Over at the CBE blog they're still discussing "truth" and it's looking more and more like they've been taking their cues from John Searle rather than the good Doctor Tom . This morning finds one of their number pondering:
Maybe someone can answer this for me…. why are egals always referred to as “feminists” by hierarchicalists? I am an egal, I do not consider myself a feminist. Having worked for many years in social services, it was always a bone of contention with my fellow workers. They would say, how can you be doing what you are doing if you are not a feminist. (obviously, they paint with the same broad brush). My answer was and is always, I am an equalist – I believe all should be treated as equals deserving dignity and respect.
And she links to a site including this:
Spiritual Abuse: Includes misuse of Scripture and Biblical teachings to justify abuse; tells her that women are less than or not as important as men, or that God does not care or that she is not a good Christian; says she is abused because she is not submissive enough (based on his definition of submission, not God's), or that the Bible justifies abusive treatment; interferes with her ability to worship God and/or her relationship with the Lord. With children, it is also using Scripture or Biblical teachings to degrade, punish or justify cruel or excessive discipline.
Which makes it clear to even a blind beggar that only men can commit abuse, at least in certain forms.
And she wonders why an "equalist" would be (more properly) called a feminist? I am tempted to appropriate here Fr. Bill's appropriation of a famous Wolfism:
Flummery!
2 comments:
I know that they view "feminist" as a term of derogation when applied to them, though I'm not certain why. Is it because there are those who claim the name "feminist" who advocate what they do not?
If so, then why do they insist on choosing terms for folks like me which have (from their perspective) derogatory implication? One of the clearest evidences that egals are feminists is their deployment of "patriarchy" as a term of derogation, just as all good feminists do!
Fr. Bill,
No fair reading ahead!
It's odd, isn't it -- that they embrace nearly the entire agenda of feminism in its mot prolific forms, but won't embrace the label.
At least we do them the courtesy of qualifying what type of feminism it is they are espousing. They, on the other hand, in calling us "patrios" are very openly and deliberately lumping us in with kinists and "daddy's little odalisk" types of patriarchs.
I saw an interview with Tony Esolen last night in which he made the point that they're not really Egalitarians, they're Indifferentists.
Kamilla
Post a Comment