articulated succinctly by the protagonist in my novel: “She was trying to be helpful. That’s what women do, because that’s how God made them—to be helpers and companions to men." ~Troy Stevenson (from Southern Man by Connie Chastain)
Men are doers, accomplishers. Women are helpers and companions. It takes both to have a successful human race. Feminism, as a subset of socialism, which is hostile to religion, views the female role of helper and companion as second-class. They've even gone so far as to characterize it as "oppression". Never mind that this helping role kept them in a protected status for most of the existence of the human race -- not totally free from danger and death, but far more protected than men who were doing the protecting and providing.
Besides, what is secondary about such a vital role? What is second-class about enabling men to fulfill their role as men? What is inferior about bearing and caring for children, ensuring that society will continue successfully? And it's a two-way street; men fulfilling their roles enable women to be successful in theirs, so how can either of them be considered second-class?
The envy women feel for man's place in human society betrays an abysmal lack of understanding of the very reason two roles exist. If Adam could have done it all, why was a helper needed? And if Eve had been just a carbon copy of Adam, how could she have helped? What new capabilities could she have added?
But if you want to be a revolutionary, if you want to turn culture and the social order upside down, nothing succeeds like exploiting an aggrieved population. The feminist/progressive revolutionary's first job was to create the aggrievement, then to exploit it. Modern advances, which rendered the helper role progressively easier for women, created a class with idle time on its hands easily filled with aggrievement.
We all know the rest. The marching and chanting, the bra-burning, the organizing, the political bullying. The encouragement to abandon home and family. The usually unarticulated, indeed, unacknowledged but very real hatred of children and motherhood that results in a million abortions a year. The well-articulated and demonstrated hatred of men that permeates the female spectrum of society, seen no more clearly than in claims of rape culture and false accusations of rape, although by no means limited to them.
Am I saying women should never be educated, never work outside the home, never become doctors, lawyers and CEOs? Of course not, but women should also not be told -- and they are -- that homemaking is stifling and limiting, and that homemakers aren't as good as doctors and lawyers, that men are oppressors or, paradoxically, a drain on a woman's success, and thus relationships with men (anything beyond hookups) are to be avoided.
Feminism has reshaped the culture, from the movies to the universities, from legislative bodies to the courts, and fashioned it into a giant funnel that attempts to herd women into the beliefs and lifestyles feminist leaders deem appropriate. Their efforts have been just successful enough to bring our culture to the brink of ruin. It will never be completely successful because the Almighty created women for a specific reason, to fulfill a specific purpose. When feminism wars against those, it is taking on an Adversary it cannot defeat.
Yes. This is all my opinion. Your mileage may vary.
*Connie is a member of the FRS team whose column appears here every Friday. Her blog is is http://conniechastain.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
14 comments:
Feminism supposedly created choices for women, but, of course, this was a lie. Feminism merely told women that the choice women had made throughout all human history was wrong, that men had oppressed them into making that choice, and that now women must choose to be just like men.
Excellent piece connie as always. I'm the guy that targets the Gender / Raunch feminist culture, and the university level "constructionists" behind them.
God also gives me the strenght to attack such a leviathan beast as the gender / Raunch juggernaut.
Crime, violence,drug abuse, and perversion is what the new Gender / Raunch culture offer to America, while the righteous men are too neutered ( or maybe even too undereducated)to resist the massive federally backed university propagandists.
One of the most effective ways to combat the gender feminist adgenda, is to attack the sourse of their propaganda..which is the American law enforcement / Gender feminist missinformation Alliance.
For example: Every time a man is arrested in a domestic violence call, when it was the female that was violent, it give more faulty and inflamatory "manufactured statistics" for gender feminist constructionists in universities accross America to attack innocent heterosexual males. (Attacking heterosexual males Empowers Gender / Raunch feminists).
Great piece, Connie, and I agree, Anon at 7:15.
You left out chivalrous, feminist men in power.
This is a dangerous combination.
FRS blog can stop helping feminists by removing the offending avatar it displays for the false rape petition. It shows a female angelic character, STEPPING OVER AND ON a dead MAN, who is presumably supposed to be evil and bad. With children next to hear stepping on him as well. We don't need this kind of misandry on this website. The State of Virgina's Seal also has a similar theme, a woman holding a spear, is standing on a dead man, presumably a tyrant.
http://thenononsenseman.com/article/2007/08/28/was-jfk-a-pedophile-marc-h-rudov/
[Below is the State Seal of Virginia, with the Latin motto “sic semper tyrannis” (“thus always to tyrants”), adopted in 1776. The two figures, both dressed as warriors, are portraying the motto — the woman, Virtue (naturally), represents Virginia; the man, holding a scourge and chain, is a tyrant (naturally), with his fallen crown nearby. Given its officially negative depiction of men, is anyone surprised by Virginia’s anti-father campaign?]
[Am I saying women should never be educated, never work outside the home, never become doctors, lawyers and CEOs? Of course not, but women should also not be told -- and they are -- that homemaking is stifling and limiting, and that homemakers aren't as good as doctors and lawyers]
--but how come men never get encouraged to stay at home and raise children? This is the double standard that exists with not only feminists, but society.
--feminists, and society, encourage women to have WHATEVER ROLES they want. Be at home, or have a career.
--feminists and society, discourage and are severely against men staying at home and raising and educating children.
people and women want women to have flexible roles, but want to keep men pigeon toed.
90% of jobs are mundane, uncreative, and soul destroying. Most men would rather be a "homemaker", which is like working a cozy part-time job, than be at a soul destroying job for 8 hours or more.
But, society and especially wives, do not want husbands who want to stay at home.
That's the double standard with women:
-women want to have flexible lifestyle choices, but want men to always be working
-almost no woman marries a man that earns less than him or wants to be a "home maker"
Connie, another good piece from you, and no your words are not just an opinion, but an interpretation. Although, personally I wouldn't refer to women as just "helpers" of men.
As a fellow Christian, my take on the women's "rights" is that in the most advanced societies, women have been given maximum rights and opportunities. And when that happens a society thrives.
BUT when a society/civilization becomes female DOMINATED as we're looking at here, I'm sorry it won't last.
It will either become conquered or bred out of existence. Look at the Western world, feminists are pushing for laws that essentially make it against the law to have sex w/ women lest you be liable for rape if you do the slightest thing to piss them off.
Concerned Android
Connie,
I think Feminism gained traction precisely because there are some women who want to be achievers, and who are mentally suited for it. There are also some men who would rather be helpers than leaders. The old system, where we rigidly applied certain expectations based on sex, was riddled with inhumanity.
Where we have gone totally bizarre is in the modern belief and legal requirement that there are now no longer any differences between the sexes and that men and women should be represented 50/50 in all endeavors. Nothing has ever supported this theory.
Sep 10, 2010 5:50:00 PM
I agree, except that feminism only seems to care that women are represented in relatively safe, comfortable jobs. I've never heard any of them ever complain that that there aren't enough female miners or lumberjacks. Nor do they seem to care that men are under-represented in privileged fields such as education.
Anon: I think Feminism gained traction precisely because there are some women who want to be achievers, and who are mentally suited for it. There are also some men who would rather be helpers than leaders. The old system, where we rigidly applied certain expectations based on sex, was riddled with inhumanity.
I don't think we're in disagreement. One of the problems with stating a generality like "women were made to be helpers and companions to men" is that people sometimes think you're trying to make a hard and fast rule that everyone must adhere to. It may be a general rule, but there are certainly exceptions.
People are superbly adaptable; sometimes people encounter circumstances where they have to step beyond established or comfortable roles--and they can, because humans are capable that way. And, as you say, some women do want to achieve, and I have no problem with that. But I think these are the exception; most men and women are comfortable in natural sex roles.
What I disagree with is completely overturning the natural order for the sake of the few who want something different.
OT, and quite tragic, but you have to read ALL the article to get the facts.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311238/Brother-sister-didnt-know-related-marry--despite-knowing-union-illegal.html
Thank you for a wonderful piece, Connie.
Connie:
I would like to add that beyond being a helper and companion, my wife keeps me from going to work in clothes that I wore two days ago but picked up off the floor and put in the dryer to unwrinkle.
I know that be offensive to some people, but really and truly... My wife keeps it together. And by "it," I mean me too.
The second thing is that I think you are understating the problem. My wife had me read an article she found (she knew she'd get a rise out of me by having me read it) where some crazy feminist was arguing that motherhood and heterosexual matrimony is *suicide* for women. SUICIDE. And that women should not, for instance, have photos of their children on social networking sites.
Feminism is so far gone these days, that it is considered an offense for a man to pay a compliment to a woman. Male heterosexuality is so evil that even a gesture is considered non-physical sexual violence.
Thank you to Hestia and all for the compliments on this piece.
Anon, women used to take great pride in keeping it together for their husbands and families. Sometimes it was taken for granted, but so was a man's going out into the world and doing what he had to do, facing what he had to face, to provide for his family.
I seem to remember reading at some point in the past (pre-internet) that some feminist said housework atrophies a woman's brain. I haven't been able to track down substantiation online, but it's certainly in line with so much else they've said.
I simply cannot fathom what is so horrible about a woman keeping a home clean and pleasant for her family. If she lived alone, she'd have to do it for herself, unless she's a slob. Feminist thinking seems shot through with illogic.
Post a Comment