Feminism as the Erasure of God

Did I chose to be a feminist in my younger years, say from birth to my mid-20s?  I certainly was a feminist, or at least would consider myself to be feminist from my current point of view.  The funny thing is, I never made a conscious choice between patriarchy and feminism.  I didn’t think to myself, is patriarchy better or is feminism better?  Feminism was simply common sense or basic fairness.  Patriarchy was not even an available world view.  Maybe patriarchy meant men being in charge or men being dominant, men telling women what to do, and that was ugly and selfish; that was about as far as it went in my thinking, in my understanding of things.

As soon as I reached the stage of actually trying to compare patriarchy with feminism and trying to see which was better then immediately obviously patriarchy was better but initially I only saw patriarchy as men taking care of women or men supporting women, particularly financially, in particular the man as breadwinner and the woman as stay-at-home mother as in the 1950s, I initially did not see patriarchy as men being dominant over women.  Maybe as a side effect or by accident the man might be dominate over the woman as a result of him making the money and I was OK with that but primarily I simply saw patriarchy as the man financially supporting the woman and that to me made patriarchy good.

When I first compared patriarchy and feminism in my mind I did not view it as equal power between the man and the woman; feminism; versus unequal power with the man being dominant over the woman; patriarchy; instead I viewed the contrast as the man having minimal responsibilities or duties towards the woman; feminism; or the man having a primary fundamental responsibility for the well being of the woman; patriarchy.  The issue of power between the man and the woman was a secondary or side issue in my mind, not very important one way or the other.  What was important was that the man play his traditional role as a man and that the woman play her traditional role as a woman; traditional as in the 1950s.

Going back to my feminist days, before my conversion to patriarchy in my mid-20s, feminism was simply fairness.  It wasn’t a political issue, it wasn’t a controversy, there weren’t two sides to the story, there wasn’t a list of pros in favor of feminism and cons against feminism, feminism was simply common sense, what was natural, what was normal, what was decent and civilized, just obviously the way things should be.

I wonder, what was I thinking at the time?  Was it that I was immersed in a sea of lies and propaganda so that questioning feminism was never an option?  I don’t think so.  I can think of a few instances where blatant feminist messages were communicated to me as a child when I was too young to be able to defend myself intellectually against them but I did not have the sense that I was being lectured on the harms of sexism on any kind of regular basis.  I think if I was aggressively lectured to about how bad toxic masculinity was and how I should respect women more that I would have seen that there were two sides to the story and that it was possible or an option to be anti-feminist.  Feminism wasn’t presented that way, it wasn’t presented as a debate, it was instead presented as an assumption, as obvious common sense.

When I first identified myself as a 1950s style patriarchal man it was because I was aware that the 1950s style patriarchal man was an object of attack, a class enemy of the feminists, an identifiable enemy to be opposed to, and therefore an archetype I could identify with; someone the feminists were opposed to and therefore someone who represented a value system contrary to the feminists.  The 1950s patriarchal man wanted to take care of women and the feminists wanted to be free and independent in opposition to being taken care of; this setting up the contrast that allowed me to take the side of the 1950s patriarchal man against the feminist women.

I think what made feminism make sense to me as a child, teenager, and young adult was the removal of God or a sense of the natural order of things from my mental landscape.  I did not believe that feminism was good because I was told that feminism was good, instead I was told that God did not exist and that only human will was a force in the world and from that foundation it was obvious that feminism was therefore the right way to organize the world and think of relations between the sexes.

If there was an argument that feminism was good than there would have been a counter-argument that maybe feminism was bad instead; then I would have had both sides to choose from and maybe I would have chosen the anti-feminist side.  That is not how things were presented.  Instead the presentation was that only human will exists, there is no higher order to obey or follow instead, and without a higher order as an alternative then feminism is the obvious default choice.  So in order to be against feminism in this presentation of things I have to find or construct the higher order or the God concept that provides to me an alternative to feminism.  This is much harder than simply hearing the counter-argument against feminism and agreeing with it, this requires the creation or the learning of a whole new branch of philosophy or a whole new way of viewing the world that you did not even know existed beforehand.

Feminism is not the result of rational arguments about whether gender equality is good or bad; it is instead simply the byproduct of the denial and the erasure of God.  Feminism is a kind of primitive atheistic moral system with no underlying natural order or overall plan for humanity or the family; instead it is simply the assertion of human will and human desire male and female.  Patriarchy is a more advanced God based or God derived moral system with a collective intent and an overall plan of human relationships that both men and women are to follow.

This is what makes patriarchy better than feminism; patriarchy is the organizing principle of what is best for the family as a whole, as a collective family unit; feminism by contrast is just the man and woman as individuals asserting what they want in a competitive style with rules of fairness and equality to make the competitive set up more cooperative and mutually beneficial in outcome.

The question is whether we as individual men and women are just individual men and women with our own desires and preferences and goals to achieve or are we as men and women part of a greater plan and a greater purpose of what the role of men is that each individual man is to further and be a part of and what the role of women is that each individual woman is to further and be a part of.  According to feminists we are each individuals doing our own thing, according to patriarchy we are each representatives of our sex meant to fulfill and act out the role of our sex within our families and in the society as a whole as determined by God or the natural order of things.


Related articles:
Taking the God Pill
What the Superior Power means to me as an Atheist

About Jesse Powell TFA

Anti-Feminist, MRA, Pro-Traditional Women's Rights Traditional Family Activist (TFA)
This entry was posted in Patriarchy, Philosophy and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Feminism as the Erasure of God

  1. Pingback: The Moral Outlook of Traditionalism | Secular Patriarchy

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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