I want to be very clear at the outset: I know that the issues that feminism addressed and continue to address are very real. I am not in any way disputing that there were serious inequities and injustices that were and are being addressed by the movement. What I am concerned about is how feminism has adressed them and the underlying assumptions that drive the movement.
I am reading Radical Womanhood by Carolyn McCulley. This is my second read through this book – yes it’s that good. Carolyn’s first order of business in the book is to give a summary history of the three waves of feminism. During her discussion of the Second wave, she focuses on french philosopher Simone de Beauvoir. Beauvoir wrote The Second Sex, an examination of the status of women in the society. I was so struck by a direct quote from Beauvoir: “[woman] is defined and differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her; she is the incidental, the inessential as opposed to the essential. He is the Subject, he is the Absolute – she is the Other”. Her final assessment was that “all male ideologies are directed at justifying the oppression of women, of keeping women imprisoned in roles that leave them subordinate to me. These roles include that of wife and mother.”
My problem with this argument is that it places man (gender = male) in the place of creator and woman the created. This is problematic for a number of reasons, the most obvious being that man – male or female – is not the creator of anything. Both are the created that point to Another who created us both in His image…
The most important problem in my view is that this line of thinking focuses on the symptom rather than the actual problem. The problem is not man (gender = male), but man’s desire to usurp God’s authority and take His place as ruler. In a word, the problem is sin. I use “man” both in the generic (male and female) sense and gender-specific sense in the previous statement because this sin thing is universal; neither gender exceed the other in that department. Remember what Genesis 3 says about the consequences of the fall. In terms of our relationships with each other, men became a usurper by seeking to rule and subordinate women; women became a usurper by seeking to dominate and control men. Both could blame the other for their condition and response…which seems to be the natural course of things in our fallen state. But if both are seeking to take the place of God and sinning against God, which of us really has a leg to stand on?
So – it is not that feminism does not address a legitimate reality. I argue that it does. But does it rightly interpret that reality? I would argue that it does not for the simple reason that it removes God from the equation. Or, if He is considered at all, we define Him instead of allowing Him to define us. In doing so, we become our ultimate reality, the source and finish of our own existence. Without the ability to refer to something or someone outside ourselves, we go about the task of defining ourselves, each doing so according to our own desires, interests and location. But what happens when those interests and desires clash? Who or what is the final arbiter that determines what definition will stand as valid?
So…perhaps the problem is that man (gender = male) has sought to define woman in a way that subordinates her and woman’s (gender = female) response is to seek to define ourselves and by default redefine man in the process. But does this solve the dilemma, or move it to the other side of the street? Perhaps…just perhaps, there is a solution that trumps each gender seeking to define and control the other. That solution requires that both genders turn away from ourselves and look to our real Source…that would change everything.
More later…
Grace and peace…
