This is Part 1 in a series on gender roles and feminism. For more see Part 2 Social Constructs, Part 3 Christian Hedonism, Part 4 Christian Gender Roles, and Part 5 Proof of the Existence of God(s).
A good way to carefully address disagreements is to be precise about three things: system, goal, and method. A system is the context in which you are working- the facts that you are assuming to be the case for the sake of addressing a specific goal. I hope that goal and method are self-explanatory . It is generally better to first start with goal and system, and then figure out the best method for attaining said goal given the system.
I am going to compare two ideologies- Feminist Egalitarianism and Christian Complementarianism- and I am going to argue that, contrary to popular belief, they largely agree on method and only disagree on goals. I believe this is important because realizing this will help us avoid wasteful arguments about method.
Many Feminist Egalitarians criticize the Complementarian ideal of giving women rights and privileges through the methods of Patriarchy and Chivalry, however, I will argue that the methods advocated by Feminist Egalitarianism are nothing but disguised Patriarchy and Chivalry. Then we can move on to the real issue, which is the disagreement about which goals we should be pursuing with the already agreed upon methods of Patriarchy and Chivalry.
I am going to start by outlining a system that most people can agree on in which to address these issues of Feminist Egalitarianism and Complementarianism. The system includes the fact that there exists a power disparity between men and women. The simplest way to frame this issue is to divide power into two types: Raw Power and Economic Power. By Raw Power I mean that men are somehow physically stronger, better fighters, better armed, or anything else that gives them the brute power to murder, beat, or rape women. By Economic Power I mean the power men have that comes from controlling industries and social structures minus their Raw Power. This is an important point because some people will argue that Economic Power is fully reducible to Raw Power, and that economic and social power structures would not hold any sway if it wasn’t for them being backed up by the threat of violence or Raw Power. The rest of this essay’s argument should still work regardless of your views on the question of to what extent Economic Power is reducible to Raw Power, as long as the conceptual difference between the two is clear.
I don’t think the goal or the system I’ve outlined should be too controversial for either Complementarians or Feminists to accept. Let’s start by analyzing the Raw Power disparity. The rate of male on female rape, assault, and murder is, and always has been, much higher than the reverse. The extent to which men commit violent crimes against women is the most obvious problem that most people think of when it comes to the Raw Power disparity. Men generally have power over women at the most primitive level of conflict; if men and women fought to the death for control, men would win. Of course, Raw Power disparity is only a problem if the people with the power have the intent to use it for malicious purposes. For example, consider a small child whose parents sacrifice their immediate best interests for the child. Clearly, the parents have the Raw Power in that they could easily overpower and kill their child if they wanted to and their child wouldn’t stand a chance of defending itself against two adults. However, most parents choose to sacrifice for their children instead of abuse them, so we must also consider intent.
A similar analysis applies to the issue of the Economic Power disparity between men and women; whether or not the disparity hinders women from accomplishing their goals depends on the intent of the men with the Economic Power. Once again we can use the example of a small child whose parents clearly hold the Economic Power and yet use their Economic Power primarily to help their child succeed.
Both the Complementarians and the Feminists share the general goal of seeking to create certain rights and privileges for women in the context of the system outlined earlier. Although they differ in their goals of which specific rights and privileges to create for women, I will show that their method of pursuing these goals is essentially the same. In order to see this we first understand that there are three possible methods of dealing with a system where men hold the upper hand in Raw Power and Economic Power.
Method #1 Equalize the power dynamic: This could mean equalizing the Raw Power dynamic by somehow making men physically weaker ( preventing them from training to fight, giving them growth stunting drugs, disarming them, and so forth) and/or by making women physically stronger (making them weightlifters, training them to fight, giving them more weapons, and so forth). Most Feminists argue that this is not their goal, and that to say that Feminism is about turning women into aggressive bodybuilders is nothing but a ridiculous strawman of their position.
Another way of taking this approach would be equalizing the Economic Power dynamic by having an equal number of women as men in positions of economic, social, and political power. This position requires believing that Economic Power is largely not reducible to Raw Power: otherwise getting Economic Power for women wouldn’t change the real power structure. This position would also require making stay-at-home mothers the enemy, as they would be preventing women from equalizing the Economic Power dynamic. Once again most Feminists are clear that all they want is for women to have the option of becoming CEOs or Senators or doctors but that there is nothing wrong with women choosing to stay at home with their children. So we have shown that the method of equalizing the Raw or Economic Power dynamic between men and women is not going to fit with the stated goals of most Feminists.
Method #2 Chivalry: Neutralize the Power Dynamic. Teach men not to rape, murder, or attack women in order to neutralize the Raw Power disparity and/or teach men to use their economic power to help women so as to neutralize the Economic Power disparity. I will call this method Chivalry because it fits with the general idea of teaching men not to act on their power for their own gain but to use it to help others.
Method #3 Patriarchy: Use some men to protect women from the other men. This might require a change in intent but it deserves a separate category because it doesn’t necessarily require that men have good intentions overall, only that some men have good intentions and use their power to protect women from the men with bad intentions.
The approach of the vast majority of human societies throughout history has been to employ some combination of Chivalry and Patriarchy; men were generally taught to protect a certain group of women such as those in their family, tribe, race, social class, or religion and they were taught to change their intent towards those women so as to repress any violent inclinations towards them. The general Christian Complementarian method is one of using Chivalry and Patriarchy by teaching men not to lust after, rape, seduce, insult, or hurt women and by teaching men to protect, love and serve women and to honor and sanctify the idea of women as nurturing mothers. Feminists often complain that this is oppressive because it isn’t about “real rights” and is nothing more than the oppression of Chivalry and Patriarchy , because men still hold the Raw and Economic Power. Through this they presumably insult women by acting like women need to be protected and cared for. But what exactly are Feminists doing differently? Don’t Feminists advocate teaching men not to rape, insult, or hurt women? Don’t Feminists advocate teaching men not to talk over, pass over, ignore, or degrade women in the workplace? So they are using Chivalry just as the Complementarians are. Don’t they also advocate passing strict anti-rape laws, anti-domestic abuse laws, anti-discrimination laws, anti-“deadbeat dad” laws, etc.? And who enforces these laws? Why men with Raw Power and Economic Power of course. Who gives the state its authority and its Raw Power and Economic Power to enforce Feminist legislation (or any other legislation) on the people? Men in the military, men in the police force, men in the arms industry, men in all weapons technologies industries- essentially all armed and/or physically strong men who will use violence to protect the women that the Feminist legislators want protected and of course the men who hold the Economic Power that is used to support the state.
So the feminist movement must use Patriarchy and Chivalry as much, if not more, than the Complementarians. That being said, it is important to acknowledge that there are feminists who make roughly the same point that I’m making, and who argue that, if there is ever going to be “true equality”, feminists must equalize the Raw Power or Economic Power dynamics. Some of these voices, although not all, also argue that in order to truly free themselves from the patriarchy feminists must all become lesbians. However, if you told the average feminist today that feminism was all about turning women into aggressive lesbian bodybuilders they would rightly criticize you for strawmanning feminism; most feminists today want to allow women to be feminine, but want them to be treated as equals and not be harassed, abused, and discriminated against. They might not realize it, but as long as they aren’t trying to overturn the Raw Power or Economic Power dynamic, their method is the same as the method used by Complementarians.
Some feminists might object that their method is different because they are fighting for “true equality” and “real rights”, whereas Complementarian women just want to be “pampered princesses”. But this is missing the point because that would be an argument about which rights or privileges women should be seeking and that is an argument over goals not over method. The method is the same. The real disagreement that must be addressed is about which rights and privileges women should have, given the agreed upon methods of Patriarchy and Chivalry.
To be clear, there are two other options Feminists can take in order to avoid this conclusion.
One: They could deny that there is a difference in Raw Power or Economic Power between men and women. Of course, this flies in the face of all empirical data and leaves them in the awkward position of trying to explain what exactly the problem is if they believe that there is already true equality between the sexes at the most basic level of power.
Two: They could endorse the equalization of Raw Power and/or Economic Power as the goal of their movement. This would vindicate the common criticism of feminism that it is really just movement to make all women into men and to demonize stay-at-home mothers. An open admission of this by feminists would drastically lower their support among most people.
For more see Part 2 Social Constructs, Part 3 Christian Hedonism, Part 4 Christian Gender Roles, and Part 5 Proof of the Existence of God(s).
 Goal, system, method. First figure out your goal, then figure out what system you are working in, and then figure out which method will be most effective given your goal and your system. A great deal of time and energy can be wasted on a pointless argument about method when the participants’ true disagreement was about what the goals should be or about what system we are operating in. The most practical way to proceed is normally to start with either goals or system and then to work on a method.
 In case they aren’t: Your goal is simply what you are trying to achieve. Your method is the means which you are using in the context of your system in order to achieve your goal.
 If you want to start with a method then the correct way to think about it would be to make your method your goal. For example, if the most important value to me is using methodological naturalism then I would make the use of methodological naturalism my goal, then decide which system I’m in, and then decide which method would best allow me to achieve my goal of using methodological naturalism. In this case a good method of attaining my goal might be to become a scientist or simply to become an atheist (although a theist can use methodological naturalism as well).
 There are going to be some feminists, as well as some Men’s Rights Activists, who are going to disagree with the system I’m outlining. I don’t have space here to address their dissent, but since they are such a minority and their position is so empirically and philosophically weak I am going to ignore it here and move forward.
 I don’t want to use the term “hard power” because it is generally associated with states and not with individuals. By “raw power” I mean the most primitive basic brute level of power at the level of person to person violence.
 “Male oﬀender/female victim 21.0” & “Female oﬀender/male victim 9.0”.
“Overall, an estimated 91% of the victims of rape and sexual assault were female. Nearly 99% of the offenders they described in single-victim incidents were male.”
 Although this word once had a precise historical meaning and referred to certain European warrior codes, today the word is thrown around quite loosely and its exact meaning is no longer clear in our society. I think the general idea both historically and in modern times is captured by talking about changing the intent of men so that they will help and not harm women.
 As with Chivalry, Patriarchy is a word with many different meanings in the modern context. This lack of a clear agreed upon meaning is also why I am seeking to give it a more useful and precise definition. The general idea is that men hold the raw power in the society and decide which privileges or rights to give women.
 Men’s Rights Activist types might protest that I’m suggesting that men are all violent soulless rapists by nature. That is not the case. Intent is hard to measure. Men can have admirable innate tendencies towards compassion but they also have innate tendencies towards violence and sexual dominance. I’m not making any claim about the exact ratio here. The important point is that if they had no violent tendencies at all we wouldn’t have a problem with rape or murder so there is obviously some tendency there.
 Some may protest that I’m ignoring domestic abuse here. The point I’m making is that men in the tribe were not permitted to take advantage of the fact that they were generally physically stronger than the women in the tribe by beating, murdering, raping any women they saw walking around the village, just as adults are taught not to do this to children even though they are physically stronger.
 I think might be a good point because as long as women are trying to attract men they aren’t going to want to become aggressive bodybuilders and as long as they are attracted to men they aren’t going to want to promote men becoming weak and submissive.
Pingback: The Feminist Patriarchy | ajrogersphilosophy
Pingback: Plato’s Second Sex | ajrogersphilosophy
Very articulate and precise analysis. I appreciate your definitions of power as Raw and Economic. I think Cultural Production should also be included, because as it stands now, your analysis ignores the feelings of men and women and society’s valuing of men and women as well as the cloud of messages surrounding and encouraging the power dynamic.
Men also have more power to produce culture, which is to say the majority of people who write and direct movies and television, control marketing and advertising, hold political office, make legal judgments and write laws are men. That is the system, no? This system inevitably ends up prioritizing the needs of men and centering men as default human, while also encouraging and reinforcing the Raw Power divide and de-valuing femininity (in both men and women). While these things do not necessarily have a Raw Power or Economic Power effect, they result in low self-esteem in women, hatred and disregard of women, and bullying of men who show a “feminine” side. My goal as a feminist is to create and produce counter-cultural messages and to encourage others to do the same.
I don’t agree with your assessment that feminism supports chivalry and patriarchy as methods. The reason is that you have misinterpreted the goal of feminism: there’s a huge difference between protection and freedom. Patriarchy and chivalry seek to protect women, while feminism seeks to free women. Feminists often focus on forms of protection because freedom includes being free of physical oppression, but laws which force men’s hand or require chivalry and patriarchy are inferior to cultural material which alters men’s intent.
The problem with chivalry and patriarchy is the lack of respect. The Men’s Eagle Council writes: “Respect means seeing another person as an equal. It means recognizing that their internal experience is just as real and valid as one’s own. And perhaps most importantly, it means valuing their agency: their capacity and right to make their own choices.”
Chivalry and patriarchy value women for their biological and archetypal usefulness, i.e. giving birth, raising children, and providing comfort. Chivalry and patriarchy do not value women’s internal experiences or their “capacity and right to make their own choices.” Chivalry and patriarchy assume they know best and prioritize their own internal experience and decision making in order to preserve women, their possessions. This is not an acceptable method because the end result is not freedom, it is oppression for the sake of protection.
“Men also have more power to produce culture”
“My goal as a feminist is to create and produce counter-cultural messages and to encourage others to do the same.”
I tried to address some of your concerns about cultural power in Part 2 Social Constructs
“I appreciate your definitions of power as Raw and Economic. I think Cultural Production should also be included, because as it stands now, your analysis ignores the feelings of men and women and society’s valuing of men and women as well as the cloud of messages surrounding and encouraging the power dynamic.”
I think you have a good point here. Raw and Economic power certainly do not explain everything. However, they are easier to measure than something like cultural power. Threats of violence or loss of income stemming from Raw and Economic power are much clearer to most people than cultural and social threats are. The fact that men disproportionately hold Raw and Economic power is also clearer to most people. Some might argue that women have more social influence but nobody is going to argue that women have more Raw power or Economic power.
I also think that a large amount of cultural/social power is reducible to Economic and Raw power. You talk about men controlling movie, television, and music industries but this would also be Economic power wouldn’t it? If it wasn’t for the Economic power disparity anyone could make those movies, ads, songs etc. You also mention politics and law. That is also largely reducible to Economic and Raw power in my opinion. But you are right that a complete analysis should also say something about cultural or social power.
“Patriarchy and chivalry seek to protect women, while feminism seeks to free women. Feminists often focus on forms of protection because freedom includes being free of physical oppression, but laws which force men’s hand or require chivalry and patriarchy are inferior to cultural material which alters men’s intent.”
But what are you freeing women from? If it is their physical or economic oppression from men then you need to do one of three things: (1) equalize the Raw and Economic Power dynamic, (2) use men to protect women from other men, or (3) change the intent of men so that none of them seek to oppress women (Or you could use some combination of the three). What you call “cultural material which alter’s men’s intent” is what I would consider Chivalry. Chivalry is not well-defined these days, but since it generally has something to do with changing the intent of men so that they will help and not hurt women I thought it was appropriate to define it the way I did.
“Chivalry and patriarchy assume they know best and prioritize their own internal experience and decision making in order to preserve women, their possessions. This is not an acceptable method because the end result is not freedom, it is oppression for the sake of protection.”
This might be a way in which Chivalry is often defined but I was defining it as changing men’s intent but not their Raw or Economic power.
First off Andy, glad to see you writing on cultural issues.
I think your basic points about what Feminist Egalitarianism and Christian Complementarianism have in common are true. Both assume men have the advantage in Raw Power and Economic Power and the dispute is over what policies and attitudes men should take on on behalf of women. I would say Chivalry is absolutely central to feminism. Why do feminists constantly portray women as victims of male oppression? To elicit the protective male response to “rescue” the “damsel in distress.” This desire men have to protect the woman especially from “male brutes” is what Chivalry is all about. Feminists are constantly appealing to male Chivalry to get men to “grant them their rights.” The purpose of “women’s rights” is to protect women from the evil male oppressor, right? In other words the purpose of women’s rights is to protect women from men. The whole idea of men protecting women is based on the Chivalrous male ethic. Therefore feminism itself is based on Chivalry.
I’m totally in favor of Chivalry but I am opposed to feminism. The key aspect of feminism is that it is meant to put Chivalry under the control of women for women’s benefit. Feminism is about women being in control and the protection of women being based on women’s autonomy and right to assert themselves on their own behalf. The problem is that this is abusive to men and children and it discourages men from providing for women. The restrictions placed on women in a traditional society are there for a reason; so that women will honor their duties towards others.
I think I will quibble a little bit about your definitions of Chivalry and Patriarchy. I don’t see Chivalry and Patriarchy as being separate things; I see Chivalry as being a part of Patriarchy. Patriarchy is the overall social system and Chivalry is the male duty on behalf of women within the overall Patriarchal social system. As far as good men needing to protect women from bad men; that is completely consistent with Chivalry. The purpose of Chivalry is to protect women and protecting women from bad men is certainly part of protecting women. How I understand Chivalry Chivalry is necessarily a collective enterprise; something that men collectively impose upon each man as an individual. The Chivalrous man not only sees it as his duty to be Chivalrous as an individual; in addition his Chivalrous obligation is to impose Chivalry upon other men.
“Feminists are constantly appealing to male Chivalry to get men to “grant them their rights.” “Therefore feminism itself is based on Chivalry.”
Yes. This seems to often be true about feminism. I think I mostly agree with you here.
“Feminism is about women being in control and the protection of women being based on women’s autonomy and right to assert themselves on their own behalf.”
Some Feminists might say that this can’t truly be achieved unless Raw Power and Economic Power are equalized. However, in order for the other Feminists (who don’t think we need to equalize those power structures) to allow women to be in control, they must be depending on Chivalry (the good intentions of men) to just allow women to be in control or assert themselves. My point was that both people like yourself and these latter sort of Feminists are going to be seeking to get certain rights for women using Chivalry because you are both against equalizing the Raw and Economic Power structure.
“The purpose of Chivalry is to protect women and protecting women from bad men is certainly part of protecting women.”
This could also be true about the way Feminists would use Chivalry. It still seems to me that you’re both using the same methods of Patriarchy and Chivalry but merely seeking different rights for women. It is comparable to how the left-wing wants the government to define marriage as two people and the right-wing wants to define it as one man and one woman so they are both using the method of government coercion to seek different goals. And then there are libertarians who just reject the entire method of using government.
Andy, I think you are completely right that feminists are not opposed to every aspect of chivalry and patriarchy. Some of those aspects are inescapable, supportive, moral, glorious, and are exactly what should make men proud to be men. You have left out the parts of chivalry and patriarchy which are oppressive, by defining them only in terms of their positive traits. The very essence of the part of patriarchy and chivalry that feminists oppose was spelled out precisely in a comment above by Jesse Powell,
“Feminism is about women being in control and the protection of women being based on women’s autonomy and right to assert themselves on their own behalf. The problem is that this is abusive to men and children and it discourages men from providing for women. The restrictions placed on women in a traditional society are there for a reason; so that women will honor their duties towards others.”
Jesse and your lesbian friend were very eloquent and accurate. Women want respect, as your lesbian friend defined it. Jesse does not want them to have that respect, and makes the claim that allowing women to have equal autonomy is equivalent to abusing men and children. Jesse is implicitly claiming that his denial of women’s rights is for their own good, and also for the good of men and children and all of society. That is a very bold statement. That is the kind of chivalry that the feminist wants no part of.
I would say, as a feminist myself, that abusive relationships go hand in hand with a subversion of autonomy and a lack of respect. Dehumanization, if you will. When we place women on a lower pedestal, and claim that biological differences justify the use of economic/raw/cultural power to deny them control over their own choices, that is what I would call abusive. I do not have to use my raw/economic/cultural power to force a woman into submission in order to engage in a non-abusive relationship with her. Other men should also realize that they can do the same, and that this is also a form of Chivalry, a better form, a more honest and loving form which we can be more proud of. But still, it is Chivalry. Likewise, feminism would say that I should not be placed in a position where my autonomy is limited by the economic/raw/cultural power of other men/women, even if they think they know what is best for me, for women, for children, and for society. If I want to be a stay-at-home-Dad and my wife wants to work and support our family financially, it is our decision to make and no one else’s.
Using an unspoken (or explicit) social contract to keep women out of schools, businesses, and whatever other things we would keep from them – that is what feminists are opposed to. And your essay didn’t discuss that at all, instead attributing to them the desire have equal strength and economic power, which is not what they want. They want equality in opportunity, not in outcome. And they want the same thing for men. Feminism means increasing liberty for individuals and rejecting the use of raw/economic/cultural force as a means for limiting an individual’s autonomy based on societal judgements of what is acceptable for males and what is acceptable for females. People do not often willing give up power, so you are very accurate to point out that women can gain autonomy only when men with respect for women act with Chivalry in order to prevent less respectful men from using raw/economic/cultural power to limit the autonomy of women.
“Jesse does not want them to have that respect, and makes the claim that allowing women to have equal autonomy is equivalent to abusing men and children. Jesse is implicitly claiming that his denial of women’s rights is for their own good, and also for the good of men and children and all of society. That is a very bold statement. That is the kind of chivalry that the feminist wants no part of.”
I think you’re getting ahead of yourself here. Jesse wants women to have different rights than the rights you want for women. You might be right that he assumes these different rights are for their own good. I assume he would say that. But you seem to be assuming that he is wrong about that and that the rights you want to create are best? That can’t be done without argument. The next discussion that needs to take place here is about which rights women should have. I think this should be based on their happiness and well-being (as I assume you would agree) but you haven’t proven yet which rights those are.
You go on to say that we shouldn’t use violence to force men or women to do certain things. I think we can definitely agree on this. But then you say “Using an unspoken (or explicit) social contract to keep women out of schools, businesses, and whatever other things we would keep from them”. It seems that you are now also talking about cultural and social norms? There is no such thing as a neutral culture so we need to discuss which things should be promoted by our culture and which things we should “socially construct”. There is no such thing as culture with no social pressures and no social constructs. There is also no reason to assume something is bad just because it is socially constructed.
“They want equality in opportunity, not in outcome.”
Since no two people have equal opportunity from birth I assume you mean that we need to construct some sort of equal opportunity for people? But “equal opportunity” is vague so much more work needs to be done here as far as specifying what you want to socially construct. When does “opportunity” begin? Will you force people to provide equal opportunity to everyone? And for everything?
To speak for myself here; I support Traditional Women’s Rights or the rights women had before feminism. There was actually a large amount of protective legislation meant to benefit women that feminism repealed. I oppose “women’s rights” in the way feminism defines that concept. Traditional Women’s Rights are rights connected to the duties and role of the traditional woman; in other words Traditional Women’s Rights support women in their traditional obligations towards others. Women’s rights in the modern feminist sense are simply assertions of power not related to any duties the woman has. Traditional Women’s Rights are rights connected to duties; that is why they are moral and good. Feminist women’s rights are rights with no duties attached; that is why they are immoral and abusive towards others.
In terms of which kind of rights women should have; women should have rights to enable women to perform their duties. That is how I would set things up morally. Likewise the rights of men should also be connected to men being enabled to perform their duties. I would not place the emphasis on whether the rights granted to women maximize women’s happiness; my emphasis would instead be on the rights granted to women maximizing women’s morality. Women’s happiness and women’s morality go together so what maximizes women’s morality also maximizes women’s happiness but from the point of view of moral reasoning I would place the highest emphasis on maximizing women’s morality.
Men are also part of the equation of women’s lives. Just like my emphasis is on maximizing the morality of women regarding women’s legitimate rights in the same way my emphasis is on maximizing the morality of men regarding men’s legitimate rights. Maximizing the morality of both genders is a policy that can be pursued without any moral conflicts arising. To take the approach of granting women rights based on maximizing the woman’s happiness however is problematic; what if a woman’s happiness is maximized by freeing her from her obligations towards her husband or towards her children? This is the error of feminism; this is what is wrong with asserting rights while at the same time denying responsibilities. To avoid this moral conflict my emphasis is on maximizing morality; not on maximizing happiness for either the man or the woman.
Hey Myles, I responded to this in more detail in Part 2 Social Constructs
From wikipedia: “Complementarianism is a theological view held by some in Christianity and other world religions, such as Islam, that men and women have different but complementary roles and responsibilities in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and elsewhere.”
Since you didn’t define it otherwise, I hope in your next installment you’ll address what a hindrance it is to women to be assigned different roles than men in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and (ESPECIALLY) elsewhere.
Well obviously it is a hindrance to women to be assigned different roles if their goal is to have the same roles just like it is a hindrance to women to be assigned the same roles if their goal is to have different roles. Assuming that “assigning” can include peaceful cultural/social pressure, the question is going to be which goals we should have since there is no such thing as a neutral culture or society.
“I hope in your next installment you’ll address what a hindrance it is to women to be assigned different roles than men in marriage, family life, religious leadership, and (ESPECIALLY) elsewhere.”
Part 2 Social Constructs is published and I do address the issue of assigning women roles in society.
Pingback: Why are there so few female CEOs? | thegreatantagonizer
Pingback: Christian Hedonism | ajrogersphilosophy
Pingback: Christian Gender Roles | ajrogersphilosophy
Pingback: Christian Hedonism | ajrogersphilosophy
Pingback: Protection vs. Freedom: Third Wave Feminist Goals and Methods | Queer Guess Code
Pingback: Social Constructs | Liberty Without Apologies
Pingback: Social Constructs (Part 2 of Analyzing Feminism) | ajrogersphilosophy
Pingback: Proof of the Existence of God(s) | ajrogersphilosophy
honestly I couldnt even finish reading this, is way too disturbing and FALSE, who wrote this? a man? because it shows, men rape and murder their daughters, sometimes when they are babies sometimes when they are five years old, single women are not the most murdered women, the women in the family of men are the one who are murder and attack the most, single women live way longer than married women, guess why? (and I mean when they are not murder). Only women understand Feminism, men need to shut the fuck up and u prove it, u are patriarchy speaking, why dont u LISTEN to some feminist instead?? that way u might actually learn something and maybe even evolve, who knows? Anyways I think feminism, real feminism, will make men evolve as well. This is on of the most disturbing texts I have read and is completely antifeminist. WE dont want men to become “weak and submissive”, we want men to become RESPECTFULL of us, is that too hard for ur penis mind to understand? And men have proven throughout history that they are nothing but backstabbing scumbags, being a “pamper princess”???!! seriouslyf?? AS IF THAT COULD EVER BE A POSSIBILITY!! it has never being and obviously never will be.
Pingback: The Presuppositional Approach to Engaging Feminism | ajrogersphilosophy