Reading Roll, Jordan, Roll has been very thought provoking. I wonder how the author's belief in Marxism is occluding the factual presentation of the truth. He uses lots of Marxist code words: "ruling classes,""infected," "insurrection," "bourgeois" is used frequently, of course, "respect . . . the laboring class,"and the typical classifications that Marxists must make to distinguish people from each other.
There was also a large section on the religious history. Many slaves were Baptists, and after emancipation, many more flocked to Baptist churches. My pastor is studying the history of Baptists and so far, he has not read about this aspect of Baptist history. I hope his text discusses that because I am looking for some balance in the presentation of this topic.
My other current non-fiction read is throwing me for a loop, big time. I have to stop reading occasionally because I feel like I need to take a shower. And I've come to a conclusion - if I have to believe what Mary Kassian has presented as an overview of feminist thought, I am certainly NOT a feminist. I cannot believe that "marriage was a set-up; wives and homemakers existed solely to cater to men's pleasure; wives are merely [chattel]" (p. 151). I cannot believe that "no absolute standard of truth and definition exist" (p. 150). The words the feminists themselves use make it clear feminism is their new religion; they are rejecting patriarchy and therefore rejecting God. (Just to be clear, I reject a patriarchy that says it's okay for men to domineer and abuse women, that men expect women to be submissive but then don't love their wives sacrificially like the next verse says.)
A lady named Davis wrote a book called The First Sex who actually believed that "men-who were genetic mutations of women" (p. 119). I agree that men can be baffling but mutants? This gave me a great laugh. Kassian devoted an entire chapter to Davis's book. I'm not going to link it but if you want to read more of its drivel, I'm sure you can easily find it on google.
Kassian also discusses feminist theologians: "In spite of the drastic deviance from traditional theology, feminist theologians did not see themselves as deviating from biblical truth" (p. 116-7). "If a doctrine or text did not agree with woman's experience of oppression and quest for liberation, then it was freely revised" (p. 118). If you revise, you deviate. That's some chutzpah!
Reading The Feminist Mistake has been a struggle, and I am certainly learning a lot. But if it were easy, everyone would be reading it.
The tie that binds these two books together Marxism. Many feminist theories stemmed from Marxism while Genovese writes from a Marxist view point. One thing for certain, my eyes have been opened to the far reaching impacts of both these ideologies.
Imagine me in bed with the covers pulled up to my eyes, whispering, "I see Marxists."
My other current non-fiction read is throwing me for a loop, big time. I have to stop reading occasionally because I feel like I need to take a shower. And I've come to a conclusion - if I have to believe what Mary Kassian has presented as an overview of feminist thought, I am certainly NOT a feminist. I cannot believe that "marriage was a set-up; wives and homemakers existed solely to cater to men's pleasure; wives are merely [chattel]" (p. 151). I cannot believe that "no absolute standard of truth and definition exist" (p. 150). The words the feminists themselves use make it clear feminism is their new religion; they are rejecting patriarchy and therefore rejecting God. (Just to be clear, I reject a patriarchy that says it's okay for men to domineer and abuse women, that men expect women to be submissive but then don't love their wives sacrificially like the next verse says.)
A lady named Davis wrote a book called The First Sex who actually believed that "men-who were genetic mutations of women" (p. 119). I agree that men can be baffling but mutants? This gave me a great laugh. Kassian devoted an entire chapter to Davis's book. I'm not going to link it but if you want to read more of its drivel, I'm sure you can easily find it on google.
Kassian also discusses feminist theologians: "In spite of the drastic deviance from traditional theology, feminist theologians did not see themselves as deviating from biblical truth" (p. 116-7). "If a doctrine or text did not agree with woman's experience of oppression and quest for liberation, then it was freely revised" (p. 118). If you revise, you deviate. That's some chutzpah!
Reading The Feminist Mistake has been a struggle, and I am certainly learning a lot. But if it were easy, everyone would be reading it.
The tie that binds these two books together Marxism. Many feminist theories stemmed from Marxism while Genovese writes from a Marxist view point. One thing for certain, my eyes have been opened to the far reaching impacts of both these ideologies.
Imagine me in bed with the covers pulled up to my eyes, whispering, "I see Marxists."
No comments:
Post a Comment