As RPers, we know that feminism is the enemy. "Feminists" tend to stifle any sense of masculinity and shame it as a threat to their way of life. Social media has revolutionized the mass scale on which this can happen. How did we get to where we are? Let's look at the different waves of feminism.

First Wave Feminism - This started as early as 1848 with the first Women's Conference in Seneca Falls, riding on the coattails of the abolition of slavery. Its primary focus was toward equalizing legal rights, particularly including acquiring the right to vote. This phase lasted through the 1950s.

Second Wave Feminism - Where the first wave was about legal equality, from 1960-1990 the range of issues opened up drastically. Significant targets that were affected included representation in the workplace (from 24% in 1953 to 76% in 1990), reproductive rights (ex. Roe v. Wade), and a redefining of family roles, such as converting the term "housewife" (which had been around since the 1200s) into "homemaker" in the '70s (removing "wife" from her identity) and ultimately "stay at home mother" by 1990 - each of these drastically altering the expectations of non-working women and how they related with their husbands. The crowning achievement of the second wave was the institution of no-fault divorce laws, beginning with California in 1969.

Third Wave Feminism - Lasting from 1990 until 2008, the feminist goal here was to abolish all gender role expectations and stereotypes, treating men and women as having no appreciable differences. Whereas second wave feminism condemned female involvement in things like pornography and public displays of sexuality, much of the third wave encouraged it, believing it was a sign of women finally embracing their sexuality. The focus became less political and more about transforming individual identity, which carried over into the LGBT movement.

Fourth Wave Feminism - From 2008 to the present, feminism now exists predominantly on social media platforms for the uplifting of women and degradation of men. To quote wikipedia, "the internet has created a 'call-out' culture, in which sexism or misogyny can be called out and challenged immediately with relative ease" - yet any effort to call out women for misandry (female degradation of men or masculinity) is not tolerated. Any signs of traditional or historical masculinity are shamed as misogyny or otherwise deemed threatening. Social campaigns began gaining traction by using inaccurate or exaggerated slogans that stir up emotional reactions rather than assessing facts. Out-of-context title-shaming ("You're a sexist!" or "mysogynist!" or "chauvinist pig!") became the norm for manipulating social behaviors through crowd mentality.

  • Fourth wave feminism has also been credited for the rise of the Social Justice Warriors - men who promote socially progressive views in order to win the approval of women. They believe that by supporting the underdog they will be seen as a "hero of the commoner," earning them admiration from the fairer sex. In short, they exchange or rationalize away genuine critical thought in exchange for a boost in their reputation, known as virtue signaling.

CHURCH RESPONSE

What should the Christian think about all of this? The Bible does not take a hard-nosed stance on the viability of some of the early feminist movement. The church's ability to maintain biblical intergender dynamics is not dependent upon the political climate the church lives in - if the men leading the church are strong enough to function within their own framework of operation.

The problem is that most church leaders are more concerned with getting people in the door than pursuing godliness. They have adopted the "great commission" in some bizarre sense, but they have abandoned biblical teaching in order to fulfill their hollow understanding of the Gospel. This is why we see so many churches watering down the Gospel into "easy believism", preaching prosperity through faith rather than the cost of being a disciple, and ultimately failing to show any interest in the fulfillment of the great commission itself. Result? Many churches have abandoned the truth in favor of becoming social justice warriors in the hope that their rise in popularity would be the most effective way to win people to the Gospel - if, in fact, it is still the true Gospel at all. I'll be bold and call out the Episcopalians, Presbyterian Church USA (as opposed to the PCA), the United Church of Christ, and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (not to be confused with other types of Lutherans).

More to the point, I'm guessing we have a wide array of views even among RP men as to what degrees of feminism are appropriate on both societal and church-organizational levels. For example, I personally have no problem with first and part of second wave feminism on a societal level - particularly under modern divorce laws. The empowerment of women in the workplace helps offset the likelihood of financial divorce rape. So, if divorce laws aren't going to change, I'm all in favor of more women in the workforce and having comparable wages (of course, a reversal of those laws would be preferable on the whole ... but we have to be realistic as well). But in a more perfect world, at least to the degree of church leadership as its own path apart from cultural influences, I do believe that even first wave feminism should never have crept into the church in the first place.


MODELS FOR ENACTING CHANGE

There are two primary models for enacting change.

TOP-DOWN: This approach says that people follow positional leaders at the top, who have at least the appearance of authority. Because the masses view themselves as powerless to fight the system or are otherwise easily manipulated by marketing and propaganda from the top, the only real way to change the culture of a society on the whole is to transform the leadership so that everyone else will follow. Specifically, through political tactics, social media campaigns, journalism, etc. awareness can be raised to the degradation of masculinity in society, including within the church, and with enough numbers, finances, popular faces, and overall support, leadership will have to take notice and start changing the rules. When this change in rules occurs, society will follow.

Although we don't see Jesus or the apostles employing this tactic in Scripture, it is certainly a popular one among most Christian organizations. For example, the Christian Legal Society, Alliance Defending Freedom, and International Association for Religious Freedom all target the political sphere in order to effectuate a positive change in the culture for Christians+. Within my own ministry association, the Navigators Church Ministries teaches that the best way to change a church culture into one of disciple-making is to start with the pastor, have him reach the elders, and move on from there.

BOTTOM-UP: The alternative to the top-down approach is the discipleship model, which is what we do see Jesus and the apostles employing. It is a very long and difficult process and is often rejected because it does not reap immediate or fast-paced results and often goes so far under the radar in its earliest phases (sometimes intentionally) that it's hard to see from a logical standpoint how it could ever truly change a culture. The premise is that by reaching one other person, the following year you and that other person can now reach two more, and then it multiplies to 4, then 8, then 16, then 32, then 64, 128, 256, 512, etc. - and after enough time and generations of multiplication, the growing numbers become hard to ignore.

Where the top-down approach often leads to hollow compliance (i.e. people following because they have to), the bottom-up approach leads to dedicated compliance (i.e. people following because they want to and believe in the cause). As a result, proponents of the bottom-up approach believe that this system leads to greater authenticity within the culture and is thus less likely to be uprooted by a sudden change in political climate, whereas the top-down proponents would argue more along the lines of the difficulty of turning around a ship, even from the captain's chair.

Wherever you fall on the spectrum of how you view feminism or how to enact change, it's important at least to be moderately informed and to know what social factors are influencing the way you experience life. I look forward to fruitful discussion, as I'm sure many of you know even more about this stuff than I do. I'm also happy to edit this post as comments roll in :)