As a regular visitor of That Mr. G Guy’s Blog, I learned this week is time to Let National Offend a Feminist Week commence you SeXXXXXISTS! Although in some quarters I suppose I would be considered a sexist, I usually don’t take part in this week’s festivities. However, in earlier an post I considered how people lie with words, and that gave me an idea that seems appropriate to the occasion.
In AN EXAMPLE OF BIGOTRY — PART 8, we considered how over time racists have distorted the meaning of the “Uncle Tom”. Because of our ignorance, we have allowed a character that Harriet Beecher Stowe portrayed as a kind and brave Christian gentleman to become something quite different. Similarly, we have allowed the definition of “feminism” to evolve. Consider the definition provided in the 1956 edition of Funk & Wagnalls’ New Practical Standard Dictionary of the English Language.
- The existence of female characteristics in the male.
- The doctrine that embraces the industrial, mental, political, social and sexual equality of women with men.
Over the years the second usage of the word has become its primary usage.
The Online Etymology Dictionary offers this insight: feminine + -ism = feminism. Apparently the word “feminism” is French in origin. English speakers started using the word “feminism” around 1851, and in 1895 English speakers began to use the term in political advocacy. So the meaning of “feminism” has changed, and that should leave us wondering. If feminism is suppose to equal feminine + -ism, does “feminism” still mean what we think it means?
Feminists portray themselves woman’s rights advocates. Is that the same as feminism? If feminism is suppose to equal feminine + -ism, then feminists should be advocates for that which makes women feminine. Right? Is that what all feminists do? Consider the mission statement of National Organization for Women Foundation.
The Foundation works to enhance the status of women in the United States and around the world through many strategies, including advocacy, litigation and education. The litigation efforts of the Foundation seek to protect reproductive health options, as well as focusing on other areas of concern to women, such as pregnancy discrimination, employment issues, discrimination against women in the military, sexual harassment and exploitation, lesbian and gay rights, civil rights, sex discrimination in insurance, and ending violence against women. (from here)
The modern definition of feminism focuses on equality. How does NOW define equality between the sexes? What does NOW do? Doesn’t NOW work to:
- Prevent childbirth by promoting abortion as a reproductive health option”?
- Separate women from their children by denigrating motherhood and elevating careerism?
- Encourage women to assume roles traditionally understood to be masculine?
- Obscure traditional sexual roles by promoting lesbian and gay rights?
With respect to our political system, what does equality actually involve? When we speak of justice, then don’t we want a political system that is blind to our irrational prejudices? Don’t we want equality before the Law? Is that what feminists such as NOW want, or do they seek an equality of outcome, a state of affairs where Female = Male?
Does government exist to ensure equality of outcome, or is government’s role to provide for justice by protecting our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? When men and women have biologically significant differences, does it protect our rights if we ignore those differences? Does unisex restrooms make any sense to you?
Equality before the Law allows for diversity. Without suppressing the vast diversity among people, equality before the Law allows everyone to have the same opportunities to make use of their native gifts. Equality of outcome, on the other hand, requires that everyone be treated the same. Equality of outcome also requires a more powerful government. That’s because the enforcement of equal outcomes requires the brute force of government power.
Because Females and Males are not in all respects the same (or equal), without the use of the brute force of government power, we cannot in all respects be made equal. Yet is that a bad thing? Is diversity evil? The Bible says Females and Males were made to complement each other. Together, we make each other whole (Genesis 2:21-24).
Thus, I think women, for their own sakes and the sakes of the men they love, should advocate true feminism. Instead using government to force “equality” on people who don’t want it, we should all make the effort to respect and love each other as unique individuals. And since whether each of us is a man or a woman does in fact make a difference, that fact ought to make a difference as to how we treat each other. Therefore, instead of encouraging women to behave like smaller men, we should thank our Lord for making us different.
Of Twisted Words => To Be Posted.
- Mother: posted May 11, 2014.
- Secular: posted May 27, 2014.
- Purity: posted June 22, 2014.
- Liberalism: posted July 22, 2014.
- Social Contract: posted July 12, 2015.
- Xenophobia: posted on November 29, 2015.
- POLITICALLY CORRECT: December 13, 2015.
- LANGUAGE TO DIVIDE AND TO CONQUER: posted on July 3, 2016.
- Spin: March 5, 2018.
- Progress: March 6, 2018.
- LEFT-WING AND RIGHT-WING: May 10, 2018.
- TRIBALISM: June 22, 2018.
- AGNOSTIC ATHEISM: October 10, 2018.
- OF TWISTED WORDS => WHEN LEXICOGRAPHERS CAN ISSUE A DEATH SENTENCE: ABORTION: January 25, 2019.
- Tolerance: posted on April 16, 2019.
- OF TWISTED WORDS => MCCARTHYISM – Citizen Tom: August 1, 2019
- OF TWISTED WORDS => UNETHICAL – Citizen Tom: December 26, 2020
- OF TWISTED WORDS => CONSERVATIVE – Citizen Tom: June 29, 2021
- OF TWISTED WORDS => REPRODUCTIVE: August 5, 2022
- OF TWISTED WORDS => TRUE SOCIALISM — PART 1: October 2, 2022
- OF TWISTED WORDS => WOMAN: October 20, 2022
- OF TWISTED WORDS => RELIGION, ATHEISM, AGNOSTICSM, WORSHIP, AND EVANGELIZE: February 5, 2023
- Science.
- Bipartisan.
- Soldier.
- The “Living” Constitution.
- Compassionate Conservatism.
- Positive and Negative Rights.
- Biblical Literalism.
- Democracy.
- Socialism.
- Objective.
- Extremism.
- Consumerism.
- Slave.
- Quantitative Easing.
Citizen Tom 
Not to sure what a tax funded poorhouse is. What I had in mind referred to laws relative to moral beliefs of marriage, divorce, and,abortion.. When laws change the definition of marriage between a man and a women, or to define ending a fetal life as a lawful abortion, people perceive when a law is passed it must be morally right and the numbers of occurrences rise. Same as each new government spending avenues arise with each new added tax..When drugs become lawful, the same thing will happen..Seems definitions and morals change whenever new laws are passed same as perceptions change in the instance of feminism as you point out in your post..
Check out https://citizentom.com/2014/05/10/what-is-a-tax-funded-poorhouse/. I explain what a tax funded poorhouse is there.
I look I forward to your next posts on the subjects. If I may offer you this thought, laws influence public perceptions. So if a law pertains to a moral precept rather than a precept to maintain order, the precept of law becomes the new definition of morality. In other words, those in government who influence new laws are also being given the power to alter or twist morals under the guise of law.
Regards and good will blogging.
Thank you for a thoughtful comment.
Distinguishing between a law pertains to a moral precept rather than a precept to maintain order can sometimes be difficult. I presume that you believe a law that protects the rights of the individual to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is designed to maintain order, and that any other law is intended to impose a moral precept upheld by one faction upon the rest of society. Thus, a law against theft is designed to maintain order, and a law that institutes a tax-funded poorhouse is designed to impose morality.
Thanks again.
Reblogged this on BPI reblog and commented:
OF TWISTED WORDS => FEMINISM
Great post Tom. The radical feminists of today don’t have a clue. It’s like they didn’t pay attention in their fourth grade biology class. Some feminists are so crazy, they want to do away with men all together.
Thanks for the compliment and the comment.
As odd as it seems, I think the women who hate men suffer penis envy. Thus, they seek to be “better men” than men. It’s that foolish and that irrational.
Healthy men and women each desire the company of the opposite sex and respect the virtues of the opposite sex. In the past, some men have abused their physical strength, dominating and bullying women. Some cultures still encourage such stupidity. Nonetheless, that is not the problem in this country. Here we have sex appeal confused with femininity. What is worst is we have trouble defining femininity and masculinity. For example, we think femininity makes a woman weak and masculinity makes a man strong. What we never consider is the possibility that a woman needs to be feminine to be healthy and strong and a man needs to be masculine to be healthy and strong. What makes such misunderstandings so strange is that our nation once considered families formed by loving marriages the sturdy bricks that made up the structure of our society. Now? Now we can dispense with families. To have children, “responsible” women just have sperm injections.
Do I know how to fix this misunderstanding? No. I just wish more people would study the Bible and the cultural beliefs of the American people at the time of our country’s formation. Perhaps then we would begin to understand we have lost something important, and we need to pray to regain what we have lost.
Reblogged this on That Mr. G Guy's Blog.