The Eternal Discontent of Feminists

God set up the hierarchy. He said: “Here is how it is going to be.” (Genesis 2:17; 24; Gen 3:16; 1 Cor. 11:8-10). He is the Authority, He holds authority in heaven and upon earth. He made the earth, and He made the puny humans who populate it. He bestowed it all upon Adam and Eve, gave them jobs to do, and said have it all except this one fruit.

And suddenly (thanks to the serpent) all Eve wanted was the fruit. “I don’t want those. I want this one.”

Because humans know better, you know? Not.

The usurpation of the male as head of the family has been going on ever since. Nimrod’s wife Semiramis did a great job of perpetuating the usurpation. Cut to the late 1960s and feminism was born. The mid to late 1960s birthed a lot of rebellion in the world that this generation is still reaping. I think it is one of the reasons we are the last generation: so much rebellion. One of those rebellions was that the role for women outlined in the bible was set aside. Oh, sure, there have been historical anomalies throughout history, but wholesale abandonment of the Godly role set aside for women didn’t occur until the late 1960s. It suddenly was passe to have a man in economic, political, social, and even ecclesiastical fields. This is the lead sentence from the NY Times in their story “Is God a feminist?” – “Behind the public arguments and fracases over the ordination of women there has appeared, since the late 60’s, a flood of feminist religious writing.” The 1960s was the era in which I grew up.

One thing I remember is my mother teaching me about feminism. How “a woman can do anything.” [Really? Anything? And even if we could, which we can’t, do we want to?]. She used to wear a blue tee shirt that had the slogan: “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.” It had a fish riding a bicycle on the front. The deduction one makes is that women don’t need men. They are useless in the world of the fish. Er, women.

I always privately thought that the sentiment was stupid. It was illogical. First, it was obvious women needed men. And vice versa. Secondly, the foundation of culture had always been marriage, and that was one man-one woman and then children. Rinse. Repeat. Dismantling the structure of thousands of years of what had been working perfectly fine was ridiculous. These ideas seemed obvious to me. I was 12. That’s how obvious it is that a man needs a woman and a woman needs a man. A 12-year-old can see it.

With feminism came discontent in the jobs outlined for her to do. The Proverbs 31 woman wasn’t good enough any more. Though her children call her blessed, though her husband praises her, though she honors God and He her, that isn’t good enough. What else is there besides familial peace and a God-honoring life? But the serpent made ambition to serve God in His ordained roles seem like nothing. At the same time he made the world seem like something. Women wanted the world!

One of the realms women went into that had previously been reserved for men was police work. This encroachment was beginning to be reflected in television, which always acts as a cultural mirror. In 1974, the first woman to lead a police series was Angie Dickinson in “Police Woman.” I watched an interview with her last night on PBS, in a show about early television crime show pioneers. She said that she had a blast doing the Police Woman show. “In 1974 a woman in police uniform was still rare. If you saw one you’d go ‘oh, look, a lady cop.'” Dickinson was a beautiful woman and had a fantastic body, which the producers showed off, at the same time as they were showing her solving crimes and holding her own with the men. She liked that. She said she was always comfortable with her body and didn’t mind the sexier aspects of the show because that was her personality. It wasn’t something they were contriving or changing her into. Dickinson said the feminists were furious with her. They wanted her to be less sexy and use the show as a feminist platform. Dickinson said no. She recounted her reply to the interviewer, “I’m feminine, not feminist. They wouldn’t talk to me after that,” she said, laughing.

Therein lay the eternal discontent of feminists. They strove for better representation in male-dominated fields and got it. They strove for female representation on television of females in male-dominated fields and they got it. They had a confident, sexy, capable woman in Hollywood holding her own financially and balancing children and a marriage. But they hated her. Why? She was doing it wrong. In other words, she wasn’t being the kind of feminist they wanted. She was her own woman. This is anathema to feminists. Lest you think that the feminists’ twisted mindset is a bygone thing, look at the females of today one would think feminists would laud: Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin.

Hillary is feminism’s ideal woman. She isn’t too feminine, like Angie Dickinson is. She has a family, but doesn’t  pay too much attention to them. Her Rose Law firm colleagues thought it was shameful she planned to leave her newborn at home and return to work. No way. She later said “I could have stayed home and baked cookies” revealing the two categories of feminism- either they are seen as ambitious, professional women (doing it right) or traditional, stay-at-home women (doing it wrong) even though ostensibly feminism was supposed to be about equality with men and women having options to choose her life’s work. Hillary was politically powerful, even usurping the office of the Presidency by her husband’s admission that with “you get two Presidents for the price of one.” Feminism poster child!

Sarah Palin came onto the scene as the very first legitimate vice-presidential candidate. She is beautiful, active, healthy, successful (in business with fishing industry and politically as former mayor and Governor, then VP-candidate). She has a family AND a career AND the national spotlight AND she broke the political glass ceiling. You’d think feminists would be dancing around the fir tree with torches to celebrate this victory. But they hated her. What? Yes. She has exactly all the same things as Hillary, ambition, success, family, power, her own decisions, and had even made it farther along the political spectrum. But, see, she was doing it wrong. She held conservative ideals, put her family first, (no abortions!) and worst of all, believes in God.

Liberals define the feminist movement this way:

“The feminism “of the 1960s-1980s was concerned with gender inequality in laws and culture. … During this time feminists campaigned against cultural and political inequalities, which they saw as inextricably linked. The movement encouraged women to understand aspects of their own personal lives as deeply politicized, and reflective of a sexist structure of power. If first-wave feminism focused upon absolute rights such as suffrage, second-wave feminism was largely concerned with other issues of equality, such as the end to discrimination.”

Awww. How nice. Benign even. Conservatives define feminism this way:

A modern feminist denies or downplays differences between men and women, opposes the encouragement of homemaking and child-rearing for women, and seeks to participate in predominantly male activities. Modern feminists:
–never wanted gender equality; they want power for the female left
–believe that there are no meaningful differences between men and women (The most significant belief underlying contemporary feminism is that there are no sex differences; therefore advocacy for equal rights must be extended to advocacy for equal results or outcomes.)
–oppose chivalry and even feign insult at harmless displays of it
–view traditional marriage as unacceptably patriarchal
–belittle and mock other women who desire to have children or raise a family
–shirk traditional gender activities, like baking
–support affirmative action for women
prefer that women wear pants rather than dresses, presumably because men do
–seek women in combat in the military just like men, and coed submarines
–refuse to take her husband’s last name when marrying
–distort historical focus onto female figures, often overshadowing important events
–take offense at grammatical rules of the English language, like using the pronoun “he” when referring to a hypothetical/anonymous person, or phrases like ‘fireman’ and ‘stewardess.’

We even have a gender neutral bible now, one which removes all mention of man or woman completely from God’s Word. Of course, this removes God as Father and Jesus as the Son of Man, pleasing satan no end. And still the feminists are not happy.

At feminism is defined this way: “Historian and activist Cheris Kramarae once famously remarked that “feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings.” Although that’s the sort of thing you see printed on t-shirts, it also happens to be an accurate and concise definition of what feminism is. Feminism, as a movement, is about women living on equal terms with men–and not pushed down, by law or by culture, into a subservient role.”

It is thanks to the serpent that notions of one role over another is subservient. Women’s biblical roles are certainly not subservient to a man’s. They are complementary. Man’s headship is an issue of order, not of who is better or more important. The patriarchal structure is not due to cultural influence but of scriptural revelation. God made two human beings and He saw them as equal. He still sees man and woman as equal. It is satan who implants the notion that what you have isn’t good enough. It’s why feminists will always be discontent.

CS Lewis said, “Human history is the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy.’ Let me rephrase that into today’s politically correct phraseology: “Human history is the long terrible story of woman trying to find something other than God which will make her happy.” It won’t work. It never has and it never will.