Get PJ Media on your Apple

PJM Lifestyle

How Women Can Transcend the Equality Barrier

What is Biblical Feminism? The introduction to a new ongoing series...

Susan L.M. Goldberg


September 1, 2013 - 9:00 am
Page 1 of 2  Next ->   View as Single Page


Biblical Feminism is not about being equal to a man.

I am not a man, therefore, why would I wish to be equal to one? Today’s feminists spend most of their time promoting the idea that men are ignorant, sexist, racist, homophobic meatheads whose solitary goal in life is to get laid. Yet their entire purpose depends on the claim that we’re equal to that bunch. That’s like saying you hate the popular kids in school while secretly wishing they had invited you to their lame beer parties.

When it comes to high school, you didn’t hate the popular kids as much as you hated being forced into a culture that tried to define you on the basis of their purview. The same goes for feminism: It is an ideology that forces women into ancient pagan notions of gender. To the feminist, women are defined by and confined within their bodies. Moreover, women are sexual beings whose number one concern is their fertility.

Of course, no feminist words it this way. Instead, they parade around claiming that all women would choose to have a man’s life if they had a choice. “If only I weren’t stuck with this uterus, I could be as sexually free as Don Draper,” the line goes. “If only I didn’t have these children suckling at my breast, I could be at the top of the corporate ladder.”

Feminism argues for biological liberation under the guise of social reform. It is an ideology that looks at the world and says, “Ermahgerd, I’m so totally like you, it’s just myself that’s getting in the way! Please invite me to your party!”

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (8)
All Comments   (8)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
“according to traditional Judaism, women are endowed with a greater degree of ‘binah’ (intuition, understanding, intelligence) than men.”

When are women going to start using that? When will we see results?

After reading this, I am left feeling like all I read was "teh wimminz are equal because God." Not very in depth or convincing.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
I think you may be misreading the historical necessities of survival between the decentralized pastoral Hebrew tribes and their centralized war-like neighbors.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
As usual I feel deeply appreciative of Ms Goldberg's "Biblical feminiism", though she seems to mean not "biblical", rather (using "Bible" within a Christian framework) "Old Testament" (which I doubt she would want to accept). That is all irrelevant as the relfections stay with me and provide me with stimulation for (re)considerations. One consideration I would like to take up and I hope I receive some replies. "EQUALITY" seems to be a key, if not THE key, to feminism (secular or Biblical). I am all for equality, but have my reservations as to its place in a hierarchy of normative concepts. Let me give you a suprising example of "equality" that led to the production of some top-level leaders in post-WW II Germany, that is leadership based on the equality grounding the selection of participants in the special Hitler Schools for (male) yourth. "What is this prof. saying?", you may be thinking. My reflections here come from a 2 hour German documentary in German tv (I live in Germany) on such schools and some interviews with some (now elderly) leaders, e.g., chief editor of one the most important slightly left-wing German weekly newspaper (literally many times more embracing than the NYT in its best days). All the leading socially upward moving men interviewed were some of the last graduates around 1945 (most earlier graduates were long dead on the Eastern Front). Well, what was the princple of equality and the principle for making it in the Hitler Schools for youth?

The principle of selection was equality" Germany of the 19th into the 20th Century was highly stratified, class differences, privileges such that most of the young male population were counted out before the educational system began. The Nazis established full equality as a principle for selection and inclusion into such schools. The NationalSOCIALIST emphasis in the 1930s upon the masses was, insofar as positive in effect, experienced as a factor leading to greater chances because class bearers had been broken down to enable EQUALITY of opportunity. Whereas "equality" was the selective principle of opportunity, "performance" was the deciding principle for advancement. Let me explain:

As one former graduate said, the motto was: "There is no shame if you fall down, only if you just lie there and do not get up". Young men were driven to stand up and reach for the stars, which meant obtaining authority positions within the societal hierarchy of Grmany (sounds like women being the CEO bosses of a big company). So that no misunderstanding arises, the Nazis hitched the system of equality of entry and performance of advancement to their racist ideology >>> which made many of the military leaders quite effectively brutal. Why am I mentioning this use of "equality" which certainly runs counterapparent to secularist feminist ideals?

I have brought up the nazi educational system in order to illustrate that "equality" (and "performance" too) cannot be the primary ideal, viz., normative principle. Both princples of equality and performance can be integrated into a gerater value system which, in the case of Nazism, was evil; and not because it was applied only to men who were taught to be "manly". The principles could have been extended to integrating females. The use of equality and performance was evil I will illustrate a bit more the limits of equality with an example from today's evolving politics in Germany.

Today the "Grüne" (Green) Party is seeking to realize a "gender" policy, i.e., a DE-genderization of civil society using sexuality as the tool. Thus, multiple-parent-adoption, homosexual marriage, quotes of EQUAL number of hired men and women. This policy has provoked reaction. Hoewver, the real goal is not "equality" of the two different sexues, but to end the importance of sexual difference per se. Future men and women are to become "gender neuter". I believe that beginning in Nov. there will be three sexes that parents can select here for their children at birth, namely: male, femal, intersex. The idea is that the "individual", brought up genderless, will choose a sex preference (which only means what the person wants to see him or herself as, not biologically determined) at adulthood. If this tendency continues and becomes politically enforced upon social reality, the equality of sexes could well become in Germany the equality of ONE sex, relative to which biological differences make no difference until the neutered "individual" decides one way or another for personal reasons.

So, I return to the principle of "equality". What level in a hierarchy of normative values should "equality" assume. Or is it the highest value?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I think the issue here isn't a hierarchy of normative values, but the idea that you're trying to equate the Biblical definition of equality with the definitions/practices of Nazis in the 40s and Germany's Green Party today. Differing definitions lead to differing practices that cannot and should not be approached on the same level in any situation because they are not comparable.

The same goes for attempting to establish a "hierarchy of normative values". Despite what Buzzfeed might want you to think, not everything can be valued in list format. What is the value we place on equality? That can best be answered, in Biblical terms, by the question: What is the value we place on God?
52 weeks ago
52 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Despite what Buzzfeed might want you to think, not everything can be valued in list format." :)
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
Equality here originally was a rejection of the class structure of England, and was and is a good concept.

The problem is that the left has now perverted this into being about results rather than opportunity while making appeals to selfishness and fostering resentment rather than allowing reality to be dealt with honestly and with fairness.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I think Rousseau was specifically responsible for that redefinition, seeing how that was what occurred during the French Revolution.
51 weeks ago
51 weeks ago Link To Comment
The problem comes in defining equality as "the same as" rather than equal in the eyes of God or equally deserving of human dignity.

To say that the law or society may not make distinctions based on sex is foolishness to the extreme.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All