Hey Guys
Here is my Essay On Feminism and Families. I meant to edit it a little more befor I posted it, but I will never post it if I wait until I do that!
WOMAN WHO THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER
“What are you doing when you finish school?”
“I don't really know. I would like to stay home and have a family.”
“Really? Don't you have any dreams and ambitions?!”
Without even realising it, my friend had bought into a feminist mindset: that woman without careers are purposeless . Feminist ideas have become so mainstream that most people, like my friend, don't question their validity. They are not wise to let such a powerful influence go unchallenged. Feminism has a lot to say, especially about marriage and motherhood, and it is time we checked it's theories against the facts.
Modern Feminism2 is a social movement based on the premise that females are oppressed by males (The Patriarchy) and which seeks to liberate women from this oppression. Thus movement is also known “Woman's Liberation”. Feminists believe that men and woman should be equal, but men and woman are not treated as equal at the present time because men are are physically stronger, and are the authority figures in control of government, religion, academia and the family. Thus men have power over women. Because of this power, feminists say, all women are controlled either directly by men in the form of husbands or fathers or indirectly by male-dominated systems. Feminists think that the method the patriarchy uses to carry out this control is by forcing woman into restrictive, stereotypical gender roles. In order to emancipate woman from what they see as men's control, feminists have made it their task to destroy these gender roles and make men and woman not only equal, but functionally identical.
So what is the link between feminism and family? Family is an institution which depends on the same gender-specific roles and relationships which feminists believe are responsible for all of women's problems. So it makes perfect sense that feminists would see the destruction of families as necessary to their agenda3. In order to achieve this, feminists have re-defined our culture's perspectives on men, women and the relationships between them according to their own dubious perceptions. Specifically, feminists have targeted the roles of wife-hood and motherhood, both of which are indispensable to the traditional family.
The feminist book Sisterhood is Powerful declares: “We can't destroy the inequity between men and woman until we destroy marriage” 4 From a feminist perspective, marriage particularly is the embodiment of all the gender inequalities that oppress woman. Feminists actually believe that primordial men invented the concept of matrimony so that they could subjugate woman into miserable lives of sex-slavery and mindless household labour! Furthermore, they claim, the same chattel/master relationship still exists between spouses today. But what if a woman protests that she is valued and happy in her marriage? Answer: the feminist view will invalidate her argument by concluding that she has been culturally brainwashed to merely think she is happy. To the feminist mind, a sane woman could not possibly enjoy being married. Given the fact that so many woman do yet prefer a husband to autonomy, this view of marriage defies common sense.
The charge that wives are unhappy and abused does not stand up to scrutiny. Australian research has shown that married woman have a greater sense of well-being than unmarried, divorced or single woman5, and likewise, married woman have a much lower suicide rate than their divorced, widowed and single counterparts6. Married mothers are also less likely to become depressed than single or cohabiting mothers7. Most violent crime against woman happens to single and divorced woman; they are four to five times more likely to be the victims of violent crime, and ten times more likely to be raped than wives8. Research also suggests that dating and co-habiting woman are more likely to suffer domestic violence that married woman9. All these statistics collude to suggest that married woman are in general happier and more safe than their unmarried counterparts.
Another reason to adopt a positive view of marriage is that -despite feminism's best efforts- no better alternative has yet been proposed. Cohabitation is to marriage as margarine is to butter; it's a second-rate replacement for the real thing. The National Marriage Coalition states that “worldwide evidence demonstrates that existing cohabitations with children tend to break up at four- to five-fold the rate of marriages.”10 and that “Couples who live together...on average, report relationships of lower quality than do married couples — with cohabitors reporting more conflict, more violence and lower levels of satisfaction and commitment.”11 Multiple, no-strings-attached relationships are a very poor exchange for marriage, since there can be no real love and security without commitment between partners. Marriage is the toughest knot that there is to tie a relationship together, and our society would suffer greatly from the loss of it.
When Feminist ideas surrounding marriage are looked at critically, it is easy to discover that these ideas about a chattel/master relationship in marriage are not true, and the actions resulting from them have neither helped woman nor made them happier. Is marriage the only area where feminism's theories are questionable, or are their other propositions just as shaky? The family is another important social institution where feminism's claims should be investigated.
Feminists detest family because they again see a traditional role of woman, that of motherhood, as oppressive. Feminist Linda Gordon wrote that “...No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children.”12. She means that a woman's career and personal goals should take priority over her children. A mother's commitment to care for her children and to do unpaid housework appears to feminists as mind-dulling oppression13 since they believe that only in the workforce can a woman reach her full potential and be useful to society. Her children are an inconvenient distraction from a woman's career, and the expectation that she will care for them is a tool of the patriarchy to keep her enslaved at home. Feminism has demeaned woman who are stay-at-home mothers, stereotyping them either as doormats without self-identity,14 or as parasites who are too lazy to survive independently of their exploiters.15 As well as being obviously false – what proportion of those home-makers whom you know are unhappy, unfulfilled and useless women? - these views devalue motherhood and undermine the women who choose that option.
Logically, a woman who does not “deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children” is a terribly selfish mother. Such a woman would be justified in walking out on her children just because she had the opportunity. In fact, she would be justified in doing whatever she liked, regardless of the effect it had on her children. So far most mothers are too responsible to follow through on this principle, however there are areas where it is becoming more common for them to do so. Abortion-on-demand is a good example of this: woman killing their unborn babies because they will not take responsibility for the lives they and their partners have brought into being. The idea that a woman has no duty to care for her children, when followed to it's logical endpoint, has tragic outcomes for children and society. Part of the reason feminists advocate such a foolish concept is because it is the unavoidable outcome of another of their claims: that having a career is more important for a woman than having a family.
Is it true that the only successful woman is a woman with a career? The criterion of success are not the same for everybody. Feminists have a definition of success judged on a woman's independent career, status, power and wealth. With that criteria, it is little wonder that feminists see home-makers as failures! But why should home-makers share feminism's standard for success? To a home-maker, success could be running a happy home to share with a loving husband and secure, well-brought-up children. From the home-maker's perspective, a woman is an integral part of her family, and so what is successful for the woman is also good for her family. Conversely, the feminist view polarizes what is best for a woman against what is preferable for her family16. This begs the question “can a woman truly be successful if that success comes at the expense of those who are dependant on her?”
One other aspect on a feminist view of families should be mentioned. Feminists believe that the parents' relationship reinforces cultural gender roles in a child's psyche, thus continuing a cycle of inequality between women and men. It should be noted that this is only a problem where one assumes that gender roles are a problem. Different gender roles do not necessarily mean one sex is worth more than the other; only that each of the genders is, in general, better physically, mentally and emotionally equipped to do particular tasks17 and that this has been recognised culturally and historically by assigning to men and woman the jobs each do best.
Feminism is an extremely powerful and popular social movement that is premised on many false ideas. These false ideas have led to mistaken and often harmful results. Just as astronomy could not advance until the theory that sun travelled around the earth was discarded, a true understanding of what benefits a woman and her family cannot advance until feminism's many foolish theories about woman, men, and gender roles are dismissed. We need to stop and think about our feminist preconceptions, and disregard any that do not measure up to reality.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Tuesday, 1 December 2009
Darkness at Noon -A reveiw of the book by Arthur Koestler
What does a political prisoner contemplate before his execution? In Arthur Koestler’s Darkness at Noon, Rubashov is an incarcerated party member who tries to reason why his communist country is not the Utopia he envisioned and fought for. The book begins with his arrest, and moves through several hearings where he confesses to fabricated charges, before culminating with his pre-determined trial and execution. The plot is simple and bleak but serves to provide a context for Koestler to discuss his ideas. I could see into the mind of the author through the mind of Rubishov. I listened in on his mental monologues, and was drawn into his interrogations, asking myself the questions which he tries to answer.
Rubishov has lived according to the Party policy that the ends justify the means. He presumes that in the future people will look back and realise that the Party’s brutal methods were necessary and good in light of their final utopian outcome. History will absolve all. But Rubishov remembers people he has betrayed because of Party orders, and his conscience is uneasy. Observing the wretched condition of his country, he begins to wonder whether the present really is only an unpleasant step towards a wonderful future, and not the result of an error in the Party’s political theory.
With the benefit of hindsight, we know that in nearly a century since the Russian Revolution, history has still not absolved the crimes of communist leaders. Their means did not bring them to the ends they looked for; Communism fell, leaving Russia is a corrupt country, where a few rich Oligarchs live in luxury while the majority of people are poorer than Petrograd is cold. There is no utopia to prove the communists were right, so we must conclude that they were wrong.
So what was the error in communist thinking that led to the problems in Rubishov’s country? Rubishov believes he has found the answer when he discovers an entity within himself, described as the person to whom his mental monologues are addressed. He christens the entity ‘The Grammatical Fiction’ by which he means ‘I’. It is his Self. The grammatical fiction begins where his logical thinking ends. It narrates his daydreams, and triggers his memory at a particular scent or sight. Unlike Rubishov’s intellectual consciousness, it has moral qualms and is afraid of death. It draws conclusions that fall apart under cold reason, but it will not either defend them with logical argument or give them up.
Rubishov theorizes that communism failed because it fundamentally denied the individual by defining each person mathematically as ‘The sum of one million divided by one million’. He argues that communist theory is excellent rationally, but it ignores the irrational part of a person’s consciousness. If it could include Self in its equation, perhaps even find a greater communal self, then communism would be the greatest political system in existence.
I think that Koestler was right, but only in part. The denial of individuality was merely a dreadful symptom of a greater problem. The root of that problem was that Communism was founded on the wrong precepts. Communist theory was like a man who has made a mistake in his accounting; he left out an entry in his debit column, and no matter how many times he checks his equations, his cashbook will not balance. Communist thinkers left out God and the truth He placed in the bible, choosing instead to base their calculations on the lies of Atheism and Humanism. They tried to reach Heaven without God, and failed. Even if they were to include ‘the Grammatical Fiction’ in their philosophy, it would still eventually go wrong, because until communist precepts are revaluated according to a scriptural perspective, they will continue to fail.
I enjoyed Darkness at Noon because it made me think, but I am not convinced by its core idea. Keostler is writing as a disillusioned intellectual who cannot provide answers. He cannot understand why things went wrong because he does not know God and therefore he has the wrong preconceptions of history and man. He still clings to the wreckage of his former socialism but, like Rubishov, is old and worn out.
Rubishov has lived according to the Party policy that the ends justify the means. He presumes that in the future people will look back and realise that the Party’s brutal methods were necessary and good in light of their final utopian outcome. History will absolve all. But Rubishov remembers people he has betrayed because of Party orders, and his conscience is uneasy. Observing the wretched condition of his country, he begins to wonder whether the present really is only an unpleasant step towards a wonderful future, and not the result of an error in the Party’s political theory.
With the benefit of hindsight, we know that in nearly a century since the Russian Revolution, history has still not absolved the crimes of communist leaders. Their means did not bring them to the ends they looked for; Communism fell, leaving Russia is a corrupt country, where a few rich Oligarchs live in luxury while the majority of people are poorer than Petrograd is cold. There is no utopia to prove the communists were right, so we must conclude that they were wrong.
So what was the error in communist thinking that led to the problems in Rubishov’s country? Rubishov believes he has found the answer when he discovers an entity within himself, described as the person to whom his mental monologues are addressed. He christens the entity ‘The Grammatical Fiction’ by which he means ‘I’. It is his Self. The grammatical fiction begins where his logical thinking ends. It narrates his daydreams, and triggers his memory at a particular scent or sight. Unlike Rubishov’s intellectual consciousness, it has moral qualms and is afraid of death. It draws conclusions that fall apart under cold reason, but it will not either defend them with logical argument or give them up.
Rubishov theorizes that communism failed because it fundamentally denied the individual by defining each person mathematically as ‘The sum of one million divided by one million’. He argues that communist theory is excellent rationally, but it ignores the irrational part of a person’s consciousness. If it could include Self in its equation, perhaps even find a greater communal self, then communism would be the greatest political system in existence.
I think that Koestler was right, but only in part. The denial of individuality was merely a dreadful symptom of a greater problem. The root of that problem was that Communism was founded on the wrong precepts. Communist theory was like a man who has made a mistake in his accounting; he left out an entry in his debit column, and no matter how many times he checks his equations, his cashbook will not balance. Communist thinkers left out God and the truth He placed in the bible, choosing instead to base their calculations on the lies of Atheism and Humanism. They tried to reach Heaven without God, and failed. Even if they were to include ‘the Grammatical Fiction’ in their philosophy, it would still eventually go wrong, because until communist precepts are revaluated according to a scriptural perspective, they will continue to fail.
I enjoyed Darkness at Noon because it made me think, but I am not convinced by its core idea. Keostler is writing as a disillusioned intellectual who cannot provide answers. He cannot understand why things went wrong because he does not know God and therefore he has the wrong preconceptions of history and man. He still clings to the wreckage of his former socialism but, like Rubishov, is old and worn out.
Monday, 9 November 2009
Living Bread
Only one thing tastes better than fresh homemade bread, and that is fresh homemade sourdough bread. Traditionally, a piece of dough from the last batch of bread would be mixed with fresh flour and water, and the microorganisms present in the old dough would make the new dough rise. Then a small piece of the raw dough, called a starter would be put aside for the next batch. When I was given a starter by a friend, I couldn’t wait to try making my own delicious strong flavoured loaves!
So what exactly is a starter? Starters are also called sponge, mother dough, preferment, and levain. They are stable, live cultures containing wild yeasts and lactobacillus bacteria, supported in a mixture of flour and water. The yeasts feed on the flour, and the lactobacilli feed on the metabolism products of the yeast. These microorganisms produce carbon dioxide, which causes the dough to rise by forming bubbles, and lactic acid, which is responsible for the sour taste. Starters can be maintained indefinitely, if they are used regularly.
Although they are not sterile, starters are safe to use because they are too acidic for most microorganisms to survive. The wild yeasts thrive however, because all their competition is killed off. Even ordinary baker’s yeast cannot cope with the acid!
Not all starters produce the same bread. There are many variations depending on the location, temperature, age, and particular species of yeasts and bacteria present in the mother dough. It is this diversity that makes a quality starter so invaluable.
San Francisco is famous for its sourdough because of a particular lactobacillus strain that inhabits the area, Lactobacillus Sanfranciscensis. These bacteria make distinctively tangy bread compared to other strains.
Two French bakers, the Boudin brothers, used this to their advantage. In 1849 they opened a bakery in San Francisco, and sold traditional French bread baked from a local starter. The bread was so successful that their business is still open today, and still uses the same original mother dough to start its loaves, 160 years later. It is not uncommon to hear of starters which have been around for generations; some connoisseurs believe that the best sourdough only comes from starters that are over 40 years old.
The first yeasted bread must have been sourdough. It first appears in ancient Egypt, around 1500 BC, and is thought (hypothetically) to have come about accidently when yeasts began to grow in bread dough which had been left out, waiting to be baked. Presumably an Egyptian housewife baked the bubbly dough despite its odd smell, and liked the results! Leavening bread this way would have been common practice by the time of Moses, since the Israelites were instructed not to leave their bread to rise before they fled Egypt. Sourdough remained the most popular method of leavening bread right through to the middle ages, when it began to be replaced by barm, which is the yeast-containing scum left on top of alcoholic beverages after the brewing process. Later, the barm was replaced by the cultured baker’s yeast we use today.
Through the ages, sourdough has been used in all sorts of ways and places. The French used it to create their original croissants and baguette, which were made from wholemeal and rye. It was used for the heavy bread which is chewed in Northern Europe, such as German pumpernickel bread. American Colonists carried sourdough with them along wagon trails, and gold miners slept with their starters to stop the sponge from freezing. In fact, the bread was so popular with miners that they earned the nickname of ‘Sourdoughs’!
My own bread, once it finished baking, was a profound success. My family tested it for me, and they all loved it. It smelled yeasty and fresh, with a tangy edge. I used a recipe with lots of linseed, pumpkin seeds, oats, rye and organic wholemeal flour so each piece was like a slice of seed-stuffed wholesomeness. I am definitely looking forward to getting the starter out of the ‘fridge again next week, and beginning a new batch!
So what exactly is a starter? Starters are also called sponge, mother dough, preferment, and levain. They are stable, live cultures containing wild yeasts and lactobacillus bacteria, supported in a mixture of flour and water. The yeasts feed on the flour, and the lactobacilli feed on the metabolism products of the yeast. These microorganisms produce carbon dioxide, which causes the dough to rise by forming bubbles, and lactic acid, which is responsible for the sour taste. Starters can be maintained indefinitely, if they are used regularly.
Although they are not sterile, starters are safe to use because they are too acidic for most microorganisms to survive. The wild yeasts thrive however, because all their competition is killed off. Even ordinary baker’s yeast cannot cope with the acid!
Not all starters produce the same bread. There are many variations depending on the location, temperature, age, and particular species of yeasts and bacteria present in the mother dough. It is this diversity that makes a quality starter so invaluable.
San Francisco is famous for its sourdough because of a particular lactobacillus strain that inhabits the area, Lactobacillus Sanfranciscensis. These bacteria make distinctively tangy bread compared to other strains.
Two French bakers, the Boudin brothers, used this to their advantage. In 1849 they opened a bakery in San Francisco, and sold traditional French bread baked from a local starter. The bread was so successful that their business is still open today, and still uses the same original mother dough to start its loaves, 160 years later. It is not uncommon to hear of starters which have been around for generations; some connoisseurs believe that the best sourdough only comes from starters that are over 40 years old.
The first yeasted bread must have been sourdough. It first appears in ancient Egypt, around 1500 BC, and is thought (hypothetically) to have come about accidently when yeasts began to grow in bread dough which had been left out, waiting to be baked. Presumably an Egyptian housewife baked the bubbly dough despite its odd smell, and liked the results! Leavening bread this way would have been common practice by the time of Moses, since the Israelites were instructed not to leave their bread to rise before they fled Egypt. Sourdough remained the most popular method of leavening bread right through to the middle ages, when it began to be replaced by barm, which is the yeast-containing scum left on top of alcoholic beverages after the brewing process. Later, the barm was replaced by the cultured baker’s yeast we use today.
Through the ages, sourdough has been used in all sorts of ways and places. The French used it to create their original croissants and baguette, which were made from wholemeal and rye. It was used for the heavy bread which is chewed in Northern Europe, such as German pumpernickel bread. American Colonists carried sourdough with them along wagon trails, and gold miners slept with their starters to stop the sponge from freezing. In fact, the bread was so popular with miners that they earned the nickname of ‘Sourdoughs’!
My own bread, once it finished baking, was a profound success. My family tested it for me, and they all loved it. It smelled yeasty and fresh, with a tangy edge. I used a recipe with lots of linseed, pumpkin seeds, oats, rye and organic wholemeal flour so each piece was like a slice of seed-stuffed wholesomeness. I am definitely looking forward to getting the starter out of the ‘fridge again next week, and beginning a new batch!
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Modesty & Self Expression
Some people say that nobody should tell a girl how to dress, and her self-expression should not be stifled for any reason whatsoever. At the opposite extreme are the proponents of the burqa, which entirely blanks out individuality in favour of modesty. Where on this scale does a Christian girl belong? Is modesty or self-expression more important for her?
For the purposes of this essay, I will define modestly strictly as ‘The deliberate avoidance of any sexual connotations in one’s own manner, bearing or dress’. Self expression is, according one dictionary, ‘the means by which one’s personal characteristics are displayed; showing ones internal beliefs or character by means of external actions/changes”.
Our culture strongly encourages self expression, and almost elevates it to being a virtue. Christians should remember that the scripture does not take this exulted view! The bible affirms again and again that our lives are not about communicating about ourselves but about obeying God, in such passages as Romans 6:22 “…You have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God…” and 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 “…You are not your own; you were bought at a price…” The principle is that before we express ourselves, we should express Jesus Christ.
We can express Christ in two ways, by imitating him, and by obeying his commands in the bible. Applied to fashion, the imitation of Christ does not mean we should all dress like first century Jews! Rather, we should make our decisions about dress using the same basis that Jesus used. He did not try to get glory for himself, but used his life to give honour to God. When they are modest, girls bring credit to God and their families in the same way that a unit of disciplined soldiers in neatly pressed uniforms bring credit to their officers. Conversely, women who wear suggestive clothing are like army troopers lounging sloppily in mismatched gear, bringing derision on themselves and on their commander.
The other way of expressing Christ is to obey his commandments. His word is clear on how women should dress; “I also want woman to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God”(1 Tim 2:9). Many people argue that these standards are outdated, and only applied in the Mediterranean cultures of Paul’s day, but that is not true. While the exact rules of modesty may change between times and cultures, e.g. braided hair or a bunny symbol signifying a licentious woman, the principal of not dressing provocatively still applies to every culture.
One might say that these standards are overly harsh and that it is unfair that the girl must submit entirely to God’s rules without any compromise on his part. But if God does not allow compromise on the issues of stealing or gossip, why should he compromise on the issue of modesty? We do not have the right to demand a 50/50 settlement with him. What would a human judge say if you offered to obey some parts of the law if he agreed to let you off others?
Having said all this, if a girl truly is a Christian, there should be no conflict between her self expression and modesty. A person’s faith is one of the most important things they can express, and so dressing modestly will be part of a Christian girl's self expression. My former comment about burqas covering up all individuality was not quite true. The burqa does express one very important thing about the woman wearing it: She is a Muslim. Making a point of dressing modestly also says something about the girl who chooses to do so: that she is wholeheartedly committed to honouring Christ.
Unlike Muslim veiling, Christian modesty is not a major limit on a young woman's self expression. Any girl can express herself via her apparel without leaving the bounds of decency. For example, Maree* is a practical, easygoing girl who loves to have fun and do things a little bit differently; she wears lime green mesh singlets over t-shirts, hot pink plastic heels, and wacky dollar-store accessories. Gina* is as different from Maree as jasmine is from gerberas. Her elegantly coordinated outfits and classy boots convey that she is a motivated young lady who is preparing to take on the world. Both girls are very modest, and still have their own distinctive style which communicates their personalities.
To sum up, modesty is more important than self expression for a Christian girl because her life is about obeying and honouring God. His commands must take precedence over her desires, and so his command to dress modestly takes precedence over her taste in clothes. However, there are many ways to communicate oneself within the bounds of modesty, and God loves to see his daughters using them. So I say: Girls, express yourselves. But, first and foremost, express Christ.
*Not real names
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
