A Few Thoughts on Feminism

I have been exposed recently to some interesting arguments in favor of liberal feminism. 

To be fair, I'm only responding here to various interactions on Facebook and to some reading that was suggested to me. I'll confess that I am a novice in these arguments, and as such my interest is to research these matters further, but I also wanted to set forth some first thoughts on what I have heard and read to date:

1.     Idea: Sex and Gender are not coextensive. Sex organs, and genetics, may be totally unrelated to ones gender identification, which is merely a social construct.

I want to explore the logic of this for a while.

One wonders if being human is also separate from certain physical or spiritual realities that obtain—that we are merely socialized into being "human." No human brain or human organs or human genetics make us human. Certainly no definable spiritual reality is essential to our humanity. Being human is a set of behaviors or capacities that we name to be “human” through a cultural conversation (even a power struggle). So, being human reduces to nothing “in” a person, and nothing that will stand still, but only what flows from the person that is approved in the culture. If these things cease to flow from the person, then the person is no longer human, at least as we have decided to arbitrarily define “it.”

If one were to perform like an animal, then perhaps the person would be an animal. Consider all those human beings driven by their appetites and nothing more. If a person were to perform like a vegetable, then that person would be a vegetable. All of this of course is a philosophical assumption—namely, that our behavior precedes our essence rather than the reverse (thank you, Sarte). Astoundingly, this assumption is never fully defended. It is assumed without the slightest respect shown to the philosophical complexity of this question or that there are notable defenders on both sides.

One also wonders if race is a matter into which we are merely socialized—that it also has no real relationship to the identity of a person, but is performative. One is black because one performs like a black person (whatever that socially means at the moment).

Here is another related question on this point: If gender is independent of sex organs, perhaps functional number is independent of actual number. What I mean is this: Why should we abide by a “one person, one vote” paradigm? Surely we can see that some people count more than others; they are more intelligent, cosmopolitan, progressive, artistic, and generally contribute more than others. If a person performs in a way that is greater than another, then why not give her two votes to every one vote for the plebeians? Surely to the progressive, I count less than others (see the section below on power), so why not push this advantage. Number is also a social construct and can be functionally independent of the fact that I was born as only “one” person! What does “oneness” even mean, in the context of social dynamics?

One also wonders if sex designation itself is also a social construct, or should be. Why believe that any physical trait is determinative or stable, especially with respect to coercive “sex language.” Stop calling her “female” simply because of an additional X chromosome. Even her physicality is open to her interpretive dominion, reinvention and the like. Perhaps she wants to refer from now on to the “X chromosomed” and not to “female.” Or perhaps she wants to refer to “herself” as “himself,” merely to challenge sex and not merely gender language strictures. If the language is so oppressive and so easily confused with gender language, then perhaps we should stop referring descriptively to “male” and “female” and start referring to “humanoid alpha” and “humanoid beta.” Oh wait, that puts one before the other again. Okay, males will be “squeeb” and females will be “almondine.” A new language, freed from the context of dichotomous power, will surely lead us into the garden of egalitarian bliss.

2.     Idea: Traditional majority views of sex and gender exhibit the most virulent oppressive control language, used to establish a sense of sex superiority.

In short, the local patriarchal narrative (as opposed to metanarrative) is another example of language as a matter of power. The interesting thing about this claim is that those who advocate it model a power paradigm in advancing their own views.

In these simple discussions on Facebook, I was cursed at, told I was ignorant, hateful, bigoted, an idiot and, my favorite, that I should be shipped off to a gulag. Check out this link for another example of liberal insanity on this point: http://www.canonwired.com/bloomington/ . And all of this for uttering a view which departs from the de rigeur liberal parrot talk.

The curious thing is that these same people are deeply troubled that I articulate the view I do because I am subconsciously operating according to a patriarchal power paradigm. In other words, I’m simply using gender language to assert my will to power, and that is not very nice. Well, it is actually egregious; so egregious that I should be sent to a gulag. And these people apparently don’t see the contradiction here, which is at the very least amusing. In the final analysis it is deeply troubling. I need to prepare myself for the bitterest persecution if these people ever come to power over me.

But interestingly it is also quite consistent with a view that gives us cultural power dynamics and little more. If there is no truth about marriage or family or gender or even humanity, then we can never appeal to anything other than our own culturally embedded perspectives. And if all there is in a culture is the cauldron of ever varying opinions, then of course one cannot very well appeal to some common understanding. One wins others to one’s “side” by sheer force of will and nothing more! Of course one can advocate this all one wants, but don’t be surprised when I answer your power politics with my own power politics, because you have already told me that language reduces to an instrument of power.

3.     Idea: Gender identification is imposed upon children from parents and culture, and usually based upon genitalia, which is not really fair.

Parents naively believe that certain objective traits of the female species are somehow to be meaningfully connected to this elusive thing called “feminine identity.” Because of this they uncritically raise their girls to be “girls,” whatever that means. The parents somehow know what a girl is, but feminists know they cannot know these things unless they read Judith Butler. Having a vagina does not translate into any appreciable set of emotions, motives, behaviors or attitudes. Culture has merely named certain behaviors and tendencies to be “feminine,” such as the tendency to cherish and nurture life. But a female can surely act in ways that are more like males in this regard, even denying her unique claim as a life-giver. And it surely does not depart from “true” femininity for a woman to deny such cliched culture roles.

All of this leads to a challenge I issued to the folks with whom I engaged in this dialogue; a challenge that I’m not sure was sufficiently answered. I asked whether or not it might be best to leave a child free to be a gender atomist? In other words, to select freely what culturally determined traits of masculinity and femininity he or she wanted to choose. In short, would it not be best to raise a child in total gender neutrality (whatever that means)? Or perhaps it would be ideal for a child to seek a full understanding of humanity by changing both gender identification and sex identification at various times throughout the course of his/her/its life, and without necessarily aligning the two. How can we fully understand the full spectrum of humanity except by fully embracing both sex and gender differences experientially. The Christian has the added impetus to transcend gender because God Himself is beyond gender. It would even be an advance for men to be able to give birth, and perhaps medical science will ultimately make that more fully accessible to all.

The point here is that if human identity begins with will resistance to power, then perhaps the first place to begin is with any material or spiritual or external constraints against my power. If my physiology tells me that I must be male, then surely I can and perhaps even should rebel? More than that, my parents did me a great disservice by raising me not just to be masculine (whatever that means) but also to be male. They should have raised me differently, and taught me clearly that my sex and gender are not prescriptions of nature or God or any other force. How should they have handled puberty? Poor ignorant parents the world over! Let us have Huxley's farms to raise children, presided over by more enlightened people at universities who have never had children. 

4.     Idea: Gender roles are mere binary constructs within a society, something like a Hegelian antithesis. They derive their meaning purely from relative social tensions. In other words, “masculinity” and “femininity” are created counterforces and neither reflect any objective reality.

The moment one says that “this is femininity” or “this is masculinity,” then one has demonized anyone that identifies as female or male who doesn’t possess that trait. The only conclusion here is clearly that there is no meaningful way to speak about femininity or masculinity. The moment these elusive properties of our humanity are quantified someone is oppressed and excluded who may want inclusion.

But I’m puzzled as to how a philosophy that leads us into a quagmire of uncertainty with respect to sex and gender is any advance in philosophy. At least the traditional Christian view gives us an edgy clarity, a set of boundaries, within which there is some admitted ambiguity and cultural variability. Perhaps the Christian view is analogous to the structure and diversity of language, which is certainly an imperfect and evolving instrument, but would we say that this variability leads to a merely relativistic view of language as nothing more than contextual label making? 

A Broad critique:

The whole argument rests upon the assumption of a kind of postmodern nominalism, in my view. And I might add that I find this problem in many liberal writers. They don’t deal in the realm of first principles. They build their cathedral on the sand of naturalism or postmodernism or nominalism and don’t tell you why such a foundation is reliable. People have the right to start where they want to in building their philosophical project, but at some point an account of their presuppositions would be helpful.

So far as I can see, most feminists are naturalists and postmodern nominalists with regard to language. But surely both of these philosophical assumptions are dreadfully inadequate for the project of establishing any truth claim that the rest of us are constrained to take seriously.

The nominalist tells us that human societies merely “name” the truth realities all about them. They name “femininity” and “masculinity” and “humanity” and the like. They believe this because at base the human mind is the foundation of all metaphysical convictions about truth. Truth does not come to us from anywhere. It comes from us. This I see as the central tenet of liberal thought. Truth comes from me and the people who agree with me! Anyone who disagrees is merely “out of fashion.”

But surely on a clear day the nominalist can see the problem. If we define realities, then these realities are submitted to the endless ideological flux of human inconstancy. What counts as consensus today will be rejected in five years. I graduated from seminary eight years ago… look how behind the times I am! Give these guys who are arguing “gender performativity” eight years and who knows what they will believe. Nominalism collapses to subjectivism and subjectivism collapses to relativism. And relativism is in my view a rational absurdity. But hey, if everyone can believe their own position, then perhaps it is a happy absurdity, so long as one doesn’t spend too much time with those other people!

A Positive Case for the Biblical View of Gender:

There is a design plan for sex and gender. In the order of creation, which Paul brings with all of its clarity and force into the New Testament, there is a meaningful structure. Eve is created after Adam as the “helpmate.” Of course this interpretation of the “helpmate” is met immediately with howls of irrational anger from those of the theologically liberal persuasion. Usually they point out that “helpmate” is used of God himself in other contexts, which is a lovely point, but largely irrelevant when one surveys the whole of Scripture. Let it suffice for my purposes now merely to articulate my understanding of the Bible on this question and then leave any discussion of contrary positions to another day. I would, however, note that presumably in a world without envy or power dynamics there would be no problem with a hierarchy. Eve probably never wondered why she could not have been first, and why she had to be the “helpmate.” A submissive role in no way logically indicates inferiority. 

Second, it must be the case in a perfect world that sex and gender in creation would have been wholly aligned.

Third, sex and gender are ontologically real, as is humanity, and is connected to our imago dei creation. Gender is essential to our humanity, as is relatedness to God and His creation order.

We are like animals sexually, but are unlike them in that we are also created for eros, which requires real spiritual difference so that a higher unity can be forged from that difference. It was not good that Adam was alone, and so Eve was created that there might be a uniquely different being with whom Adam might be joined in the bonds of deep unity. Unity in diversity is the pattern of the Trinity extended to humanity in the creation order. But this essential difference is not merely physiological, but also spiritual. And when this difference is brought together in the bonds of unity, new life is produced. In short, the pattern of the Trinity is recreated—namely, submersion of difference into unity produces an opportunity for more difference, and more unity.

Fourth, one’s gender is not an “accidental” property, but an essential property of one’s personhood. The gospels declare, “highly favored art thou among women” to Mary. Note that it did not say, “highly favored art thou among ‘those who present as women in their cultural understanding of womanhood.’” Mary is seen as a model woman; her womanhood is essential to her ethical modelling. What does a virtuous woman look like? Look at Mary. Presumably the modern feminist would have to say that Mary is merely favored in her “language community” as an ideal woman. But Mary clearly has nothing on the emancipated modern Madonna, prancing about in all her dominating sexual freedom, or on any modern feminist for that matter.

Fifth, there is a deep union of body and spirit, such that equilibrium between the two is the natural state. In other words, the fact that women possess XX chromosomes, certain genitalia, hormones and the like has a real affect upon the spirit, and the fact that God makes people to be spiritually female has a real affect upon the body. Disharmony here would create internal stresses. And sin clearly creates disharmony. Those experiencing such a disharmony should receive grace, but not a cheap grace that pretends the disharmony doesn’t exist or that there must be something wrong with God’s design plan.

Sixth, the Bible seems to claim that women are built not just physically but spiritually to be life givers and life nurturers. Men can of course approximate the quality of nurture that a mother can give, but he is not ontologically designed for life giving and life nurturing (especially the deep intimacy and bonding of mother and child, placental connection, breast feeding, etc).

To deny this association makes one wonder about the motivation in denying it. A woman who denies her God-given identity as a life-bearer and nurturer, and asserts that such language is power language meant to keep her at home knocked-up and subjugated is perhaps being dishonest. What kind of woman would not embrace the unique identity of life-giver as her birthright? If there is no unique identity for women as givers of life, then perhaps their identity can be that of selfishly preserving their own power instead. After all, it is not the men who have taken power from them for so long, but their own physiology. Kids are a much greater threat to a woman’s freedoms than any man. The good news is that technology has liberated her from the tyranny of “female” physiology. Her claims against the bondage of nature have been summarily adjudicated through abortion. Now sex is emancipated from any responsibility to be a life-giver and life-nurturer; it is reduced to a matter of sexual power alone. And that is a victory for feminism.

In Roman society, only men could commit infanticide. Women were subjugated through the power dynamics of that patriarchal culture. Today, it is not power-wielding men throwing away their unwanted girls or handicapped children. It is the women alone who get to make this choice. Can there be any greater victory for feminism! If the demonstration of power is best expressed in disposing of the lives of the most innocent and feeble amongst us, then women (meaning “the marginalized power community newly asserting its power”) have won the day.

Finally, why conclude that the Christian view is constructed to leverage control over women (again, whatever that even means) when many thoughtful and powerful women affirm it? The problem is that they just aren't the right powerful and thoughtful women. 

It strikes me that most of the high-brow feminist argument reduces to something like this:

1. If there is something wrong with the Christian notion of gender socialization (roles), then those people who don’t identify clearly with this notion will feel isolated, marginalized and vilified by society.

2. People who don’t clearly identify with the Christian notion of gender roles do feel isolated, marginalized and vilified by society.

3. Therefore, there is something wrong with the Christian notion of gender socialization and roles.

Now clearly this is a terrible argument, since it affirms the consequent. There is no reason to believe that because people feel isolated and frustrated with cultural norms that there is something wrong with those cultural norms. I feel that I don’t always fit with the cultural norm of monogamy—that I am often attracted to any number of women. There are only two possibilities here; either there is something wrong with the cultural norm of monogamy or there is something wrong with me. I need to learn to align my errant desires to the norm, or I can let my desires align the externals and be polygamous, promiscuous, or both.

Now there is an effort, albeit weak in my estimation to this point, to affirm that there is a problem with the Christian notion of gender socialization, but what it gives us is ambiguity in the final analysis. We are left merely to define our own sex and gender. Fine. But what can these things mean? As far as I can see, we are given little guidance on such a question. Actually, we are moved towards gender nihilism.

And note also that it appears that very few people go in for these arguments. That of course says nothing about their truthfulness or not, but the practicability of an argument—its livability—does matter on some level. Does it not seem that the vast majority (perhaps a very high percentage indeed) of women are proud of being female sexually and are socialized into “traditional feminine” roles without a great deal of psychological, social or relational angst? Perhaps if they had only read Judith Butler, they would realize that they are really just victims of male power.

Let me just close by saying simply that I'm not convinced that these feminist arguments are successful (especially since they aren't really arguments at all).