We closed last week with concern as to whether ‘man’s politics’ was producing the results that they were intended to produce when they first set ‘God’s politics’ aside as being too restrictive. I referred to a study by the University of Chicago in a project entitled “General Social Survey” (GSS). In the early years of the study, women reported greater happiness than men. However, since then they have become progressively less content. Men are now considerably more satisfied with their lives than are women. This has shown to be true across demographic groups regardless of income. Life is not about money. That’s a point made by ‘God’s politics’. As one researcher explained, “This decline in happiness is comparable to the effects of an eight and a half percentage point increase in unemployment”. But women aren’t unemployed. They work more,and earn more than they did in 1972 but it hasn’t helped. Research suggests employed women may be part of the problem. Marriages in which the female partner earns more than her husband are more likely to report instability and ultimately end in divorce. Of course this attitudinal change has an impact on the next generation these families may have brought into the world. By contrast, a study of twelve years of data from the GSS found that women who reported having more traditional views on gender roles within the family “reported higher marital and individual happiness”. Studies in other countries found the same thing. A study published in the journal American Sociological Review used survey data from 1980 to 1988 and found that as wive’s attitudes became more egalitarian (egalitarian – advocating full political, social, and economic equality for all people) their perceived marital quality declined. For husbands, contrary to what might be expected, as their attitudes became more egalitarian their perceived marital quality increased. Such findings challenge what we’re told is true about families and gender roles. ‘God’s politics’ wired us so to those who place ‘God’s politics’ ahead of ‘man’s politics’ this might not come as such a surprise. You would think professional feminists would be eager to understand what this research means, since bringing happiness to women is the whole idea of feminism. Unfortunately, they are not interested in this research since it is ‘anti-agenda’. By and large feminists have ignored the data. Maybe they just don’t care?
What began as a liberation movement has narrowed to become cultish and sectarian…a strange parody to its former self. The NOW founder, Betty Friedan, argued that all women should have the widest possible range of life choices. Modern feminists demand that women meet a set of expectations every bit as confining as anything 1950’s suburbia imposed. Take for instance abortion. In January 2017 a women’s group from Texas called the New Wave Feminists signed on as a sponsor of the Women’s March on Washington. They seemed to meet all the requirements. They were women, they were feminists, and ‘deeply’ offended by Donald Trump. But they had one failing…they were opposed to abortion. When this ‘dark, dirty’ secret was found out they were asked to excuse themselves. Opposition to abortion was not part of the agenda. Writer Roxane Gay explains,”That’s not how it works! The right to choose is a fundamental part of feminism.” It’s not obvious why opposition to abortion should not be a part of feminism. Isn’t the right to choose a part of feminism? The earliest feminists saw nothing virtuous about it. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, one of the first suffragettes, called abortion the “murder of children”. Susan B. Anthony referred to it as “infanticide”. They saw nothing shameful about childbearing and motherhood. Early feminists understood their power as women was rooted in their biological differences from men. Only women bear children. Childbearing remains women’s unique contribution to the perpetuation of the species. That’s no small thing. Without it humanity dies. It was part of ‘God’s design’. When motherhood is less valuable to society, so are women. Many feminists today tend to believe that having children is less impressive than working as an investment banker. If men wanted to dominate women, they’d tell them to act like men. ‘Man’s politics’ has so numbed the conscience that taking a life by whatever means is a solution to problems even if that life is innocent and defenseless. One of the March on Washington campaign founders, Amelia Bonow, commented,”But you know what? I have a good heart and having an abortion made me happy in a totally unqualified way”. Another founder, Moira Weigel, found fault with ultrasound technology because it was capable of convincing women to not have an abortion. She went further to write in the Atlantic that “seeing a child in utero with that level of clarity might spoil the entire experience”. (I guess we wouldn’t want that to happen…certainly not a good experience for the baby.)
But then as previously mentioned, sometimes the best of ‘man’s’ intentions can have unexpected consequences. Abortion is supposed to give women their freedom…especially freedom from ‘God’s politics’. Unfortunately for the feminists abortion isn’t always a matter of personal liberation. Sex-selective abortions are becoming more common and especially in cultures with preference for sons. Studies show that means fewer daughters. If women believed their job was to defend the ‘freedom’ of women, they should be bothered by that. It seems that feminists are not the least bit bothered. In 2013, Sarah Ditum wrote an article in the Guardian titled “Why Women Have a Right to Sex-Selective Abortion”. Her reasoning:”As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter why a woman wants to end her pregnancy…even the most terrible reason for having an abortion holds more sway than the best imaginable reason for compelling a woman to carry to term.” In May 2012, Planned Parenthood affirmed the same position declaring “no Planned Parenthood clinic will deny a woman an abortion based on her reasons for wanting one, except in those states that explicitly prohibit sex-selective abortions.” This pretty much affirms that to the radical feminists abortion is more important than girls.
Next week we will see how ‘man’s politics’ combined with the feminists agenda has worked to push ‘God’s politics’ to the side in our society. How often do we hear sermons in church where the roles of men and women in God’s plan are discussed and how man has tried to put the plan in a ‘lock box of time’? Such sermons very possibly could be ‘offensive’ so they are left alone. Is this the ‘divorce’ from politics and the church that God favors? I wonder if one day at ‘judgment’ women who had abortions and men who encouraged them will be required to meet the children…humans…they deprived of life? One day we will know.
– Bob Munsey
Geezer Politics 