The Enemy of Radical Feminism is Not Men

manly

Frank Cash - Roman SoldierI never thought much of those who subscribe to the label of “radical feminist,” but I never saw that movement as much of a big deal either. However, a recent catalyst in my life made me realize how wrong I was.

Men, Brainwashed with Feminism?

This catalyst came in two parts: a conversation and a picture book.  The picture book actually came first, but it was the conversation that made me understand just how important the book was.  It was just an ordinary discussion about today’s secular colleges and the effect of emasculation that society reaps from them.  The other person said something to the effect that their students because completely indoctrinated in liberal feminism.

My immediate, not thought out reaction, was, “Well, what about the men?” as the idea of men so weak to actually decide that they were the inferior gender just because their women professors told them so seemed rather ridiculous.

My companion answered that “They indoctrinate them, too!”  So I thought a little about it.  And, pretty quickly… the explanation for this apparent paradox hit me like a cannonball.  The liberal feminists’ attack is not on men qua men at all!  Far from it, since they are actually able to turn men into allies.  The object of their animosity is, rather, the masculine psyche. 

A Father’s Unkindness

Now, my reader, you may be wondering how I arrived at this conclusion or even what I mean by “the masculine psyche.”  I will begin by explaining how the picture book fit in.  It was called The Sissy Duckling, about a stereotypically “sissy” boy duck, who finds himself bullied by the “macho” ducklings, and even his own father, about his inclination toward feminine activities.  The duckling’s mother, on the other hand, was supportive and praised his “differential” qualities from the beginning.  At one point, the duckling even makes the mistake of telling the bullies how she encouraged him, and then predictably finds himself bullied worse for it.  So, this book (which was, as one might guess, written by a gay man) portrays the male parent as unfeeling and callous, and the woman as sweet and kind.

One could say that in this case, the father was just exhibiting egotism, wanting his son to be “just like him,” a scenario that, with some fathers, could be rather realistic.  Even disregarding that, there’s also the point that “It’s just a children’s story.  Why make a big deal out of it?”  The hypothesis about the father duck might make sense solely within the context of the story, and the one about the author is certainly more of an “easygoing” approach.

Conversely, as the author makes no secret of the fact that he is a gay rights activist, I personally think he intended to paint a larger picture than that (using his book as a form of “activism”).  However, what I found most curious about the book was less any meanings in the overall portrayal of the father, and more the fact that the boy’s only option was to have recourse to his mother.  I could picture a boy participating in activities stereotypically viewed as “girly” (actually, my own brother used to be an Irish dancer), but the alienation from the father was less easily explained, and seemed unnecessary.

A Modern-Day Need for Chivalric Knights

Before I explain that, though, I will proceed to the other question I raised, the meaning of “the masculine psyche.”  By this I mean a general term for values that are traditionally safeguarded by men.  Specifically, men have often been thought of as being fighters for that in which they believe, upholders of truth and justice.  A modern-day example might be superheroes like Batman and Superman, but this goes much farther back, to the chivalric code of medieval times.  Back then, men were thought of as protectors and defenders of what was precious, to include their homes and families.  But, might it not also be true that those knights and princes of long ago stood for something arguably even more valuable, but less tangible?  They had true masculinity, and that strength which they displayed was a treasure in and of itself.  They knew certain things in life were worth a fight, and that they themselves were responsible for the fighting.  They shielded society, not only from conspicuous dangers, like bandits, but from falling apart of its own accord.  Back then, women did not serve in forms of government.  (I have no interest in debating whether or not this was a legitimate idea; I only believe it was true.)  Thus, town councils given the weighty task of performing the most vital societal functions would be made up of men.

One good example of such a function would be the fictional condemnation of Hester Prynne in The Scarlet Letter.  While I in no way believe that adulterers should be stoned or even made to wear discriminating clothing, I do believe that the comparison between the book and modern times is marked.  The fact that the book characters took it into their own hands to punish a woman’s personal sin at all is extreme, uncalled for, and wrong, but the basic intention behind the punishment was an understandable kind of good.

They punished the adulteress because they knew that adultery was wrong, and thus this woman “had sinned against God, if not her husband as well.”  Their viewpoint, while expressed to an inappropriate extent, was (like mine) that such transgressions should not be happily encouraged in their community.  While societies such as this went too far in the direction of castigation, the U.S. today is the reverse of this—actually choosing to laud sexual deviance such as homosexuality or transgenderism.

What We Have Become

The question left yet unanswered by this comparison is, “What changed?”  To try to trace this entire sequence in all its detail would probably fill at least a whole book, but there is one point I find most vital.  In the picture book, as I already mentioned, the father was shown as the “mean, confused” parent, and the mother “good.”  This less-than-disguised message from a children’s story gave me the answer.

The liberal feminists have, directly or indirectly, injected specific feminine traits into all of society in order to make it conform to their agenda.  This is because it was a true sense of justice that is also a masculine trait which once shielded the world from the horrors of immorality now rampant today.  It is that justice that says “We must conform to what is good and true,” thus prohibiting atrocities such as the killing of children in their mother’s wombs.

Conversely, it is a traditionally feminine value (a distortion of mercy) that says “You mustn’t punish this, because the circumstances have changed it so it’s not bad.  After all, abortion can be quite necessary if the woman was raped…”  The feminists’ strongest weapon was actually a disguised gentleness, beginning with “This rule is so harsh; you must make an exception for this… and this… and this… and this…” until they changed the evil, such abortion, into no longer an exception, but the rule for all who wanted it.  Thus the feminists could begin arguing from a new platform, but more strongly, because they already won once.  Bit by bit did they and their predecessors knock down the strength of absolute truth in this way.  This sequence may also pertain to why liberalism and radical feminism seem to be so closely related—because liberalism hinges so closely on this false, feminist “mercy.”

As an intriguing contrast to my hypothesis, I read an essay a couple of months ago by one of the most radical feminists around (a former chairwoman of NOW) against surrogacy.  I fully agreed with her on this issue (though it’s also the only thing on which we could agree).  However, there’s a twist here: I believe, unlike her, however anti-surrogacy she personally is, that surrogacy has nonetheless actually been caused by the feminism to which she so strongly subscribes.  And how might this be possible?  Again, there are many reasons, but one easily explainable example is same-sex marriage, for which the same author advocates, for as I read in a conservative article “marriage equality” invariably leads to “family equality.”

Now the false mercy has created an evil so great that even those who champion many other evils want to fight it!

Whether I Am a Mysogynist

By now I may be sounding rather sexist, making the feminine quality (mercy) seem only bad but the masculine quality (justice) “good.”  However, this is not my intent.  Instead of mercy itself, I intend to condemn only the false mercy of the radicals, which has twisted our once Christian society into a civilization where a confused man is praised for thinking he’s a woman over a girl who fulfilled her athletic dream even as cancer killed her.  But again, the radicals’ mercy is not true mercy, but a twisted form, just as the society that has sprung up around it.

As a woman, I will be the first to say that women can be just and men merciful, and that either trait can certainly be exercised by anyone in a good way.  However, I will also say that I think God created men as a whole to have a stronger inclination toward justice, and women toward mercy, but that does not specifically limit anyone of either gender.  Nor am I saying that everyone should always choose justice over mercy.  Aquinas said that “Mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution; justice without mercy is cruelty.”   As was in God’s plan from the beginning of time, both are necessary, not just one.  Finally, there’s nothing wrong with joyfully displaying true femininity, which will always be greater than the lies of the feminists.

Bringing Real Men Back

The final question is how society shall be reclaimed.  The short answer is this: we need MEN again!  Real men.  The longer answer calls for men who, rather than fearing repercussions, will stand up and fight for the values that the feminists weakened, as men should.  We ladies can fight too, in several different ways.  In no particular order, we can reclaim “our” value of true mercy, e.g. instead of having “mercy” on a pregnant woman by letting her kill her baby, explain to her that allowing the baby to live helps not just the baby, but the mother as well (protecting her from a higher risk of cancer, etc.).

Second, we can once again stand beside men, rather than above them.  Rather than saying “We’re better anyway, and you’ve oppressed us for so long!” as the radicals do, we may step back and say “You need us and we need you.”  In other words, we must also fight.  Though we, like the men, can and should speak out boldly against this injustice from a real woman’s perspective, we can and ought to take a stand in quieter ways as well, such as prayer.  Again, not that the gentlemen cannot also aid in quiet ways, but it is men who are unashamed to be masculine and act on it that the U.S., and all the world, need most desperately.

My friends—men and women alike—be not afraid!  God gave us this world—now let us fight for it!

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on google
Google+
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on pinterest
Pinterest

11 thoughts on “The Enemy of Radical Feminism is Not Men”

  1. Good for you, Miss Lowe, for referring to “ladies”. In the 1960s and ’70s, feminists moved to disparage that honorific and replace it with “women”. They succeeded beyond their initial goal. Today we have almost no ladies, few women, but many females. “Female” is a biological term and unlike “ladies” and “women” it is not uniquely human.

    Unfortunately, for that same reason I must assign you a penalty point for using the ahuman term “male parent” in place of “father”.

    1. I personally have preferred “ladies” for a while, because I thought it more of an honorific, if you will, than “women.” On the phrase “male parent,” I honestly didn’t think about “father” vs. “man” vs. “male,” but my overall intent in that sentence was to emphasize gender over parental traits. I do appreciate your feedback.

  2. The irony of modern feminism is that they’ve managed to mess up both sexes and make them perversions of what they are supposed to be. God made us complementary. We are different but of equal worth to God. In fact, God made us in such a way that only joined together are we complete: where I am weak, my husband is strong and where he is weak I am strong. We are better together than alone.

    I have found the feminist hatred of their own femininity to be psychotic. The advocacy of abortion is simply the blunt, manifested reality of what they really think about themselves on the inside. They hate being women, so they destroy the one thing that is the most womanly thing a woman can do: bring forth new life. And men’s reactions to this perverted feminist thinking? Abandon children to poverty and treat women even more like things to be used and thrown away once used. A true perversion of what it means to be a man.

    You are so right! We need real men… and real women again. Women who love that they are women and want the men in their lives to be real men who are unapologetically men.

    1. This brings in another interesting point; if we don’t know the meaning of “man” or “woman,” since every human is one or the other, what does it mean to be human at all? Modern culture exhibits this, as the lines between man and beast are blurring (fornication, for example).

  3. Cecily-Never stop writing. Great piece. Check out the truly “radical” feminists for our time – Feminists For Life (they actually exist). The upset this phrase -Feniunisats for Life) causes for the radfems hopefully will make them begin to study and see that their femodoxy is not the only feminist approach to life and justice and goodness. Another point that makes the radfems step back and wonder – hopefully wonder that sends them on the way to learn true truth – is that there is a deep divison in their radfem ranks over pornography; and the bases stated by the radfems who denounce pornography can be easily reworded to condemn abortion, e.g. pornography treats women as mere objects, pornography dehumanizes women and makes them subhumans, pornography is violence against women, etc. Re: studying the Enlightenment: keep in mind what St. Thomas Aquinas said – he who always sought to find the truth, if any, in his opponents’ positions – all truth, no matter the author, is of the Holy Spirit; and there might just be here and there in the Enlightment’s dim light thinkers a brilliant point of truth. Merry CHRISTmas! Guy McClung, San Antonio, Texas

    1. Guy, your points are much appreciated! My line about the Enlightenment was actually meant to be more humorous. (I actually don’t think about it that much, and it seems pretty nerdy, ha ha.) Regardless, you (or Thomas, rather) is certainly correct; if someone seeks the truth, even if for the wrong reasons, they’re bound to find something.

  4. Cecily, I agree with you – and with Mr. Agostini. I was in college during the rise of feminism. Radical feminism is a perversion of any good that came from the initial movement. Gloria Steinem was SO WRONG: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Absolutely, women need real men and men need real women. I could go on and on and on. Suffice it to say that I speak as the sister of 6 sisters, mother of 5 daughters, grandmother of 5 girls, RN in women’s health for 32 years and a teacher in an all-girl’s high school now for 15 years. No one has MORE experience in this world as a female than I do. I absolutely reject this modern perversion of feminism.

  5. Cecily, You have some interesting arguments, obviously based upon your vision to restore the roles of men and women in society to their “proper” place. As a much older man it would be very difficult for me to enter the mind of a young lady, but I would like to add some alternative perspectives.
    We are very close to honoring the birth of Christ so it is worth noting that the historical feminist role was that of nurturing. We do not look upon Mary for Mercy, but for her ability to use her influence on our behalf, to extract mercy from God. The role of Joseph was as a provider, so I view the emancipation of women to be through education, emasculating men as providers. That cork cannot be put back in the bottle and nor should it be.
    So what do we do with men, said one Amazon to another? The last sixty years of sexual revolution has changed everything, abortion being a consequence, not a cause. Equal opportunity sex has created the disaster of divorce and single motherhood and I see women as having the larger role to put the cork back into that bottle. Pornography, which reduces women to objects and men to predators is not free speech, but lust and should be eradicated. Restoration of maidenhood would go a long way to restoring marriage and reducing abortion.

    1. I definitely agree with your last points. Thinking about it, I’d say it works both ways. Because men and women were made for each other, if either sex is denigrated, chaos is created, because it perverts the order God created.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: