'Gender Jihad' in the Service of Women's Right
-
Which of your arguments would you like to be addressed?
The Quranic argument that proves Amina Wadud is wrong
I think you missed the point. Amina Wadud is wrong in arguing that ?the male role of qawwaam is not an essential one, but rather a contingent, socially-constructed one" because men as ?caretakers? is not a ?traditionally established role for a long time?, but a PRE-HISTORICALLY established one, for all time
(Quoting from the article)
Sister Aziza's contribution was to share with me her tafseer (commentary) on the implications of these ayaat (signs/messages) for the issue of qawwaama (maintenance). According to her reading of these ayaat, the fact that it is 'Adam who is the one whispered to and yet 'Eve' appears to have gone along with - that is, accepted, concurred with, followed, or obeyed - his (that is, 'Adam's) decision to follow such errant, seductive advice implies that 'Adam stands to his complementary opposite (zawj) in the relation of qawwaam, that is, as one who is responsible for maintaining, looking after, taking care of (that is, care-taking) his complementary opposite, while she stands in a relation of ith'aat (voluntary obedience) to him.
This is talking about Adam and his zawj, the originators of mankind, the essential human beings. There were no socially constructed roles back then. And even back then, the man was the caretaker. So it is not a ?contingent, socially-constructed? role as Amina Wadud and the feminists assert. It is a natural role.
(Quoting from the article)
In this way, Sister Aziza established a connection between (20120-122) and (434). I think this is a significant connection to have made because various '(post)-modernist' and so-called 'Muslim feminist' (or 'Islamic feminist' authors such as Amina Wadud Muhsin, author of Qur'an and Women Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman's Perspective have tried to argue that the male role of qawwaam is not an essential one, but rather a contingent, socially-constructed one. I think that the above argument calls this position into question and re-establishes the validity of the traditional, essentialist stance vis-a-vis gender complementarity and the relation of gender difference to functional difference.
And, I asked you
Fahad, you didn't answer my question
Sorry, but I don't believe that any gender should be "obedient" to the other. Why?
In 4/34, is a person from any specific gender supposed to be ?obedient? to his/her ?caretaker? from another specific gender, for whatever reason? Tell me.
This will answer your "Why?".
Fact is, you have so far refused to answer my question and give me a sensible explanation as to why women should obey men. I asked you repeatedly on the first page of this thread, but you keep ignoring it.
I offered you Quranic arguments (above). And I am only going to offer and discuss Quranic arguments. I will not be discussing conjecture.
The ?crap? was a very simple and straight forward question and an argument which you have not responded to.
I wasn't referring to any question.........It has nothing to do with any of your questions or arguments.
I didn?t offer you anything else.
And why ask me something that I have not argued about?! To divert the discussion and avoid my arguments?
Actually, I'd be curious to know how you handle this issue in real life. If you're going to get engaged or married, are you going to tell the woman that she will have to accept you as an authority and be obedient to you? Are you going to sit down and discuss with her what "obedience" means to each of you? How do women react when you face them with such stuff in reality?
That should be none of your business.
-
peace Fahad,
You still seem to suggest the following connection is good (when it is tenuous at best)
In this way, Sister Aziza established a connection between (20120-122) and (434).
In 434 it is a qualified statement
The men are supporters/maintainers of the women with what God preferred/bestowed on some of them over others and with what they spent of their money...
Now tell us, where in 20120-122 did Adam fulfil this criteria?
And tell us exactly, what connection has been established?Thanks.
-
From http//www.henrymakow.com/women_interpret_male_power_in.html
Male Leadership
by Henry Makow Ph.D.
(From May 10, 200
If a man cannot perform in bed, he is called "impotent." The woman feels unloved and unwanted.
However, outside the bedroom, if a man doesn't demonstrate his power , he is considered "enlightened" and "progressive."
But somewhere in their subconscious, women still feel let down. For centuries, women (and children) have relied on men to help define their lives. Men are failing their families when they buy into egalitarian feminist shibboleths and try to be "nice guys."
Marriage is the exchange of female power for male power expressed as love. Women crave male power because in their minds, it is love.
When a man fails to lead his family, and allows them to manipulate him, women (and children) feel unloved and consequently have less respect and love for him.
The old proverb, "Spare the rod, spoil the child" applies. Women and children feel most secure when husband/ father asserts his just control. It means he loves them. Failure to take charge is interpreted as neglect.
Thus, a man must claim power at the outset, and never let it slip from his grasp. He will be tested. But if I am right, women are testing his love.
This is what women really want to be consulted yes, but to surrender to the one man worthy of their sacrifice.
THE HIDDEN AGENDA
Thus the Lucifer-loving central bankers have used feminism, the mass media and the courts to banish love by undermining male power and authority. They have brainwashed generations of men and women to think of themselves as equal and identical. The goal is to destroy the family which obstructs their plan to enslave humanity, mentally and spiritually if not physically. (They must do this to protect their untenable monopoly on credit and ensure we repay money they created out of nothing.)
Gender, love and indeed sex are largely about power. Men want to possess a woman. Women want to be possessed. But when you equalize power, you neuter both sexes. Men no longer assert their power; women no longer cultivate their charms. The active-passive; yin-yang mainspring of the universe is neutralized. All that is left is sex in an alcoholic stupor.
A recent study showed that a third of young men and a quarter of young women in Europe use alcohol and drugs to have promiscuous sex, many before the age of 16, resulting in unwanted pregnancies and STD's.
In the UK, arrests of young women for being drunk and disorderly have shot up %50. The crime rate is up 25% in the last three years alone.
Women are being left high and dry (or drunk) as men bail on the concept of marriage altogether.
Female sex appeal is a function of their fertility. It will quickly fade, and they will finally realize that a sinister power has subverted our culture and betrayed them. They need to form families when they are young and desirable to men or risk being alone for the rest of their lives.
Young men must again think of themselves primarily as family leaders and builders, and look for a good woman to be wife and mother of their children. They must quickly weed out the damaged women, or find one that is still salvageable. They must test her over time to make sure she is devoted and not only willing but happy to accept their leadership. If she has another big priority, move on.
Men, confine yourself to women who look up to you. If you're looking up to her, the relationship is doomed.
SOCIAL ENGINEERING
By "empowering" women, society is essentially outfitting them with penises. These women have been conditioned to distrust and constantly challenge any man. I have heard stories where husbands and wives fight over the direction they will take on a Sunday afternoon walk.
When my wife and I walk the dog, I decide where we will go. When my wife wants to go in another direction, she will tell me, and usually I will consent to make her happy. She gives me the power; I use it to make her happy, within my limits.
Many men leave their families because they feel they are "married to Mommy" and constantly "walking on eggshells." In practice "equality" for a feminist usually means she's in charge and her husband is her puppet who must love her as she thinks fit. "Equality" means at best she will castrate him; at worst, abuse him.
There are many exceptions to this rule I imagine couples who think alike and have great "equal" marriages. I haven't met any but I'd like to hear about them.
In a marriage, I believe a woman must chose between power and love. She cannot have both. The role of a wife is to empower her husband so he can love her better as he sees fit. Of course it all depends on a woman finding a man she can trust wholeheartedly.
We must get over the notion that we'll be loved for our looks or personality or talent. These contribute but ultimately men love women who look after them, and vice-versa.
In our intimate relations, men need to project power plain and simple. First men must gain self confidence by realizing personal goals and earning recognition and reward.
Sexual desire makes men overestimate women. We must take sex and beautiful women off the pedestal. Our cultural values were/are created by a sick satanic sex cult, cabalistic Freemasonry, which thinks sex is the Holy Grail.
CONCLUSION
Masculinity is defined by power. Men must assert their personal vision and responsible leadership in spite of constant sabotage by the mass media and government. Otherwise women and children will feel betrayed and unloved, become more unmanageable, and trigger family breakdown.
In reality men and women were designed to complement, love and need each other. Gender wars were created by the same people who created all wars, the cabalistic central bankers who have been waging a secret satanically-inspired feud against humanity for centuries-- to divide, degrade, demoralize and ultimately to enslave us.
-
The Quranic argument that proves Amina Wadud is wrong
To me, Wadud's interpretation makes perfect sense.
In 4/34, is a person from any specific gender supposed to be ?obedient? to his/her ?caretaker? from another specific gender, for whatever reason? Tell me.
This will answer your "Why?".
I offered you Quranic arguments (above). And I am only going to offer and discuss Quranic arguments. I will not be discussing conjecture.
No, it doesn't answer my question. I was not asking for your personal interpretation of particular verses, but for a sensible reason based on human nature and reality.
Talking about real life is not "conjecture". Religion does not exist in a vaccuum, and the Qur'an repeatedly asks us to not only reflect on its verses, but also on the things around us. That includes human beings and how they function.
That should be none of your business.
You seem to enjoy being rude.
I didn't ask because I am in any way interested in your private life, but because I would like to know how you would put your personal opinions into practice. Again, you can't discuss religion without also discussing its application in daily life.
-
Women crave male power because in their minds, it is love.
When a man fails to lead his family, and allows them to manipulate him, women (and children) feel unloved and consequently have less respect and love for him.
The old proverb, "Spare the rod, spoil the child" applies. Women and children feel most secure when husband/ father asserts his just control. It means he loves them.
This is what women really want to be consulted yes, but to surrender to the one man worthy of their sacrifice.
In practice "equality" for a feminist usually means she's in charge and her husband is her puppet who must love her as she thinks fit. "Equality" means at best she will castrate him; at worst, abuse him.
Masculinity is defined by power.
What a load of nonsense.
-
Fahad
The Quranic argument that proves Amina Wadud is wrong
Leyna
To me, Wadud's interpretation makes perfect sense.
Why can't you just adress what Fahad is pointing out, in the verse? and other wise..Amina's, Nomani's or Manji's interpertation are based on Feminist views, they all are troubled and frustrated women, they hve their own problems, to them males are villains, they know nothing about Islam and Quran that is for sure, they are pure Hypocrites, using the name of Islam and Quran, to satisfy their own wishes.
Leyna
What a load of nonsense
.I think you should save some stock of this word, because to every other argument, your counter argument is NON SENSE you may run out of stock.
-
peace Fahad,
You still seem to suggest the following connection is good (when it is tenuous at best)
Hey, welcome back!
Peace.
In 434 it is a qualified statement
The men are supporters/maintainers of the women with what God preferred/bestowed on some of them over others and with what they spent of their money...
Now tell us, where in 20120-122 did Adam fulfil this criteria?
I told you such details could be found in some extra-Quranic hadees maybe.
And tell us exactly, what connection has been established?
Thanks.
That Eve went along with what Adam was whispered to. This implies that Eve was in a relation of itaa'at(as in 4/34) to Adam, while he, as her complimentary opposite, was in position of being qawwam over her(as per 4/34).
You are welcome.
-
Why can't you just adress what Fahad is pointing out, in the verse? .
Why can't anyone address my argument that if you approach those issues with some logic, it does not make sense to claim that one gender should always be obedient to the other? I have still to see something that would convince me that men are morally, spiritually, intellectually superior than women, that they are wiser and more capable of making decisions. If they are not, the whole point about obedience does not make sense.
Also, I have yet to read a explanation why in a relationship between two mature adults, one should be "obedient" to the other. And I mean a sensible explanation, not some mumbo-jumbo about women supposedly wanting to be dominated by a man and feminists who dream of castrating the poor men.
)Strange that none of those who think such obedience is necessary can reply to any of those arguments and are thus resorting to silly ad hominem attacks on the authors of certain texts, and to hiding behind the argument that it's only the interpretation of particular verses that counts here.
-
Women crave male power because in their minds, it is love.
When a man fails to lead his family, and allows them to manipulate him, women (and children) feel unloved and consequently have less respect and love for him.
The old proverb, "Spare the rod, spoil the child" applies. Women and children feel most secure when husband/ father asserts his just control. It means he loves them.
This is what women really want to be consulted yes, but to surrender to the one man worthy of their sacrifice.
In practice "equality" for a feminist usually means she's in charge and her husband is her puppet who must love her as she thinks fit. "Equality" means at best she will castrate him; at worst, abuse him.
Masculinity is defined by power.
Peace all
About the first sentence A woman can only love a man she respects. And yes, women like power. Women do not like weak men who are like doormats or easily get pushed around. And men do not like weak women who have no self-respect neither. So I think men also, can only love women who respect themselves.
About the second sentence When a man or women allows anyone to manipulate him or her, they will respect and love him or her less. This is human nature. A man can have leadership, but the woman must also have equal leadership in the family. For example they can decide when it comes to different tasks. A relationship should be based on mutuality
About the third sentence When a man has control over himself self-knowledge, self-responsibility, self-discipline, then the woman and children will love him. Off course only if he is just. But a man can control himself, not his wife. When it comes to the children, there are rules in the house they should follow. They can not do whatever they want.
About the first sentence A man should not surrender to a woman or vice verca. People should surrender to God. When a man and a woman follow the laws/limits of God, they will have the most happy marriage. Because they are responsible for every one of their actions, and they know that God knows everything they do. Therefore they won't betray eachother. If only they decided over eachtother, and judged eachother, they may betray eachother whenever one of them is not around (to see what the other one is doing). But when they know that God is with them wherever they are, they will be concious of God, and not betray eachother.
About the fifth sentence Some feminists I have talked to, believed that they are better than men. One even said women are smarter than men.And many feminists I have read about and watched in television have believed that women are superior than men. They had a distorted world-view. But not all feminists have these false and wrong attitudes and beliefs. Many feminists really want social justice. They are fair and reasonable. Feminism has done much good to society. Without the feminist movement, women in the west would not have the rights they have today. However, at the same time, we have to accept the bad things about feminist. We should learn about the hidden history of feminism. And we have to accept that feminism has done harm to the society as well. Here are two of examples of the harms of feminism. Feminism has contributed to breaking up the nuclear family, and feminism has contributed to making lots of men feminized and loosing their identity. A man can only be a man when he acts like a man. Just like a dog only can be a dog if it acts like a dog. If a dog starts to act like a cat, and eats like a cat it will get unhappy. Some men who are feminized and do not act like men, can without doubt become unhappy. In my opinion we should accept that feminism has done both good and bad to society (positive and negative feminism). We should not be in denial of reality. At the same time, it is important to understand the difference between feminism (the philosophy/ideology) and feminists (the followers of the philosophy). If one feminist does something wrong, it is necessarily the fault of feminism. She may be misusing the ideology for personal desires and her own agenda.
About the sixth sentence Yes, masculinity is defined by power, but not by POWER over people, but by power over circumstances. By self-power.
I have read some articles by Henry Makow. Some of his articles are good, but I disagree with much of what he says. And many of his articles are one-dimensional and try to blame everything on freemasons, zionism or feminism or one elite. He write little about the corrupt corporations which are the major sources of problems in our societties. His articles are often biased, judgemental and black and white. And his articles are not as objective as they should be. But he is truthful when it comes to some different issues, and he has some logical arguments, and writes things that people can learn from. Therefore, while throwing out the water, we should not throw the baby out of the water. And some of the articles on his site is good. Here is an article which i think is good
http//www.henrymakow.com/once_two_men_were_in.html
-
Why can't anyone address my argument that if you approach those issues with some logic, it does not make sense to claim that one gender should always be obedient to the other? I have still to see something that would convince me that men are morally, spiritually, intellectually superior than women, that they are wiser and more capable of making decisions. If they are not, the whole point about obedience does not make sense.
Also, I have yet to read a explanation why in a relationship between two mature adults, one should be "obedient" to the other. And I mean a sensible explanation, not some mumbo-jumbo about women supposedly wanting to be dominated by a man and feminists who dream of castrating the poor men.
)Strange that none of those who think such obedience is necessary can reply to any of those arguments and are thus resorting to silly ad hominem attacks on the authors of certain texts, and to hiding behind the argument that it's only the interpretation of particular verses that counts here.
study the real book of God; the nature. Anthropology could help us in this particular issue.
-
What a load of nonsense.
I have to completely agree!
Spare the rod and spoil the child, so a child who is beaten by her father is loved? A woman beaten by her husband its because he loves her? what a sick mind to come up with this crap that totally contradicts the Quran and creating love and harmony between a couple, how can you create love and harmony by beating for supposed disobedience of one to another? Any woman who needs a beating to feel loved needs psychiatric help.
-
Rescue us from this town
Confronting the oppression of women in Muslim societyBy Shabana Mir
We often tell ourselves, ?why rock the boat on the issue of empowering women when XYZ political issue is obviously far more important?" Well, now it's clear that this isn't a minor issue after all. As the recent MWU! coverage of the recent conference on AIDS that took place in Malaysia indicates, it's a life and death matter.
My purpose here isn?t to establish an individual as the ultimate authority on Islam. We are all free to agree or disagree with Dr. Amina Wadud. And when we discuss Islam, we are essentially ?trying? to reach the Truth. As such, humility and courtesy are necessary guiding factors in any dialogue about these matters.
What is also essential is a seeking of the betterment of God's servants. So seeking to improve the plight of women is a religious endeavor, not just a secular, anti-religious one. Strange, is it not, that ?women?s rights? has become a dirty phrase in the world of Islamist discourse.
There are too many unfortunate realities in Muslim communities and countries. It?s time to overcome our fear of facing those realities, and it?s time to work to change those realities. That work isn't only about getting men jobs and getting people to pray and fast more.
A lot of that work is very uncomfortable work, which entails us feeling guilty, angry, and ashamed about our larger Muslim family. None of us wants to see our family behave in cruel, bad, and shameful ways. Most of us will react with disbelief if we are told that our family members have behaved in these ways. But in order to correct them, we must face up to their actions.
In Pakistan and many other Muslim countries, for example, it is commonly believed, and not just by uneducated people, that a husband is a wife's 'majazi khuda'?that he is her ?god? in a sense. Reported sayings of the Prophet like "If a man calls his wife to his bed and she refuses and he spends the night angry at her, the angels curse her until the morning" and "If I were to order anyone to prostrate himself before another, I would order a woman to prostrate herself before her husband" are famous, more famous than many of the other traditions contained in the canonical Hadith collections. This tells you something about the reality of patriarchal Muslim societies and the way religiosity can easily play into the hands of power.
This isn't something that will change easily, because the truth is, too many Muslims are invested in a belief in the superiority and the authority of men over women. Generally, this belief is part of the socialization process of Muslim children. Muslim men all over the world are the ones who receive religious education; religious seminaries (jami'ahs and madrasas) are generally open only to men.
And the religious seminaries, incidentally, don?t attract the most educated men. The most educated males enter high-status professions such as the civil service, medicine, engineering, etc.
So when the maulvi or the mullah tells the man he is supposed to be dominant over women, and he tells the woman she must obey and please her husband in all matters, we don't have to be overly imaginative to know what the results will be.
There are no women ?mullahs? or--perish the thought--progressive mullahs, to suggest that there might be exceptions to the tradition admonishing wives against disobeying a husband?s desire for sexual relations, such as a husband being promiscuous, or being infected with a sexually transmitted disease, etc. And since most young girls at marriage are desperately unaware of sex and their bodies, marriage ends up becoming a form of rape to far too many of them. ?Respectable girls are innocent? said my friend?s mother. So what do you think is going to happen with girls who have grown up with the necessity of obedience drilled into them from birth? Who have grown up with constraints upon their movements, their speech, their thoughts? Who have grown up with guilt about their bodies?
When she gets married, and if her husband is promiscuous, it's easy for us North Americans to legalistically claim that a woman can leave him if he isn't pious. All is still well in our jurisprudence. But the fact is, she usually has no means of supporting herself. Society (including her own family) abhors a divorced woman, and her children will be ruined. She's never been taught to see herself as an agent with the power to critically observe and evaluate things for herself. So all the authorities she has always looked to tell her she is duty bound -- as well as stuck -- with obeying her husband, whether he's over-sexed, promiscuous, bi-sexual, addicted to strange and unhealthy fetishes, or anything else you can think of.
That?s exactly what happened in the case of one educated Pakistani middle-class woman I know, married to a doctor, with 3 children. Her husband became romantically involved with a female colleague. The ?religious? (Islamist) and educated in-laws all stood by the man. When she refused to stand by powerlessly, they supported his beating of her, for after all, she was disobedient to him. When she took a taxicab to visit him at work, all the in-laws threw a fit about her leaving the house. When she dared expressed her anger about his involvement, he beat her, and his purdah-observing ?religious? sister supported him ?If you cuss him, what?ll he do? Of course he?ll hit you!?
The husband's sexuality was not questioned; her actions were blamed. Generally his promiscuity or unfaithfulness may be blamed upon his wife (did she make herself adequately available to him? How does she behave?). The tahajjud-praying mother-in-law of the woman blamed her for the man's waywardness and told her it was her responsibility to fix the situation. She must make the best of a bad situation by complete compliance, or she will be blamed for all of his actions.
Easy for us to say a woman can work, make a new life for herself, support her children. This woman could not support herself because she couldn?t make enough money school-teaching. She lacked societal support for her ?rebellion.? Everyone wanted to blame her, to prove that she would never be able to make it. No one wanted to marry her and take another man?s children in (children are very much a ?man?s children? in patriarchal societies). The ex-husband, on the other hand, quickly married a far younger woman. The children suffered the consequences of being practically fatherless. No alimony or child support materialized.
Not until the woman re-married and handed over the children to the father was she given societal approval. She lives the dilemma of a torn woman today, trying to be a good wife to her second husband and yearning to see her children. The father and the stepmother do not allow her letters to go through to them, or their letters to go to her. She calls; they hang up. When she protests to ?family elders,? they tell her she should be patient.
This is a very typical story of a middle class educated woman from a respected family. There are thousands and thousands of stories that are far worse. Those of working class illiterate women are far worse.
So while we can talk legalistically about whether a wife is obliged to obey a promiscuous husband, the reality of Muslim societies is that she must obey him. She must comply with his demands, and if she does not, she receives no support from anyone.
When the Pakistani woman I speak of so much as prayed istikhara to decide what to do, the ?religious? in-laws threw a fit when they found out and cut her off from communicating with her family. When they discovered she had consulted a lawyer, they locked the front gate. In Pakistan, you cannot counter such measures unless you are sure you are willing to take drastic action.
Unfortunately, maybe the only support she receives -- if she is lucky -- is from secular feminist lawyers because they are willing to speak the truth about the injustice that is being committed, and to rock the boat.
So all those utopian ideas about how ?Islam? in theory will protect an obedient wife, and how ?practicing? Muslims will defend the ?righteous one?, and that men are responsible for women and good men will do good by women, otherwise it?s their fault,--do not benefit any women out there today who will contract AIDS or who will be beaten to death or who will be raped with a stick.
Those who have religious knowledge generally support the man because he is relatively powerful. They are usually men too, after all, and it is to their advantage to maintain the status quo. (Women who have some religious knowledge or status know that their status lies in supporting the status quo too).
The religion has been hijacked because these practices are not rare ones -- they are epidemics in Muslim communities and societies. Even the protest against this hijacking has been hijacked and ?kafir-ized?, and labeled ?secular?, ?irreligious?, ?anti-Islamic?, and ?feminist.? It's impossible to stand by and be silent. If we allow the hijackers to be the authorities on Islam, we are allowing them to continue with their violence and their sanctioning of violence. And if they continue to be the authorities, we no longer have the right to explain away the prevailing beliefs in majazi khuda, unconditional sexual compliance, and wife beating in case of ?disobedience.?
Conscientious Muslims can?t just engage in theoretical discussions at Sunday morning interfaith meetings and claim that they?re on the side of peace and justice and equality. We have to confront power. And that's uncomfortable, messy, nasty stuff that embroils us in rhetorical battles. It makes me anxious and extremely uncomfortable! But I also feel good about speaking out -- here in the comfort of my North American home, far away from the realities I'm talking about, the realities you and I have escaped.
But sometimes it seems so meaningless to get into verbal arguments about these things, when millions of women are suffering silently.
I'm reminded of a verse regarding jihad ?How can you not fight in the cause of God and of the oppressed men, women, and children, who call out ?Our Lord! Rescue us from this town whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from your presence one who will protect; and raise for us from your presence one who will help!?" (Qur?an 475)
-
Rasul Hamsa
At last, a good advice.
Darwin was one who studied it, and he arrived at a conclusion, I forgot what was it?...OOT that the diversity life was a product of variation and natural selection?
-
How I Became a Mensch After Feminism Stole my Identity
Mensch is Yiddish for a real man. It means 'human' in German.<<
http//www.whale.to/b/makow14.html
http//www.savethemales.ca/080801.htmlBy Henry Makow Ph.D.
August 8, 2001When I was 21 years old, and living in Israel, I received a letter from my mother. She had taken my savings and invested in a town house.
"Now, you are a mensch," she said.
I wondered what she meant.
How did owning a house make me a man? I wanted to be defined by my character, not by my property.
I came of age at a time when youth was "looking for identity." I was searching for it in Israel. Later, I became a Canadian nationalist. In each case, I didnit find identity in "community."
I had a strong patriarchal father, an excellent role model. He built a successful career, and supported a family. "Work is the backbone of a man," he would tell me. This the most important decision a man makes. A wife is the second most important.
But for some reason, his example didn't register. Why didnit it?
For centuries men have defined their identities in terms of masculinity. Why was I so clueless?
I was a feminist.
I grew up in an era that has bought the feminist lie that men and women are identical. In our culture, women are encouraged to do everything men do, and vice versa. I believe in equal opportunity but I mistook "equal" with "identical", and this retarded my personal development by 25 years. I doubt if I am alone.
"Identical" made me look for a mate who was not only my equal but also my equivalent. In essence I was looking for myself. I was literally attracted to lithe young women with cropped boyish haircuts my own persona.
Thus, I put a woman on a pedestal because she had my identity. She could give it back to me. Some women were immediately repelled. Others enjoyed the adulation for a while, but eventually lost respect.
What I needed was someone quite different from me, my feminine complement.
It hasn't hit us yet but eventually feminism will be recognized for what it is a virulently anti social, anti-feminine, anti heterosexual ideology that has achieved extraordinary power by pretending to champion women's rights. By thus fooling society, they have been able to enact policies which emasculate men and encourage women to become masculine. In other words, women have usurped the masculine identity, and in the process, both sexes have lost their own.
Unbelievably, the destruction of heterosexuality is the stated goal of feminists who believe gender difference is not only unnatural but also the source of all injustice. Most people don't realize that the current feminist movement is a living anachronism from the cold war and the Marxist revolutionary sixties. Most of the leading feminist thinkers, including Betty Friedan and Simone de Beauvoir, have been Marxists, and many have also been lesbians. But they would not have succeeded if they had been up front about their bizarre revolutionary goal, which is to coerce heterosexuals into the closet. In this light, terms like sexism, political correctness, and sexual harassment, take on new meaning.
Feminism is about power not choice. "No women should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children," said feminist founder Simone de Beauvoir. "Women should not have that choice, because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one" (Saturday Review, June 14, 1975). If feminism were really about choices, it would not indoctrinate women to enter the work force and become "independent." It would not demonize men and heterosexual love. Feminism is essentially a lesbian movement in the sense that lesbians have always been women who coveted the male role. It is based on Marxist notions of "equality" and class conflict that have been discredited and rejected, notions that have no relevance to a mystical reality such as love.
The breakdown in the traditional family caused by feminism, is quite simply, the main reason for our social, personal and existential problems. People have always derived their primary meaning and purpose from familial roles (e.g. daughter, wife, and mother) and from the life-cycle rituals, (marriage, birth and death). Indeed, marriage and family are a God-given Path to achieve love and personal fulfillment.
We do not find wholeness by trying to incorporate masculine and feminine in ourselves but by uniting with our opposite. Heterosexual love is the attraction of opposites. Indeed, as heterosexuals we define themselves in terms of these differences. If we are male, we are not female, and vice-versa, like dark and light. Because I denied these differences, I didn't know who I was. I didn't understand women, and I didn't know how to relate to them.
I was almost 50-years-old before I solved the riddle. A book The Flight from Woman (1964) by Karl Stern, a prominent Canadian psychiatrist, confirmed what my instincts were telling me. My mother had been right all along. A man makes the house; the woman makes the home.
According to Stern, masculinity is defined by "power" over the natural and social environment. Men provide the physical and cultural context for the private world of love. They are the do'ers adventurers and builders, protectors and providers.
Femininity is defined by "loving relationships." Feminine psychology is founded on nurturing and loving husbands and children, and thereby being needed and loved. Women are the engines of love, acting much like the heart in the body. They create the family that is the fundamental building block of society and the foundry of the future.
Men define themselves by deeds; women simply are love beauty, grace, faith and goodness. Men tend to be rational and objective; women subjective, intuitive and emotional. Distinctions like these need not constrict us. They are a theme upon which to play our own variations. For example, my wife mows the lawn; I do all the shopping and cooking. But without the theme, there is confusion and chaos.
The feminist gospel that traditional sex roles are "oppressive" is wrong. For many people, a flexible interpretation of traditional roles may be essential for happiness and fulfillment.
I extrapolated from Karl Stern's distinctions. If man is motivated by power and woman by love, heterosexual love must be an exchange of the two.
A woman surrenders her power, in trust. This is how a woman expresses her love by trusting. In this way, women actually empower men. If a man betrays this trust, he loses his power.
In return for her power, a woman gets what she really wants a man's power expressed as his intense, undivided love.
He includes her in his sphere of self-interest this is how two people become one. Her happiness is his happiness. He can't hurt her without hurting himself.
Teaching women to seek masculine power prevents them from getting what they really want.
Women want to be possessed by a man's love. God's love of Creation is mirrored in a man's love of a woman. A girlfriend once told me, "I want to be used." In a way, a man channels God's love to a woman by making her a wife and (possibly) a mother. Women want masculine power, but it must be in a man. The same girlfriend also said that without a man, she feels "like a rudderless boat." Similarly, a man without a woman is a rudder without a boat.
A man cannot love a woman who is competing with him for power. Relationships between so-called "equals" are like mergers, or roommates. One psychiatrist, Irene Claremont de Castillejo, calls them "brother-sister" marriages (Knowing Women A Feminine Psychology, 1973). They cannot achieve the intimacy as when a woman surrenders her will to a man, and a man returns this trust with his wholehearted love. Some psychiatrists say her sexual satisfaction is also linked to her ability to trust and surrender.
Feminine women are creatures of God. In love, they sacrifice their "selves" for love, which in many religions is the key to transcendence. Helen Deutsch remarked on this masochist-narcissist syndrome in her The Psychology of Women A Psychoanalytic Interpretation (1944). The majority of women only achieve fulfillment as wives and mothers. In their hearts, they know it.
Nor can women love men with whom they compete. Women are hypergamous which means they seek men of higher status than themselves. Even the most ardent heterosexual feminist only can love someone more powerful than she.
The struggle for power is poisoning male-female relations. It is the death of love. Men cannot give up their defining characteristic and expect to be men. Women cannot criticize and challenge men and expect to have satisfying relationships. When I comprehended this, I felt liberated. I established a healthy relationship with a woman who is my female complement, and married her.
In conclusion, the universal complaint is that men no longer know how to be men; women don't know how to be women. It helps to see heterosexual love as a mystical dance. In a dance, the male leads, the female follows. You canit have a graceful dance without each partner playing his part.
The dance is based on love. The male is always considering his mate's wishes, because he loves her. In some cases, he will ask her to lead. As in a ballroom dance, who can say which role is more important. Both partners are of equal value. The dance requires both the leadership and dynamism of the male; and the beauty, love and grace of the female. In the dance of love, two people become one, and the fruit of this mystical union, is often a child.
-
When reading these types of threads, this song always plays in my head.
-
When reading these types of threads, this song always plays in my head.
yuck
