Letter to the Editor and a challenge
Today Jane Norton has a letter in the Herald as a reply to my one. I will post her reply; not because it is worthy of being posted, but so that you can see the total lack of clear thinking coming from many feminists.
"I thank Scott Kennedy for pointing out to me that Samuel Carpenter's statement about women being the viewing property of their spouse only is simply because of Mr Carpenter's concern at the exploitation of women. It would appear that private exploitation, in the form of a husband owning his wife, is acceptable but public exploitation is not."
Ok, I'm not even going to talk about the clumsy first sentence, but rather about her big flaw. In this letter she is admitting that the posting of billboards is public exploitation, but instead of saying "No that's wrong" she uses a most flawed argument. She seems to insist that since there is some private exploitation (and we'll come to that) it's OK to have public exploitation. It's actually not at all clear that she knows what she is arguing for. Have I convinced her that public exploitation is wrong, and now she is moving onto defeat private? Either way she is jeopardizing her first argument, that the billboards are fine, and it is repressive to get rid of them.
Now I'd like to look at what she called 'private exploitation'. She labels the monogamous relationship of marriage as exploitation, where a husband 'owns' a wife, and she is his 'viewing property'. Well I say a hearty "Amen" to this. As it says in I Corinthians 7:4 "A wife belongs to her husband instead of to herself, and a husband belongs to his wife instead of to himself." This kind of relationship is a wonderful protection for women. Instead of being a restriction to women, it protects them from undesirable occurrences. God is not a feminist (I think that's the name of a book), and He ordained marriage as a mutually beneficial relationship of committment, which directly reflects Christ and His relationship to the Church. Feminism does not empower women. Instead it makes them more vulnerable to exploitation than ever. Here we have a feminist who attacks marriage, and sees no problem with women being plastered around on big billboards for all and sundry to oogle over. Posting women naked or semi-naked on big billboards encourages a superficial and shallow view of women to be adopted by a society. This more than marriage reduces women to a commodity, an object which can be compared to others, and rejected on basis of aesthetic qualities, rather than the qualities of a gentle and quiet spirit, or a love for the Lord. So in reality feminists are degrading women, and we Christians must arise to protect them.
So having said this (and I could say much more, and maybe will do so in a future post), I leave a challenge. Let's not all sit on the fence, and say "That's nice" or "That's interesting". Arise, get your pen, and paper (or your email) and write letters to the editor, exposing this attack on marriage for what it is! Stupidity. Marriage is the foundation of a society, and if it is attacked we Christians must defend it. Let us protect our sisters, and expose this nonsense for what it is.
PS I will post more on this when I get some time.
Today Jane Norton has a letter in the Herald as a reply to my one. I will post her reply; not because it is worthy of being posted, but so that you can see the total lack of clear thinking coming from many feminists.
"I thank Scott Kennedy for pointing out to me that Samuel Carpenter's statement about women being the viewing property of their spouse only is simply because of Mr Carpenter's concern at the exploitation of women. It would appear that private exploitation, in the form of a husband owning his wife, is acceptable but public exploitation is not."
Ok, I'm not even going to talk about the clumsy first sentence, but rather about her big flaw. In this letter she is admitting that the posting of billboards is public exploitation, but instead of saying "No that's wrong" she uses a most flawed argument. She seems to insist that since there is some private exploitation (and we'll come to that) it's OK to have public exploitation. It's actually not at all clear that she knows what she is arguing for. Have I convinced her that public exploitation is wrong, and now she is moving onto defeat private? Either way she is jeopardizing her first argument, that the billboards are fine, and it is repressive to get rid of them.
Now I'd like to look at what she called 'private exploitation'. She labels the monogamous relationship of marriage as exploitation, where a husband 'owns' a wife, and she is his 'viewing property'. Well I say a hearty "Amen" to this. As it says in I Corinthians 7:4 "A wife belongs to her husband instead of to herself, and a husband belongs to his wife instead of to himself." This kind of relationship is a wonderful protection for women. Instead of being a restriction to women, it protects them from undesirable occurrences. God is not a feminist (I think that's the name of a book), and He ordained marriage as a mutually beneficial relationship of committment, which directly reflects Christ and His relationship to the Church. Feminism does not empower women. Instead it makes them more vulnerable to exploitation than ever. Here we have a feminist who attacks marriage, and sees no problem with women being plastered around on big billboards for all and sundry to oogle over. Posting women naked or semi-naked on big billboards encourages a superficial and shallow view of women to be adopted by a society. This more than marriage reduces women to a commodity, an object which can be compared to others, and rejected on basis of aesthetic qualities, rather than the qualities of a gentle and quiet spirit, or a love for the Lord. So in reality feminists are degrading women, and we Christians must arise to protect them.
So having said this (and I could say much more, and maybe will do so in a future post), I leave a challenge. Let's not all sit on the fence, and say "That's nice" or "That's interesting". Arise, get your pen, and paper (or your email) and write letters to the editor, exposing this attack on marriage for what it is! Stupidity. Marriage is the foundation of a society, and if it is attacked we Christians must defend it. Let us protect our sisters, and expose this nonsense for what it is.
PS I will post more on this when I get some time.
posted by Scotty at 8:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home