Home Uncategorized Reader Asks: What Kind of Feminism is this Blog Against?

Reader Asks: What Kind of Feminism is this Blog Against?

by Kelly Crawford

In reference to Molly’s question to clarify the “type of feminism” this blog is against:

Molly,

You ask a fair question although I thought the answer was more obvious than maybe it is.

The word “feminism” used to be a fairly harmless word that simply meant that men and women have equal value. Surely we ALL agree with that and therefore, need not clarify the obvious. But over the past century, “feminism” has taken on a more sinister look because of the radical feminists who have been shaking their fists at their own femininity. Maybe this blog needs to be named “Families Against Radical Feminism”, but I thought people would understand where I was coming from, so I kept the title simple :-).

The feminism I fight against is the kind that says women NEED to be in the work force making a difference in the world, because to do otherwise would be a waste of her person. It’s the kind that has crept into almost every church in America and can be heard in the innocent question to the teenaged girl…”so what are you going to DO when you graduate?” (Yes, I know this statement gets me into trouble every time! But, there…it needs to be said.)

The kind that says women and men need to perform the same roles…i.e. submission is a bad word, and a marriage should be an equal partnership with no protective head.

The kind that says “I am woman, hear me roar”.

The kind that says, “I’ve got more important things to do than nurture and train the souls of my children.”

The kind that says, “I should have control over my own body, and therefore deserve to end the life of a child within it.”

The kind that kicks against femininity, beauty and grace; hates to have doors opened for her, and “can do it herself, thank you very much”. (Even though she’s perfectly capable, mind you!)

The kind that has forgotten her precious worth as a woman, slapping the face of God as she scorns her role as keeper of the home and the multi-facted opportunities that role would afford her.

This blog is against the kind of feminism that is missing the greatest opportunity on the planet to be treated like a queen…which is all she ever really wanted anyway.

You may also like

8 comments

KELLY November 24, 2007 - 9:57 pm

You could not have put it better. Your blog has reminded me of so many important truths about our roles as women, mothers, caregivers and life nurturers! I think it’s so very easy to get wrapped up in the importance of doing what everyone else does, even in Christian circles (have 2 kids, have Dad get a vasectomy, get on with life, acquire things, etc.) I have to stop myself often and re-evaluate the important work God has called me to: raising my three beautiful children. Thank you for keeping me in check with your well thought out commentary! God bless you and your family.

Reply
molly November 25, 2007 - 1:35 am

Thanks so much for answering my question. You’d be surprised at how much of the “obvious” does need to be clarified. There are quiet a variety of circles amongs anti-feminist camps with a wide range of opinions on women and the things they have a right or don’t have a right to do.

I am a full supporter in families working to make sure one parent is able to stay home with the kids. I wish we could go back to agrarian times where both parents did (where work was at home, and the kids were an integral part of it).

I differ with your opinions on male and female roles, but I figured I probably would. *grins*

Anyways, thanks for the clarification.
Warmly,
Molly

Reply
Ashley November 25, 2007 - 8:14 am

I enjoy this blog so …. and my apologies if I open up something again that was supposed to stay closed, I just wanted to comment on this and the last post so badly!

You make a very good point about the question “So what do you want to do when you grow up?” – which is also the same as “What are you going to do when you graduate?” that you hear constantly while on college campus.

I learned quickly that being a wife and mom was not an appropriate answer – “Well, sure,I mean, besides that.” Like I have to be a good wife and mom and also have an outside job, or a home based business to be accomplishing something. ‘Everybody’ is a wife and mom, was the attitude. What was I going to do besides that, because that wasn’t enough!

*sigh*

In the previous discussion, I understand the fallow ground concept. However, I hesitate to use my own judgement; i.e. ‘I’m too tired to be a good mom right now so I shouldn’t have more.’ I believe that sometimes God allows us to reach the end of ourselves to encourage us to rely on Him completely, or to show us that we can’t do it all and perhaps a certain ministry needs to be set aside for a season.

I have a 20mo and a 2mo, I miscarried twins between them and my second born spent 12 days in the NICU. So it hasn’t been a bed of roses for me. Most, I think, shake their heads at our lack of common sense/child spacing although if they asked we could explain how each link in the chain was made in because of our deep desire to trust God and walk by faith. It only makes sense to wait. But there is a lot in the Bible, like marching around Jerico or trying to feed 5,00 with a few loaves of bread that just don’t make a bit of sense until you do ’em and that fly in the face of all convential wisdom. If it made sense medically and logically to me, and all my friends agreed, it wouldn’t take much faith on my part. Eve’s choice to eat the fruit was perfectly logical….

…so when I think about the ‘logic’ of the fallow ground concept I still have to go back to walking by faith. This may lead some to the place where God is calling them to be fallow – I don’t know.

Like Kelly, it’s the selfishness that I run into most often that is staggering. Out of 6 couples to get married after we did, only one has gotten pg -by accident- in three years. Everyone else is busy making money, and is terrified of having children. One young woman who adores children has nightmares about her own! A hundred years ago babies would be seen as such a natural part of marrige and this saddens me….

Going back to the feminism issue, personally, I think landownders only should vote (LOL) which is a whole can of worms by itself. I love having a head of the home (it’s not always easy) and although I’m a very strong, confident (I, too, see things black and white) woman I truely blossom with a confident, strong leader. 🙂

So I stay as far away from feminism as I can get . . . .

I Timothy 5:14!
http://www.homesteadblogger.com/Jonash2004

Reply
Mrs. Anna T November 25, 2007 - 12:09 pm

Kelly, what a *wonderful* reply. You put it so eloquently!

Reply
Word Warrior November 25, 2007 - 12:29 pm

Thank you ladies. Ashley, I have answered your excellent point/question in a separate post.

Reply
Mrs. Sara November 26, 2007 - 3:19 pm

“…personally, I think landownders only should vote…”

Whoa… I certainly hope you were joking about that, Ashley. Would you mind explaining what you mean by that?

Reply
Word Warrior November 26, 2007 - 3:39 pm

I can’t answer Ashley’s question, but until just a few years ago, I didn’t understand the women’s vote issue quite like I do now. That is to say, we’ve always thought about the time when women “weren’t allowed to vote” as an oppressive rule against women. When in fact, it was not intended to be that way at all. It was nothing more than having “one vote per household”. And since marriages were united, usually, and most men and women shared the same political views, it was silly to have everyone in the household voting, when one-per-household was a clear representation of a people’s vote.

It was when women wanted the right t oppose their husband’s choice that the women’s right to vote was protested. I’m sure there are differing opinions on this, but I personally can’t imagine that my husband and I would vote differently. If he is the head of our family, and we are one, then we should be united politically as well.

Of course I do vote now, because “the system” is all off…Just my two cents!

Reply
Mrs. Sara November 26, 2007 - 4:36 pm

I understand what you’re saying, Kelly, and I actually disagree, but I’ll get to that in a second. My concern with what Ashley said was that if she was serious, that leaves a number of vulnerable people in a bad position. What of the poor? The elderly? Single women who aren’t landowners, or married women who have differing moral, religious, or political views from their husbands?

Anyway, back to the “one vote per household” thing. Even if the original intent was not to oppress anyone (which I’m not convinced that it was), the effect WAS oppressive to those women who might have had differing political views, not to MENTION the minorities and slaves who were horribly oppressed and kept in their positions partially with the help of the “one vote per household” law.

I do agree that it’s important to be united politically in marriage, and I think that’s an issue that more folks looking to get engaged should discuss just as seriously as if they’re discussion how they feel about children or money or birth control.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Facebook Twitter Youtube Instagram

Post Category

motherhood/family/parenting Uncategorized christian living homeschooling pregnancy/birth control marriage frugal living/saving money large families public school abortion feminism dating/courtship church/children's ministry entrepreneur pictures

Author's Picks

Why We Should Encourage Our Kids to Marry Young 220 comments Two Children are a Heritage From the Lord (After That, You Should Know... 173 comments Population Control Through Tetanus Vaccine 127 comments

Latest posts

The Power of Gathering Around the Table: Beyond Hospitality 0 comment Weddings, Getting Older, Navigating a Large Family & God’s Goodness 33 comments Help My Friends Find Their Child Through Adoption 0 comment The Shocking Truth About Education 2 comments

Copyright ©2023 Generationcedar. All Right Reserved. Designed and Developed by Duke