It seems to me that the take of a lot of conservatives on women's suffrage, women's liberation and feminism can be summarized as follows: For several millennia men turned away from God and away from their roles and responsibilities as men; then women responded to that sin with their own system of turning away from God, turning away from their roles and responsibilities as women, and sinning. That "response to men's sin" is collectively, pejoratively called Feminism.
What I notice about that take is that is does not respect women as rational, intelligent human beings who are capable of initiating good and evil. It seems to say that when women organized and carried out a social and political movement of their own that it was simply a knee jerk reaction to men.
I happen to believe that women are not Pavlovian dogs responding to men. I happen to believe that women are rational, intelligent human beings who are capable of making original contributions to the world. And I happen to believe that women are capable of initiating good and evil independent of the thoughts and actions of men.
We are all taught, it seems, that the modern women's movement has been either an unrighteous knee jerk reaction to men or a righteous fight for justice. Is it not possible that some of it has been neither? Is it not possible that some of it has been savvy, opportunistic women seizing power? In other words, rather than all of them naively, ignorantly, foolishly "responding to men's sin", from the very beginning some of them have connived and exploited men's sin and men's guilt. I have not read the book, but judging from what I know about Esther Vilar's The Manipulated Man, at least one woman does not buy into the dichotomy of women having good intentions but unrighteous means or women being the righteous defenders of justice.
Is it not possible that women have known what they are doing and that it hasn't always been with good or honest intentions?
The answer seems obvious to me. If women aren't rational moral agents who are capable of originating and initiating good and evil, then they can't be held responsible for their actions one way or the other and the whole controversy over the modern women's movement and feminism is a big tautology.
Yet, people get extremely wound up and passionate about the controversy, so it must not be a tautology. Could it be that people have their history wrong? Could it be that the historical record can be interpreted as showing that the modern women's movement and feminism has very much been proactive?
What I notice about that take is that is does not respect women as rational, intelligent human beings who are capable of initiating good and evil. It seems to say that when women organized and carried out a social and political movement of their own that it was simply a knee jerk reaction to men.
I happen to believe that women are not Pavlovian dogs responding to men. I happen to believe that women are rational, intelligent human beings who are capable of making original contributions to the world. And I happen to believe that women are capable of initiating good and evil independent of the thoughts and actions of men.
We are all taught, it seems, that the modern women's movement has been either an unrighteous knee jerk reaction to men or a righteous fight for justice. Is it not possible that some of it has been neither? Is it not possible that some of it has been savvy, opportunistic women seizing power? In other words, rather than all of them naively, ignorantly, foolishly "responding to men's sin", from the very beginning some of them have connived and exploited men's sin and men's guilt. I have not read the book, but judging from what I know about Esther Vilar's The Manipulated Man, at least one woman does not buy into the dichotomy of women having good intentions but unrighteous means or women being the righteous defenders of justice.
Is it not possible that women have known what they are doing and that it hasn't always been with good or honest intentions?
The answer seems obvious to me. If women aren't rational moral agents who are capable of originating and initiating good and evil, then they can't be held responsible for their actions one way or the other and the whole controversy over the modern women's movement and feminism is a big tautology.
Yet, people get extremely wound up and passionate about the controversy, so it must not be a tautology. Could it be that people have their history wrong? Could it be that the historical record can be interpreted as showing that the modern women's movement and feminism has very much been proactive?