The Different Strains Of Feminism

In  my last couple of posts on Women Against Feminism (see here and here) I made the claim that feminism is everywhere- or as Free Northerner (and others) have said: in the air we breath. All of this centered around the argument that the WAF are feminists, whether they realize it or not. Central to this is the fact that feminism has been with us so long, and has been so successful, that our understanding of what constitutes feminism has shifted without our realizing it.

This post is going to cover what I think are the major “strains” of feminism. I use strains because a strong argument can be made that feminism is a disease of sorts, one that has been with us for a long time. Now, as far as I can tell there are three ‘major’ strains. While it is possible to break them up further, I think that all of them fall under one of these three main categories. They are “Traditional Feminism”, “Egalitarian Feminism” and “Supremacist Feminism.” Here are some brief explanations of them. If anyone can think of any other major categories, do  argue for them in the comments. I hope to use this post as an opportunity to really delve into this particular subject.

Traditional Feminism

  • This strain of feminism existed before the term “feminism” was invented or used in the manner we understand it now. It has existed for centuries in the West, and can be traced back to the hijacking of chivalry by aristocratic women in feudal Europe. Consequently another name for this might be Pseudo-Chivalric or just Chivalric Feminism. Here is an example of it in action.
  • Unlike the latter strains, Traditional Feminism is not about women gaining “structural power” for themselves, but instead limiting, circumventing or suborning male structural power. Its goal was to turn female protections into female privileges. One example of this is excluding men from certain activities, on the grounds that it is a woman’s role or activity only, as compared to something women should do because they are better at it.
  • Pedestalization is very big part of this form of feminism, which was the dominant strain until the last century or so. Until recently, it was found most often among “conservative” women. Nowadays it is fairly rare, largely due to the success of Egalitarian Feminism. [To understand strike-throughs see bottom update.]

-Egalitarian Feminism

  • This strain of feminism is more recent, [probably] originating in the last few centuries. It was a product of the liberalism or modernism, whichever term you prefer. One of the original proponents of Egalitarian Feminism was Abigail Adams. Most of “First-Wave” Feminism falls under the Egalitarian Feminism category. So does the Suffragette movement, assuming you separate it from first-wave feminism.
  • The main goal of this strain is to equalize the structural power of men and women. Equality is the name of the game here, although primarily equality of opportunity. This strain pushed the 19th Amendment, pushed to have female jurors, and otherwise open to women anything that was closed (or perceived to be closed) to them. It is less about female privilege than it is about ending perceived male privilege.
  • Most “conservative” women today (and men for that matter) are infected by this particular strain. The WAF are also infected by it. What makes it so dangerous in a way is that it is difficult to detect. Because of the earlier success of Egalitarian Feminism (back when it was recognized as feminism), it has become the default mode of thought in Western society. So in a way “Egalitarian Feminism” won, and is no longer recognized as feminism. It just is- it is the proper state of affairs.

-Supremacist Feminism

  • This is the strain that is sometimes referred to as “Radical Feminism.” It is a recent phenomenon, dating back less than a century or thereabouts. “Second-Wave” and “Third-Wave” feminism belong to this category. Most modern self-identifying feminists fall under this category.
  • The principal goal of this strain is to elevate female interests and/or to denigrate male interests. Whether it is “woman good” or “man bad”, those who are infected with this strain are not concerned with equality (or at least equality of opportunity). Instead “Social Justice” or Equality of Outcome are their goals. Ending “male privilege” is important, but to them leveling the playing field requires that women be elevated to compensate for millennia of abuse and oppression at the hands of men. Here structural power is shifted away from men and towards women- an example is the way that colleges and universities address reported rapes on campus.
  • When feminism is referred to by most these days, it is Supremacist Feminism that they mean. Given how much success feminism has had thus far, most everyone sees only this as feminism. They have no idea it is only the latest in a long progression of feminist efforts. When “conservatives” and the WAF speak out against feminism, this strain is what they are attacking- at least in theory.

I’m curious if folks agree with my categorization effort. I know these categories aren’t perfect, as there is some overlap between them.  But overall I think they accurately portray feminism has it exits and has existed.


[Update: I struck out most of the historical claims in this post, as others challenged their accuracy and they were probably right. I never studied the history of feminism, and haven’t devoted time to doing so since university, so I should have known better than to make any claims on this account.]



Filed under Feminism, Women

40 responses to “The Different Strains Of Feminism

  1. While your categories, as you say, aren’t perfect; I do think they capture the heart of the…. goals of the leaders and means used to attain those goals used by such leaders.

    I would also say that your definition of Traditional Feminism extends beyond Chivalric times. Reading some of the classical literature you can see such strains of thought in the Greeks. Antigone, Lysistrata, Medea, Agamemnon’s murder at the hand of Clymenstra. Cleopatra’s use of Roman leaders.

    It is not the same, and it is only with utmost difficulty that one does not project modern views of feminism, egalitarianism, and gender roles onto such literary works and history. Yet you can see the seeds of feminism scattered along the foundations of Civilization. Some got rooted out. Some sprouted into vines to begin worming their way among the foundation stones before being cut down, sorted, and burned as evil fruit from evil trees. Yet their damage was done, and later seeds and vines had deeper access to wreck yet more destruction.

    The destruction to the social fabric of society is one that spans the world in so far as one society influences the other. To repair the damage one must not only denounce the previous damage as evil, but work towards repairing the damage done.

    It’s been a long time since Western Civilization has worked towards any such repairs.

  2. In case it wasn’t clear; I think the distinctions are good and correct, simply that the distinction of traditional feminism goes beyond chivalry.

  3. anon1

    How about sex positive feminism? I do not understand this particular strain because it is pro-porn feminism which is at odds with feminism in general.

  4. @ Chad

    I agree that feminism is as old as humanity itself. I should have made it more clear that Traditional Feminism was just as applied to the West. Classical era Feminism didn’t really influence it because of the Dark Ages- the loss of literature and the like meant that its influence didn’t crop up for a while. Although I would think it possibly had some influence in helping spur Egalitarian Feminism.

  5. @ anon1

    Sex-pos feminism is 3rd-wave feminism. It is opposed to 2nd wave feminism, which often takes the approach of equating sex with rape. Both fight one another in this area, but agree on a whole lot more.

    The thing is that feminism isn’t always united its various components, but is in its overall goals.

  6. That’s a fair point.

    Something this comment will make me ponder is how the role of The Catholic Church and the view of Authority during the Middle Ages held off further female rebellion. I can’t think of any major examples of such rebellion until you get to the same time period you see the major European Philosophers that led to the French Revolution.

    That would put a good sized span in such destructive thoughts and actions that is worth… consideration of emulation as able to in modern day. It also… highlights, some of the Churches history since then as more fighting off modernity rather than repairing the foundations of Western Civilization. For how can one repair a crumbling foundation before getting the weeds causing the devastation out from between the stones holding the structure up?

    Good post, by the way.

  7. I would include the Orthodox Church in there too, because the East fought it off as well. But I definitely agree there is a connection. Really, it is the rise of Liberalism and the Reformation (which are both tied together) which marks the beginning of the move from Traditional Feminism towards Egalitarian Feminism.

    And thanks.

  8. Traditional feminism still thrives in the form of wiles and smiles. It is covert whereas mainstream feminism is overt. All the other strains of feminism think they are the head and seek power whereas traditional feminism claims to not be the head and seek power (and therefore think they are better), but they are the neck (whether admitted or not) and can move that head which ever way they like through wiles, girl game, charm, etc,

  9. @ LGR

    Yes, overt versus covert is a major part of it. Power behind the throne kind of thing.

  10. Oh, I hadn’t thought of that in regards to the East. It certainly makes sense. In fact, given the turbulence the East has had to face with regards to Islam squatting on it’s front door, as well as their relationship with the Pope, they might actually prove to be a greater source of learning and wisdom in regards to Authority, Feminism, and social Stability.

    Yet maybe not. Islam seems to go the opposite way, and be a brutal enforcement of Male Power rather than a stagnant descent into Female Power.

    Thus, maybe the two would be good to compare in how they respond to the evils each has faced so as to see where the beginnings of a virtuous, stable civilizaiton begin and end on each side of the abuses they face.

    Or maybe not.

    I don’t really know history, from sources I trust rather than what I was force fed as a teen, well enough yet to say. I merely ponder aloud (by text) in hopes that others might be able to enlighten me.

  11. I want to pipe in and absolutely agree with Robins on traditional feminism still thriving today, and say that I believe that it is actually much more dangerous.

    Satan is the head of the evil siren of feminism.
    Traditional feminism is the neck connecting it to the rest of the body and giving it the unnaturally pleasant voice voice.
    Egalitarian is the pleasant body and torso, seductive to the senses and passions to men and women both for it’s nice, pleasant appeal to tempt them from correct living.
    Supremacist feminism is the limbs of the beast, armors and clawed. It is how the whole contraption wrecks devastation upon the world.

    But I see the pedestal even in the best of traditional societies that I’ve encountered. I actually detest several advocates of masculinity that other men I know, men whom believe in head of household and traditional values, adore. I detest such advocates precisely because they are unwilling to strike to the heart of the evil, to detach the unnaturally seductive voice of traditional feminism, rip out such pedestals and take off the rose tinted glasses through which they view traditions. Such pedestals and romanticized views make women the source of Good in this world, casting men as supporting roles, rather than God as the source of Good, and men and women each working in their places towards his Glory.

    It’s this reason I can’t stand Matt Walsh and have grown to loath Church Militant TV; where before I could appreciate both.

    Wrong is wrong, no matter how great or how little a wrong it is. The fact that I could live easier with Traditional Feminism than with Supremacist does not make it right. What is more, is that I do not believe a previous form of Feminism, though it might be ‘less destructive’ in short term views, can kill off the evils of later forms of feminism.

  12. There are many histories of feminism as it developed in the West. You could at least look inside on Amazon on a few of them. Just maybe.

  13. mdavid

    Chad, Islam seems to go the opposite way, and be a brutal enforcement of Male Power rather than a stagnant descent into Female Power.

    Islam has survived in modern times so well by fearing the power of female sexuality…at a time when unrestricted female ego is doing great damage to Western society. Islam is actually attractive to many women for this reason; women can be women again under Islam. This is why women often seem more interested in confronting feminism than most men in the West these days; so many men find feminism a neat excuse to avoid the responsibility of leadership and the restrictions of family life.

  14. And yet, the men still did ride to war–many without needing to be much coerced at all. And they destroyed societies, and abandoned responsibility, and gave into groupthink, with and without “feminism.”

    Feminism has certainly been a herald of many awful social developments, but those things could only ever have happened with male cooperation. Just like Adam accepting and eating the apple, men don’t really have any plausible deniability with regards their responsibility in the whole thing. Maybe Eves are all out there listening to serpents, but Eve can’t get out of her own responsibility by blaming the serpent. Nor can Adam get out of his by blaming Eve. If he was so susceptible that he would’ve eaten it, in defiance of God, just because Eve suggested it, then he completely deserved everything that came afterward.

    So too with us, whether women or men. If feminism is a disease, that’s all very well and good, but it’s a disease that only ever presents in direct conjunction with other diseases. Ergo speaking only about “feminism” is missing a much larger part of the picture. Since men have been forging the steel and building the buildings and designing the fighter jets, they bear a far greater responsibility for this state of affairs than women, however attractive and flirtatious those women may have been.

    [DG: Taking a post about the different strains of feminism and trying to turn it into a “Men are Guilty too!” thread? Rebuilding the Mound much?]

  15. It’s an absolute myth that feminists have ever been about ‘egalitarianism’. Possibly many males supporting feminism in the 19th/early 20th century were, feminists themselves were always absolutely clear that they wanted the vote in order to control male sexuality – which was seen as inherently evil (feminists in the UK were actually responsible for having homosexuality criminalized for that reason in 1885).

    Feminism has always been about protecting the sexual market price of women :

  16. Elspeth

    @ lgrobins:

    but they are the neck (whether admitted or not) and can move that head which ever way they like through wiles, girl game, charm, etc,

    I am often sent to thinking when I read your comments about wiles and smiles and am grateful for the opportunity to further explore your thoughts on this.

    Every woman I know who would be considered “traditional” or even “submissive” yet are clearly the head do not use the wiles and smiles approach. Quite the opposite usually. It is more like they talk a good Biblical game on the issue of marriage while clearly subscribing to the notion that they submit to follow the head where she wants to go.

    One of the reason I have strenuously objected to the promotion of Helen Andelin’s book Fascinating Womanhood is precisely because it seems to promote a sort of leading from the neck. But in reality I have rarely, rarely, rarely seen a woman do that. Most find the very notion dishonest, demeaning, beneath them. To have to put on an act to get what they deem in their right?? Or when they fervently believe that they are right?? Heaven forbid!

    I guess I am saying to you that this traditional strain of feminism based on wiles and smiles isn’t common, even among Christian homeschooling mommy-wife types. It just isn’t.

    That was my statement of observation, but now I have a question: I wonder how your assertions about smiles, charm, etc are supposed to play out in reality. The old truism about catching for flies with honey than vinegar is true. A soft answer turns away wrath (Prov 15:1) and all that.

    But the man I know best who has wife prone to pulling out all the stops before making a request (and I fully admit to being one such woman) is also just as prone to look his wife straight in the eye and say, “I appreciate all of this, but the answer is no. It’s not what we should do right now”

    I guess I just wonder how pervasive the notion of traditional feminism is outside of Internet conjecture.

    And by that I mean inside of an existing marriage, not a woman using faux submission to get a man to commit.

  17. Elspeth

    Typo that radically changed what I meant to say. That should have read:

    that they will submit to follow the head wherever she wants to go.

    [DG: Fixed it.]

  18. It’s good only if the women make their way to an actual anti-feminist stance.

    Most women are unwilling to go against the herd by themselves, and it can be easily seen from the RP Women subreddit that many women are happy when they find others like them (e.g. a community). Men are really no different with the collective manosphere.

    Most men I would believe would be happy to go back to your categorized “traditional feminism” as that is the BP world view that most have been ingrained to them by their parents or single mothers. Although it is true that this traditional feminism is still off of the tracks.

  19. Novaseeker

    How about sex positive feminism? I do not understand this particular strain because it is pro-porn feminism which is at odds with feminism in general.

    The split happened in the 70s and 80s between the more radical feminists (like MacKinnon and Dworkin) who argued that all heterosexual sex is rape, on the one hand, and the more “moderate” ones who didn’t want to throw all of straight sex under the bus (because they liked having sex with men, as most women do). The anti-sex wing was outnumbered fairly early on everywhere outside the academy, and so the general trend of feminism since that time has been broadly pro-sex (which has had a lot to do with the coarsening of the sexual culture), while there remains a significant minority, particularly in academic circles, which still adheres to the “sex is rape” perspective.

    The anti-sex crowd argued that all heterosexual sex is rape, either because it is by definition a physical occupation of the female body by the male — an inherently violent, invasive act to its core (Dworkin’s view) or because the culture has conditioned all women to consider heterosexual sex to be acceptable and normal and that therefore their consent to the act is not freely given but is merely the product of this conditioning/brainwashing (MacKinnon’s view). Obviously this kind of thinking is the height of nurture over nature, and gives pretty much no consideration to the natural aspect of heterosexual sex.

    Most women, of course, weren’t buying that all sex is rape, or that the only reason they were interested in heterosexual sex was because they had been brainwashed to consider it acceptable. Most women were not quite so daft. So the anti-sex wing was pretty predictably outnumbered, again except amongst the academic ideologues, who continued to argue for lesbian separatism, or the voluntary culling of the male population by women refusing to bear sons and so on. Most regular women, who accepted the “gains” offered by feminism, were not interested in giving up sex or families for an ideology, so the anti-sex crowd never developed a great sway among the masses.

    At the same time, of course, the sexual revolution happened — something which was influenced by and intertwined with feminism, but still distinct from it to some degree. The pro-sex crowd basically took up the reins of the sexual revolution and focused on how it could empower women through sexual power, now that the sexual revolution removed most of the bars on the projection and expression of that sexual power. That is, sex positive feminists tend to admit that women have tremendous sexual power vis-a-vis men (for the most part), and believe that weaponizing/monetizing this power in a way that gives women what they want is desirable precisely because it frees up another vector for women to project power. Among the sex positives, there is still disagreement about some things like porn (or at least some kinds of porn), prostitution and so on, with some supporting and some not supporting — the basis of the divide is generally whether they think the activity in question is empowering for women or detrimental to women. But the general theme — empowerment for women — runs through sex positive feminism as much as it does any other kind of feminism — it’s just that sex positive feminism more openly embraces the use of sexual power full stop.

  20. I agree with Elspeth that Traditional Feminism is pretty rare these days. Not unheard of, but rare. Perhaps in the most “conservative” of circles you might still find some strongholds of it. But I personally don’t know of any. And in my life I’ve encountered very, very few women who hold to this. More men than women, if anything.

    @ schopenbecq

    Not convinced by your argument, or that link you provided, that all of the early feminists were Supremacists, and not Egalitarians. Mayhaps there were more Supremacists that I figured on early in the movement, but that is a far cry from it never having Egalitarian members.

  21. As some have alluded to above, particular variants of Islam are examples of societies where the distribution of structural power favors men.

  22. Novaseeker, thanks for the explanation of sex-pos feminism.

  23. Elspeth

    I agree with Elspeth that Traditional Feminism is pretty rare these days. Not unheard of, but rare. Perhaps in the most “conservative” of circles you might still find some strongholds of it. But I personally don’t know of any. And in my life I’ve encountered very, very few women who hold to this. More men than women, if anything.

    Like many of the things we discuss here, I am driven to be more observing and a student of the people and relationships around me and quite often find that while the more liberal, broad memes are somewhat based in reality, the conservative stuff? Hardly present anywhere. And unlike most people, our life and backgrounds have placed us in situations where we cross paths with many different types of people. Homeless people (mostly minority men). Our families and church (black middle and lower middle class), the people we do business with up close another (liberal feminist white women), the homeschooling communities yet another (ultra “conservative MC and UMC people mostly white).

    And without fail, traditional feminism is the ONE strain that is largely absent.

    @ Donal:

    I started that poll I told you about. So far the most surprising thing I found was two brothers raised in the same house under the same strict religious teaching who have polar opposite ideas about what they want in a woman and wife.

    Still deciding whether I want to post about it at a later date. If so, I’ll link to you as the inspiration for it.

  24. @ Elspeth

    While my close friends are not dissimilar to me, I’ve traveled enough and have met enough people that I too think I have a broad acquaintance with different backgrounds. Like you, I find Traditional Feminism largely absent.

    My suspicion is that with the present legal and cultural climate, it is no longer required. A woman who wants to embrace her feminist nature can simply adopt another mode of feminism. Traditional Feminism was an attempt to end-run around male structural dominance. Without that dominance in place, there is no need for it.

    Not surprised by that outcome. My brother and I were raised alike, and are very similar in a lot of ways. Yet now I have no doubt that we both are looking for very different things in a woman/wife.

  25. Donal, there’s no need to reframe the discussion. There are a lot of things wrong with feminism, just as there are with Eve’s taking of the apple. No matter how many times you tell God that Eve is responsible for rebuilding the mound, though, He still casts you out of paradise for eating the apple. That parable teaches us something–it teaches us that, no matter how naughty Eve was, we cannot excuse our own sin simply because others have sinned. Cannot. That’s not permitted. If someone else does a wrong, you are not to commit a second wrong, nor to blame your wrong on their wrong because they did it “first.” God knows everything that is in our hearts, and what will happen, and men have free will to sin or to not sin regardless of the existence of women/Lucifer/Muslims/dogs/cats/elephants.

    Feminism is foundational to many problems with our culture, but other things are foundational to feminism–including men’s permissive attitude toward feminism.

    If all you want to do is whine about Eve, that’s fine, but until you accept responsibility for what you have done, you will neither learn, nor earn, your way back into the garden. I’ll even join you in pointing fingers at Eve, if you’re not too afraid to also point a finger at Adam.

  26. Feminine But Not Feminist

    Your categorization looks pretty good to me Donal. I’m no history expert though, so that’s just my opinion. I wonder if the seed that eventually started feminism (whenever it officially started) was Eve’s decision to rebel against both God and Adam, followed by her curse. Feminism of any strain is rooted in rebellion, is it not?

    @ higharka,

    I suspect the problem Donal has with your comment (and please correct me if I’m wrong Donal) is that it goes way off of the topic at hand, not that it is incorrect in and of itself. Donal likes his threads to be kept neat, tidy, and on topic. And your comment deflects from the point of the original post far too much. Not that what you said isn’t correct, because in a sense it is. It just doesn’t belong on this particular thread.

  27. I think you have to be in fairly traditional circles for traditional feminism to rear it’s ugly head. I see it all the time at my church, with egalitarian creeping in at times among those in their 16-25 age range. Younger than that and they’re both still sheltered and raised in a time where some of the lies have been laid a bit more bare. Older and they’re still with full sway of the romanticized views along with less sheltered. Those that have heard the whispers of ‘equality’ have a hard time turning them away.

  28. Feminine But Not Feminist has the right of it. I don’t see anything immediately objectionable about what is said, but it is off-topic. If you find yourself really, really wanting to say it… well, you can always write a guest post on the subject and e-mail it to me (see my About page for my e-mail).

  29. @ higharka

    I pick apart the mindsets and actions of churchianity on my blog often. There is simply no shortage of what everyone does wrong.

  30. I like your categories. I’ve heard the “Egalitarian feminism” referred to as Marxist feminism or socialist feminism because they are trying to gain complete equality with men.

    I’m not sure you went far enough with radical feminism, I’ve heard things about them wanting to have women take over the leadership, to create a female utopia where men are not in control at all and women are worshipped.

    For traditional feminism, you seem to be connecting chivalry with a type of feminism, is that correct?

  31. ballista74

    While my observations are well known (there’s about 6-7 posts on my blog about classification directly and many more on specific facets), I’ll point out a few things:

    All feminism is supremacist feminism. So it really ceases to be a useful classification.

    Traditional feminism is ubiquitous throughout society. It’s the idea that women are morally superior and men are morally inferior, as it’s been expressed through religious ideology. Man bad, woman good came through this one. Since man is bad, he is to perform penance through lifetime sacrifice and provision to women (chivalry, aka pedestalization). Women, through their moral superiority, get to dictate what is done in society and men are to follow through. Men are to submit to women in this system because women are their moral betters. This feminism has the pretense of men being in charge, but women controlling things. This is “Driving Miss Daisy” feminism.

    Egalitarian feminism is a harder one since there’s deception involved, which the blog writer fell into. The idea is what is meant by “equal”. Egalitarian viewpoints have to do with equality of outcome, not anything to do with moral equality, or equality before the law. In other words, concessions are extracted from men (remember that traditional feminism co-exists with modern feminism, men are to unconditionally sacrifice for women) in the name of some oppression by men of women. This results in a privileging of women over men. Not equality, but supremacy. See this: A Feminist Admits That Feminism Isn’t About Equality

    So in truth, you are only left with traditional and modern feminism, both with the goal of female supremacy. As I’ve noted many times, people only see the latter but not the former as feminism, but both have to be countered as exactly the same thing before change is effected. Feminism is feminism is feminism.

  32. An off-topic question:

    I’m sure you know that one recurring them on tradcon blogs is that young, chaste tradcon women find it difficult to find potential husbands willing to court them, especially if these women are plain-looking. Common sense tells us that these women should be looking for potential husbands among the sons of tradcons, that such families are as likely to have sons as daughters. In other words, the sex ratio isn’t lopsided, and young tradcons should be able to pair off.

    So…what gives? What about the tradcon married couples who have sons? We don’t see them around the internet that much, do we? Are they raising their sons right? Why aren’t such men courting these supposedly desperate women?

  33. mdavid

    hoellenhund2, …young, chaste tradcon women find it difficult to find potential husbands willing to court them….What about the tradcon married couples who have sons? We don’t see them around the internet that much, do we? Are they raising their sons right?

    1) Many (most?) tradcoms live rural environments (lots of children + one income = need for inexpensive homes) which means social = harder.
    2) Tradcoms have their own debates which are naturally divisive…headcoverings at church?…believe in evolution?…own a tv? Along these lines, they rarely unify across ideology: Catholic tradcoms are completely different than protestant tradcoms (by definition a protestant isn’t a trad at all and again by definition is naturally divisive and natch women don’t respond well to a culture where each man is his own pope, they look to group authority/cultural stability to raise children).
    3) Many (most?) tradcoms are reclusive and socially restrictive even among themselves (think about it: it defines itself). They don’t get out enough because they are afraid of the culture. And the girls who do get out are like fish out of water and oft are down on the alpha in short order.
    4) Even some tradcom girls have the FI. The first question to ask: does she have a TV? If so, run. Second question: is her mother fat and/or less than submissive? Both are clues to reality. Most tradcom families are mom-centric, so FI is always a threat.
    5) The culture is imploding in general. Lots of collateral damage, including some tradcoms.
    6) This is the first generation in America experience serious cultural decay in the family; most tradcoms are still working out the “bugs” where culture gets no support from law (like the Amish have done). It’s risky for men, even tradcom men, and they are responding cautiously to said risk.
    7) Most trad families I know send their brood to get married in private colleges. Among our set, this is the norm. It’s like salmon spawning.
    8) Sons are not the issue, period. There are lots of good sons out there. As always, it’s the daughters who are the problem. Any girl who cannot get a date in tradcom circles likely has issues with one or more of the points above.

  34. @ hoellenhund2

    Its off-topic, and I won’t answer it here, but this is a question I’ve been asking myself. I have a few answers which are different from mdavids, and might throw them into a quick post later.

  35. Pingback: Whither Thy Sons? | Donal Graeme

  36. Isn’t Traditional Feminism same/similar to Evangelical Feminism. And isn’t it in virtually every church in this country? How did it avoid mention as a primary category?
    Or am I being a pedestrian among intellectuals?

  37. @ Empath

    As a Catholic, it didn’t occur to me to discuss something as specific as Evangelical Feminism. And yes, you are correct that it is very similar to Traditional Feminism. I would describe it was a hybrid between Traditional and Egalitarian Feminism, with particular churches leaning one way or the other.

    It isn’t a primary category because it doesn’t really have any unique features compared to the three main categories. Unless you can name some that I’m not aware of.

  38. It is a primary category in my opinion. Additionally it is the most relevant category for the frame of this blog, I think. categorizing other forms and waves of feminism is an intellectual exercise that usually one sees undertaken at AVFM or similar secular sites. Just me, but my eyes glaze over when it is unpacked because I have trouble finding utility in it, its history, the evolution of the types, the actors, so forth. This impatience with it is my intersection of my faith and my engineering. Pay me no mind.

  39. Sorry, unique features are prominent and what makes it so dangerous. it has a strange circular reasoning aspect. A twisted form of exegesis was built, one piece upon another, using grammatical tricks and substitution of words from one scripture to another, the devaluing of tense and place in written word, so forth, in creating it, Then its proof text is the “understanding” that is rendered from that twisted exegesis. A circle of proof.

  40. Empath, you’ve got me thinking on the subject. I might write a quick post on Monday or Tuesday examining “Evangelical Feminism”, although I think the name “Christo-Feminism” is better, as the problem exists outside Evangelical circles.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s