JESUS WAS A FEMINIST

by Leonard Swidler

http://www.godswordtowomen.org/feminist.htm

Excellent article there Pynchme!
I enjoyed reading Swidler's thoughts.
I particularly liked the fact about Jesus that <"...He chose only women to be the first witnesses to His Resurrection."

If I were to believe in any sort of 'creator' it would have to be a 'Sacred Feminine' sort of creator, because the female of the Human species (and most other species) is the giver of life.

I really enjoyed Dan Brown's book "The Da Vinci Code", as it was responsible for me becoming a little more spiritual than I usually allow myself to be.
I loved the notion of the 'Sacred Feminine'.

That would make Jesus a Third Wave feminist wouldn't it, he would say that gender equality means oppression of neither gender.

Not being blighted by a mote in his eye and being unaffected by confirmation bias he would agree with the more progressive of the Third Wave feminists that men have been similarly oppressed throughout history, even the majority of those 'white' men.

Can't see Jesus rooting for radical feminism with its parallels with Marxism in that both ideologies describe an enduring struggle between two opposed polar forces: between the proletariat and bourgeoisie classes and for the rad feminists, between women and men.

Nope, can't see Jesus going along with a gender war to keep a handful of geriatric radical feminists amused in their dotage.

Cornflower
Aren't most feminists Third Wave? The days of the radical man-haters are long gone.

It is tantamount to someone saying all Christians are nutters based on for example, the actions of The People's Temple in Jonestown.

The diversion or exagerration strategy used in this article is also used in arguments about Palestine eg. hating Israel or Jews (when it is clearly about fairness for Palestinians); or Nazis and human haters when talking about population sustainability; or Christians support pedophilia due to failure of the Catholic Chuch to act on complaints - all are equally unfair assertions distracting from reasoned debate.

When authors or others elaborate on the extreme version of a particular group or doctrine to make their point, that's when I start questioning their motives as in this article.

Pelican

Your words

>>> Aren't most feminists Third Wave? The days of the radical man-haters are long gone.

It is tantamount to someone saying all Christians are nutters based on for example, the actions of The People's Temple in Jonestown. <<<

Gave me pause for thought. Just how 'radical' were/are man-haters?

Was there ever an equivalent feminist 'Jonestown', or even a gang of rad femmes tanked up on alcohol cruising the streets looking for a fight? A female Hitler? The closest I can get to him is Catherine Medici - who more likely abused her power than sought a supremacy ideology.

What percentage of feminists actually hate with the same passion as the "Black Shirt Brigade" http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/19/1040174344351.html or the so-called "Promise-Keepers" using the bible (yet again) to justify male dominion?

I will take these and other mens' groups seriously and with respect when they condemn those men whose goal is control - control over women, children and control over other men. That is what a patriarchy is.

Sure many women have asked "wouldn't a matriarchy be better?" A fair question considering how well patriarchy has and is working. However, a pendulum swing of power from one sex to the other is not the answer - never has been. What is required is a humanist society where the most vulnerable members (children, aged, disabled) are protected. As a footnote: too many people confuse protection with control and see any change to the status quo as a threat.

Protection means taking responsibility NOT control.

Nobody is arguing that men are 'inherently' oppressive, just as nobody is arguing that whites are 'inherently' racist or that the wealthy cannot help but oppress the working-class.

The terms 'masculinity' and 'femininity' are social constructs, they are not givens. This tends to get glossed over when terms such as 'sacred masculinity' are used. 'Sacred masculinity', we are told, is something that's natural, that we need to worship. Tell that to Dianne Brimble or any woman raped and/or murdered in war, on the streets, in her home. Surely these women didn't benefit from 'sacred masculinity'.

On another note, Marsh' use of song quotes did bring a chuckle - albeit for the wrong reasons.