THE SECULAR FEMINIST ARGUMENT:
Contemporary feminism hasn't "destroyed marriage and family life." Social and cultural evolution progresses on behalf of a number of quantifiable variables, including society's political and economic climate, social liberalism and conservatism and the public sphere's reaction to these ideologies, the presence and proliferation of political countercultures, and the like. To assert that any one phenomenon in particular is responsible for the state of affairs of any broad societal construct, including marriage, is superficial -- and, in [28_Man_Seeking_Wife's] case, it's really rather hyperbolic. The implications of social feminism can be debated
ad nauseum, and without any clear verdict, although there's no credible evidence to suggest that feminism in particular has "destroyed" anything from the perspective of mainstream political science.
I'd also have to disagree with the notion that contemporary feminism can be construed as a "lie." While it may be true that the notion of female social equality to males is arguably against Biblical scripture, the rights and liberties of women from within the context of a proper, secular democratic society inherently need to be addressed. Irrespective of one's religious preference, the philosophical concept of liberty and justice for
all in any society that values equal rights should be upheld and respected in the highest degree. Whether or not the social ramifications of these rights and liberties can be construed as positive or negative is inconsequential so long as their impact isn't drastic enough to imminently threaten the safety and security of others. The ultimate goal of contemporary feminism, which is to realize nearly or totally absolute social, economic and political equality of both genders, is thus to the benefit of the objective of Western democratic society toward the ideal of freedom and justice for all.
What women do with themselves within the context of this society is then up to the woman in particular, and that's
exactly how it should be.
Period. And, to reiterate, countless variables besides contemporary feminism have to be accounted for in determining society's state of affairs from a social perspective, as well as the existence of global perspectives that offer interestingly comparative statistics and implications. It can't be stressed enough that there's no real evidence of contemporary feminism being an agent in the purported "destruction" of "marriage and family values" and the like.
Theology has nothing to do with the intrinsically social nature of the status of contemporary marriage and family structure. Theologians deal predominantly in spiritual matters pertaining to God and the nature of religious beliefs, not extrapolations from religious beliefs. Theology may offer an opinion on a given social matter, but it can't markedly associate anything without alluding to political science, demographics, or the like.
MY COUNTER TO THE SECULAR FEMINIST ARGUMENT
FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF HUMAN REASON:
The words of the Secular Feminist will always be cited in
bold. She is disagreeing with my thesis that “
Contemporary feminism has"destroyed marriage and family life." She offers three premises in support of her argument against me that “
there's no credible evidence to suggest that feminism in particular has "destroyed" anything from the perspective of mainstream political science.” I will treat the three premises that she uses successively and individually.
PREMISE I:
Her first premise rests on is that any cultural phenomena [such as the breakdown of marriage and family] happens when “
Social and cultural evolution progresses on behalf of a number of quantifiable variables, including society's political and economic climate, social liberalism and conservatism and the public sphere's reaction to these ideologies, the presence and proliferation of political countercultures, and the like.”
Her line of thought is as follows: The so called “destruction of marriage” is itself a phenomena that is found in the mix of history (it is a product of the coming together of various “quantifiable variables”). Accordingly, it is arbitrary to identify the historical feminism movement as the cause of the cultural phenomena of the breakdown of marriage and family, since
“from the perspective of mainstream political science,” only a plurality of
“quantifiable variables” can bring about such an occurance.
There is actually an embedded philosophy that is hidden in her argument. It is my job as a philosopher to expose it for the common good
She is presupposing a method of looking at reality as if nature itself is a mere conglomeration of empirical
“quantifiable” parts (this is a peculiarly post-enlightenment modern-way of thinking developed by Sir Isaac Newton, Francis Bacon, and Rene Descartes amongst others). There is nothing wrong with modern science. This way of looking things that exist is fine when you need to figure out how to create a propulsion fuel that will send a rocket to the moon, or when you want to build a bridge or do any kind of utilitarian work involving mechanistic 'parts' that are empirically observable.
But when it is a question of studying the beauty and goodness of
human nature, the modern mechanistic science of “quantifiable parts” reaches its limit. Masculinity and femininity is not just an empirical “phenomena” that happened to come to about by chance as a result impersonal forces. The beauty and goodness of manhood and womanhood speaks of another more robust and deeper manner of studying reality and nature (this is the way of western philosophy and Christian theology which used to hold prominence before the dawn of secular humanism following the “enlightenment.”) Main stream political science operates under the assumption that everything we can study in society is simply a product of forces that happen to come together (this is what Liza refers to when she mentions “
society's political and economic climate, social liberalism and conservatism and the public sphere's reaction to these ideologies, the presence and proliferation of political countercultures, and the like”). Mainstream political science is incapable (on its own terms) of grasping the essence of Human Nature (and therefore what true femininity is) because it is constricted to operate within its own limited method of analyzing the world in terms of what is
“quantifiable” as parts. Only a more profound and lucid way of looking at reality can realize that the proper goodness and beauty of “masculinity” and “femininity” within family life is not just the result a conglomeration of a plurality of worldly-based factors. The cause of the beauty of man and woman and of the goodness of the institute of marriage and the specific gender-roles that it involves is the result of FREEDOM. Only FREEDOM can create beauty and goodness. Quantifiable parts cannot cause beauty and goodness to come to exist out of nothing. A person who is FREE TO CREATE needs to be there to bestow order and purpose to whatever comes to exist as something meaningfull. (Christians and Jews understand this to be God in the original act of Creation). That quantifiable-wordly-phenomena cannot be the original-absolute source of goodness and beauty is evident to human reason regardless of whether or not one is speaking religiously. We do not need “religious faith” to know this, this is a rational point.
Contrary to what the Secular Feminist is arguing, I hold that the break-down of marriage and family life is not just a occurrence that just so happened to come together from various economic and political factors operative in history in a general sense. Our Secular Feminist's claim that “
there's no credible evidence to suggest that feminism in particular has "destroyed" anything from the perspective of mainstream political science” is correct only if we accept that the
“perspective of mainstream political science” exhausts all true perspectives. I propose that our Secular Feminist woman is wrong in thinking this way. It is reductive. It limits the study of human actions to modern sociology and modern political science (which is rooted in a purely empirical method of analysis). I answer that the break down of marriage and family life can only be caused by specific persons who are endowed with FREEDOM. The demise of marriage and family life is caused by all those who freely reject what is given to us as “femininity” and “masculinity” in its original beauty and goodness (and that is what secular feminism accomplishes).
(Response to Secular Feminist Continued)
PREMISE II
She writes: “
Irrespective of one's religious preference, the philosophical concept of liberty and justice for all in any society that values equal rights should be upheld and respected in the highest degree... What women do with themselves within the context of this society is then up to the woman in particular, and that's exactly how it should be. Period.”
She is presupposing that the modern system of a democratic state is correct in placing all the emphasis on the fulfillment of the
individual who is acting. This is a direct inheritance from the political philosophy of John Locke and Hobbes. It's logic is similar in as much as it bars out the relevance of the freedom of a person who lies BEYOND any worldly force, namely, the freedom of GOD who wills to create what is good and beautiful. It is certainly true that people [who themselves are free] are capable of deviating from the will of God, it is certainly true that every individual human being has the capacity to exercise his or her own freedom to do as they please: but that does not justify the Secular Feminist's point that “
What women do with themselves within the context of this society is then up to the woman in particular, and that's exactly how it should be. Period.” What if the women want to kill their own unborn children in the womb? What if women want to have success and a career more than they want to be a sacrificial presence for their family? When she says that “
the philosophical concept of liberty and justice for all in any society that values equal rights should be upheld and respected in the highest degree”, she means the modern post-enlightenment concept of liberty developed in John Locke and Hobbes and applied in contemporary American constitutional-law. The Secular Feminist apparently does not realize that the modern democratic forms of government and its accompanying language of “individual rights” is not fool-proof morally speaking. The “ individual freedom” of a democratic republic can error, and it does (it did when it made child-murder a recreational activity under the feminist guise of “a woman's right to choose” when the U.S. supreme court ruled in “Roe vs Wade” for example). Under the post-enlightenment “philosophical concept of liberty” that the Secular Feminist is apparently so committed to, in the United States over 50 million innocent lives have been lost in the name of the feministic “right to choose.” Under the same “philosophical concept of liberty,” Marriage itself has been re-defined by the state so that homosexuality is no longer considered immoral by the vast majority of the public. Soon, the legalization of polygamy is likely to follow... I think both you (and modern secular-humanist democracy) are missing something from the equation, O misguided Secular Feminist... Goodness and beauty does not originate in human freedom, it originates in the intention of a Divine Creator. The lie of secular-feminism is that women can individually re-create for themselves what it means to be a good and beautiful woman-- even if to 'such and such' an individual it means murdering their own child so that they can have a lavish career. Again, my criticism of her 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] premise is not simply a “religious” argument that owes its credibility to faith, my criticism is entirely based on reason, I have not quoted scripture once.
PREMISE III
“
Theology has nothing to do with the intrinsically social nature of the status of contemporary marriage and family structure. Theologians deal predominantly in spiritual matters pertaining to God and the nature of religious beliefs, not extrapolations from religious beliefs. Theology may offer an opinion on a given social matter, but it can't markedly associate anything without alluding to political science, demographics, or the like.”
Huh? Let me get this straight: The reality of God [if indeed the pagan philosophers Plato and Aristotle were right in positing through the use of their human reason that One God who orders the cosmos does exist] and the discipline which studies the link between God and the whole of nature (
i.e. Theology) has nothing to do with the “
intrinsically social nature of the status of contemporary marriage and family structure” as you say? I might be tempted to call your reasoning absurd, but I understand where you are coming from. It is important that anyone else who follows this thread understands as well. Lisa stated that “
Theology may offer an opinion on a given social matter, but it can't markedly associate anything without alluding to political science, demographics, or the like.” This reveals that the Secular Feminist is thoroughly taken in by the false secular-human ideology that wants to reduce everything to a purely
human science, so that the transcendent and divine has no real relevance or importance to practical human civilization. In the old-world, before globalized atheism took affect in all modern world governments, Theology was considered the Queen of the sciences, so that
any human affair (political, spiritual, domestic, whatever) found it's ultimate order and principle in the goodness and beauty of a
Logos (Greek) or
Ratio (Latin) which transcended the world: GOD. Today, contemporary western society may pay lip service to a “God” by having his name inscribed on our currency or perhaps having invoking his name at baseball games, but on the grand scale human freedom has ousted any transcendent cause from human affairs. Most evident of what I am saying is the current conditions of marriage and family life in America. People who think with Secular Feminism that
“spiritual matters pertaining to God and the nature of religious beliefs” has nothing to do with the intrinsic identity of gender-roles and family structure certainly must have SOMETHING to do with the break down of marriage and family life in the culture. It has EVERYTHING to do with it.
