Prevailing Winds "For the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom . . ." 2 Cor. 3:17, TNIV

January 8, 2015

“Masculinism” Isn’t A Proper Balance To “Feminism”: Part One

Filed under: Uncategorized — keelyem @ 8:35 pm


A Christian feminist who also participates in the Christians For Biblical Equality blog asked me why I use “masculinism” more or less as a synonym for “patriarchy,” because she uses it as a balance to “feminism,” in the sense of describing the Holy One’s love for females and males by saying “God is a feminist; God is a masculinist.”  I understand her point, but I disagree with her usage of the word “masculinist.” Here’s my response to her:

I am, as I said earlier, a radical feminist. This doesn’t mean that while YOU’LL, say, write a letter to the editor, I, as a “radical,” will throw a brick through a window — not at all. It means that while liberal feminism strives for equality with men and views things through an individualist perspective, radical feminists work for the end of patriarchy and the end of gender, which is its expression in males and females — sex, as opposed to “gender,” which is how males and females play out immutable hierarchical and thus sinful roles as “feminine” and “masculine.” These roles dictate who rules/gets unfettered access to women and their bodies (males/the masculine) and who is bound and submits/gives up access to men (females/femininity) — sex (male/female). Radfems believe gender — those hierarchical roles assigned by sex, with males at the top and in power and females at the bottom and in subjection — must be abolished, and that masculinity, the “firstfruits” of patriarchy, is something no man should seek or embrace; it’s toxic and provides the root for all evils — even the love of money is aggressive avarice, a typically masculine characteristic. Gender is a result of sin; I pray for its abolition. Most radfems aren’t Christians, so where I say “sin,” they say “toxic social construct,” but we mean the same, I think. So a libfem might say, “Joe raped Susan; Joe has a narcissistic personality and learned from his abusive father that violence was OK. Joe is a bad guy.” The analysis is on this situation, however correct it is, and is not on the class reality — that “males rape females.” Joe may be those things, but, in a radical, class analysis, a radfem would say — I would say — that Joe is acting out masculinity, and Joe should renounce his masculinity and the privilege it brings so that Joe can be free of his familial patterns, narcissism, violence, etc. — all of which are expressions of masculinity. Keep in mind that the Fruit of the Spirit is the only Biblical imperative for the Christ-follower; they refer not at all to sex or gender by being freely available to, and expected from, both females and males. This is Part One …

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress