|
Traditionalist Conservatism Forum > Sex and Gender > Feminism in Islam and Christianity |
|
| << Prev Topic | Next Topic >> |
| Author | Comment |
JimKalb  ezOP (2/27/01 6:19 am) Reply 
|
Feminism in Islam and Christianity [Continuation of a discussion started elsewhere] I can see that Islam offers clearer specific guidance on the relation between the sexes, because it has a comprehensive system of law that defines a specific way of life. On the other hand it seems to me that feminism in anything like its current form is at odds with Christianity as well, and in fact is part of a general abandonment of Christianity through transformation into modern secular liberalism. Jim Kalb |
|
Old Guard Registered User (4/21/01 3:02 pm) Reply |
Christianity and Patriarchy Dear Jim, Christianity is without a doubt a patriarchal religion that is antithetical to modern feminism. I would also suggest that Christianity has served to mitigate the harsh patriarchy of paganism -- including Islam. Feminism, of course, is only transitory. It is the road to a criminal and degenerate patriarchy, such as we now see represented by WWF, XFL, Red China, and the proliferation of gangsters in fatherless neighborhoods. That is why forward-thinking women are embracing Christian patriarchy and returning to traditional churches. There is nothing so beautiful as a veiled teen-age girl at holy mass ... Jeff Culbreath |
 JimKalb ezOP (4/22/01 7:38 am) Reply ezSupporter
|
Re: Christianity and Patriarchy I agree that feminism is a way station. Do away with the habits and arrangements that order and civilize our impulses and what you get is primitivism and brutality. I think though that the immediate effect of the deterioration of the relations between the sexes that feminism and liberalism generally have brought is to strengthen feminism and liberalism. That's why our situation is so serious. The seeds of hope for the future you see are nonetheless real. Jim Kalb at: 4/22/01 7:39:13 am |
|
Old Guard Registered User (4/29/01 1:04 am) Reply |
The Emerging Barbarian Patriarchy You are right, of course. Feminism is an immediate threat, *as* feminism, even if it did not ultimately lead to a barbarian criminal patriarchy. (And there is no question that it does.) I would even go so far as to say that feminism is the single greatest obstacle to the restoration of a traditional Christian order. There is no ideology that is more entrenched, more intractible, more insidious, more destructive, or more widely held, by almost every institition and individual in our land, than feminism. The vast majority of Americans are feminists at least sub-consciously, in that they think gender is a characteristic like race or ethnicity: functionally interchangeable, and morally equal in rights and responsibilities. Feminism's immediate effect is to destroy families and the lives of children, and should therefore be opposed for these reasons alone. But the long-term effect of feminism is to create the emerging barbarian patriarchy: men who have never been socialized by other men because they are fatherless, and men who are burning with a hatred of women because of the unnatural and humiliating rule of women to which they have been subjected. Once this generation of "patriarchs" has assumed power -- and they will assume power because of their ruthlessness -- the end of Western Civilization will be at hand. The monasteries helped to preserve Christendom and civilized life in the midst of chaos in earlier times, and someone has said that homeschoolers are serving the same function today. Perhaps homeschoolers and other traditionalist communities throughout the world will preserve just enough of Christendom to facilitate a future recovery. Kyrie eleison, Jeff Culbreath |
|
Radeechie Unregistered User (5/2/01 6:25 am) Reply |
femasculininization Dear Jeff, Your 04/21 message intrigued me, however, that last one frightened me, frankly. Wow!! Our omnipotence is astonishing. Just to think-- All of this will happen simply because our men are getting lazy!!! I would like to apologize for those inapt men who are incapable of emotional nurturing of their genetic offspring. I thought that men were getting in touch with their "feminine side," not the aggressive, verile acts of barbarism which you had mentioned. Still hopefull and cheering from the "side" |
|
JimKalb ezOP (5/2/01 9:16 am) Reply
|
Re: femasculininization Dear Radeechie, The bad things are happening less as an immediate result of particular personal vices like laziness or because of someone's omnipotence than through a disordered system that gives no way for the inclinations and impulses men and women have to link into a coherent and productive whole. Human character needs more than one thing, and men and women are not exactly the same. The emotional support men give their offspring is not exactly the same as what women give. Men are more political, women more personal. Women supply more of what you seem to refer to as "nurturance" - immediate closeness and standard-free approval, men more of the things that have to do with people's separateness from each other - respect, expectation that standards will be met, justice. Both are absolutely essential. The masculine and feminine side of things are not the same, but they must form a whole in each of us and in society. If you abolish the political and structural side of the family, which is what feminism does, that won't happen and you won't fill the gap by insisting that men become emotionally women. Something will be lost that is essential to the socialization of children, and the result will be children who are not socialized. Which is a catastrophe. Jim Kalb |
|
Old Guard Registered User (5/3/01 1:36 am) Reply |
Reply to Radeechie Dear Radeechie, I certainly agree with Jim Kalb's remarks. Doubters might be directed to a few more contemporary examples: 1. The decline of the popular "love song" in which a man expresses chaste reverence for and committment to a particular woman. Such ballads still survive in American country music but are increasingly replaced by songs of male vengeance and retaliation ("Here's A Quarter", "Friends In Low Places", etc.) This decline has been accompanied by the rise of rock and rap music that is overtly hostile toward women. Note how such music is made by and for a generation of young men who are essentially fatherless, have spent the majority of their lives in the feminized public school system, and have imbibed twenty years of feminist propaganda from television, movies, and the media. 2. The ascendency of organized male sports to the level of a National Religion. This bizarre phenomenon has a ready explanation: sports is the only context where men are still permitted, and even encouraged, to be overtly masculine in some way, and to work exclusively with other men toward some kind of a goal. In short, masculinity is now socially acceptable only where it does not matter in the least: fun and games. Indeed, the future does seem bleak, but like you I am still somewhat hopefull. There are signs that feminism is being exposed, and young people are not just "taking it" anymore. The challenge for us is to help them discover the beauty of authentic masculinity and femininity, thereby preventing an indiscriminate and violent reaction. Jeff Culbreath |
|
Radeechie Unregistered User (5/7/01 3:13 pm) Reply |
Two Rights Dear Jim, I agree in whole with the general principle of which you refer. However, in tumultuous times such as these, I must inject/provide/consider a few words of caution. It seems as though there are many "sides" to this multi-faceted dilemna with which we are now faced as a society as well as individuals. Many would fail to listen to your message in entirety, should they become defensive by their interpretation, based on specific representation based on their own experiences. In all actuality, I am even slightly hesitant because of my doubting of your intentions related to any and all specified plans. What is this goal that you are seeking? Are you inferring that there is "one place" for all of us, regardless of sex or gender? (I've received information that these are not inherently part of the other.!!??) Does this mean that females, (should they have such incredulous qualities)be assigned a role from which their exposure would be limited? If so, Why? What makes you think that you are helping your cause? What if there comes a popularity growth in the perception that the world would be far better without such "judgement"-- a dreaded action which you have assigned to MEN? I fear what results may come of these well-intended assignments. Still on the side-- Radeechie Besides- the only two inherent rights to which I have become acquainted are: Truth and Consequence-- things which I fear are alien to this present world. |
|
JimKalb ezOP (5/8/01 8:01 am) Reply
|
Re: Two Rights Dear Radeechie, I agree that many people don't hear what's actually said about sensitive topics like sex because their position and experience makes them fearful and suspicious. Still, all any of us can do is speak the truth as best he can and hope others will understand it in the same spirit. As to my goal, it is stable, satisfying and productive relations between men and women, so they can live happily and so their children can be brought up well. That requires an arrangement of which both men and women on the whole approve. What sort of arrangement should it be? Certainly, one that makes use of their complementary qualities, but nothing that can be designed in advance dogmatically or in detail, because life doesn't work that way. Most of how people live has to establish itself because people find that it works. It can't be an arrangement that literally lets everyone be what he chooses, because there is no such arrangement. Children are always brought up with some definite way of life in mind, and we are always judged by others - by women as well as by men - in accordance with standards that have to do with how we act in relation to the way of life people generally think right. Judgement is impossible to abolish since without it life lacks all reason. Besides, the judgement that judgement is bad is itself a judgement and so refutes itself! The question liberal feminism raises is whether the standards and expectations must necessarily be the same for both sexes. I see no reason why they should and every reason why they should not. They never have been identical - why is everyone suddenly so sure we are so much smarter than people used to be? Is there so much more domestic happiness now than there was pre-liberation? In ancient literature of every culture the men and women are immediately recognizable to us today as men and women like ourselves. That in itself is enough to refute the notion that "gender" is simply a social construct that can be reconstructed at will. Customs relating to sex and the sexes differ as customs relating to food differ, but not without limit. The fact menus differ in French and Chinese restaurants does not mean that the place of food in human life can be changed to whatever one wishes. So it seems to me the ways people find best in the future will have a lot in common with those they have lived by in the past. Jim Kalb |
|
<< Prev Topic |
Next Topic >>
|
 Topic Commands Click to receive email notification of replies  Click to stop receiving email notification of replies |
|
- Traditionalist Conservatism Forum - Sex and Gender - On to Restoration! -
| Upgrade your account to ezSupporter... |  | ...and never see another ad or pop-up again |
Powered By ezboard® Ver. 7.3u
Copyright ©1999-2003 ezboard, Inc.