Unlikely Allies: Feminism and its Core in Republican Values

Many conservatives are quick to spout criticism of “feminists” and how the push modern drive for women’s rights has damaged the nation. However, in my experience, true feminists and conservative republicans really share many core beliefs, and the movement itself was rooted in a fundamental understanding of the principles upon which our nation was founded. It has certainly been corrupted in recent years, but I would argue that true feminism is a strong ally to the Republican Party, and a vital component to winning the cultural war before us today.

The Merriam Webster dictionary offers a few interesting definitions for "Feminism" that will help illustrate my primary thesis:

1: The theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes.

2: organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests.

Both of these definitions offer some insight into the basis of the "feminist movement" - I would blend these definitions to something akin to the following -

"an organized activity on behalf on women's rights and interests, predicated upon the theory that women ought to be politically, economically, and socially equal to men in all respects." 

Forgetting other components of the movement, I would argue that this definition is deeply rooted in an understanding of Republican values. In fact, I will go one step further – this definition fits perfectly within a conservative Christian view of American politics.

The truth is, Christianity is, in many ways, responsible for the cultural respect for the value of women in society. There is extensive evidence that nations lacking Western traditions –deeply rooted in religious traditions – also have greater levels of human rights violations and abuse of women. I have spent time in the past describing how “Christian” the founding of America really was, but I will condense this argument, for now, to the simple statement that our founders recognized that Christian morals were vital to the nation’s survival. Even those that were personally deists or atheists, still recognized that Christian values were necessary.

John Adams once wrote that “our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people; it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” These same founding fathers argued that “all men are created equal” and that they possessed “inalienable rights” such as life, liberty, and property. This understanding of natural rights is what allowed the women’s liberation movement to take steam, as well as the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s – recognizing that all of mankind possesses God-given rights. The Feminist

movement recognized the fact that there was not equality of opportunity – women did not have the same opportunity to achieve as men, and they pushed for legislation that would overcome this obstacle and allow for equal opportunity for men and women.

Yet somehow, in recent years, that same movement has entangled itself with the LGBT community, advocating less for equal status for women, and more for legislation recognizing “gender identity” – a concept that is actually detrimental the very values that represent the core of the feminist movement.

On June 26, 2014, Slate published an article on the subject of gender identity, claiming that a doctor declaring your newborn as male or female is "infant gender assignment," which causes your baby's life to be:

 ...instantly and brutally reduced from such infinite potentials down to one concrete set of expectations and stereotypes, and any behavioral deviation from that will be severely punished - both intentionally through bigotry, and unintentionally through ignorance. 

The author advocates that parents should object to a doctor "assigning" your child's gender at birth because "Infant gender assignment might just be Russian roulette with your baby's life."

Do true feminists really wish to create a society where biology is ignored in favor of a euphoric belief that one’s identity is a choice?

As the Slate article illustrates, many in today’s society feel that recognizing one’s biology has “reduced” them to “one concrete set of expectations and stereotypes.” This is diametrically opposed to feminist thought, which advocates that in order to achieve equality among the sexes, gender stereotypes must be broken down and both sexes should be allowed to pursue their own interests. Have feminists abandoned their own cause in favor of another?

Finally, while gender neutrality is more of a concept than an actual movement, it also has great potential harm for feminists in the future. Once the concept of male and female is blurred, there is very little opportunity for legislation and regulation that ensures that “women” have equal opportunities as men. If people can pick their own gender identity, how long will it be before biologically female individuals once again find themselves underrepresented?

"Tyler"

I’ll wrap up with the story of a girl named Kathryn, whose parents have made her into a key figure in the transgender movement. According to reporters, at the age of 2 she insisted she was a boy. The parents then accepted it, and allowed their “son” to change her to “Tyler.” She’s now 7 years old. The Washington Post records the evidence of how good their “son” is doing now that [s]he’s accepted the change:

“Come on! Let’s play Batman!” he screamed to my younger son, his partner in crime on a recent play date. The two boys swam together, compared Lego guys and had sword fights. Whenever the family watches television, Tyler roots for the boy characters. His home looks like a house with a son. Karate gear, soccer balls, cars, trucks and pirate swords abound. At school, he’s a boy. Plain and simple. (Washington Post)

Now, I may not completely share the same view as many modern feminists –  I do believe that there are differences between men and women both physically and emotionally. I think that there are areas that men are more suited to, and women are more suited to. In addition, in many ways, parents fail to establish how much of a gift gender is and how the differences between men and women actually compliment each other and lead to a more balanced family and society. However, I also recognize that there are exceptions - not all women fit a mold, nor do all men - there are plenty of tomboyish girls, and more feminine boys.Which is why I find it incredibly fascinating that the evidence presented for “Tyler” being a true “boy” was her interest in perceived “masculine” activities. Most of all, though, I find it disheartening that feminists would accept such a stereotype and condemn a 5 year old girl to a life as a mascot of the LGBT community simply because she dared to have interests in “masculine” activities.  

In the end, I believe that conservatives and true feminists really have a great deal of common ground on many of these issues. If these two unlikely allies can find it in their power to unite and remember our common heritage and values, there is a chance that both our goals can be reached. If there are women that truly wish to fight to allow for greater equality of opportunity and representation, they must unite with conservatives that wish to resist the trend toward gender identity and neutrality legislation which is detrimental to this very objective and to our families, and our nation at large.

"When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created." - Genesis 5:1b-2 ESV

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - Declaration of Independence, 1776

Poverty: From a Conservative Viewpoint

As with many of my posts, this topic was inspired by a class discussion on development economics and the ensuing follow-up conversations with fellow students. I think it is a fascinating topic to discuss and analyze as well as a very important social ill that much of the world -including our own nation, continues to struggle with on a daily basis. Any follow-up discussion that you would contribute is welcomed and encouraged, in the comment section below.

Poverty. The greatest social blight of the world. We've all seen the commercials for the non-profits that seek to sponsor children living in poverty. Most of us have seen documentaries and newscasts from experts that discuss the implications of poverty on society in Africa and Southeast Asia. In lieu of the sheer mass of public awareness campaigns and NGO's that we encounter in our daily lives, it can be easy to turn a blind eye to the reality of this issue in the world. There are millions of individuals in the world living in extreme poverty with little or no hope of climbing the economic ladder and achieving a higher per capita socioeconomic status. 

If this seems a little daunting of an issue for this blog to tackle - and maybe a little too globally minded - I understand. For many of us, addressing poverty and disease in Africa and the rest of the developing world is not even an option -- our daily lives are more than enough to figure out, and the financial and time commitments necessary to help the rest world are simply impossible for us. But there is another area of poverty that is often ignored - local poverty. Poverty in our own neighborhoods, cities, and states. The city of San Francisco had approximately 6,436 individuals living in homelessness in 2013. That's huge. 

While thinking about this issue, it occurred to me - in light of the fact that conservatives often find themselves on the defensive with regard to their opposition to government policies and regulations, I thought it might be nice to discuss how a conservative (myself) views the issue of global and domestic poverty - and how Americans, and my fellow Christians, can remain compassionate and attentive to this serious social ill while maintaining our fiscal responsibility in government policymaking.

In my Political Economy class, we made a distinction between the two primary views on how one should address poverty in the world. The first category are labeled as "Planners" while the second are "Searchers." Planners seek to gather research, discuss policy and with the collaboration of various experts - create a plan to solve the issue. This approach is associated, in part, with the approach advocated by Jeffrey Sachs. Searchers, on the other hand, view the issue as too complex to address through any expert-plan. Poverty is an issue that must be addressed piecemeal through homegrown solutions. Do these arguments sound familiar? They should - this is essentially the permanent policy debate between conservatives and liberals, when it comes to social policy and economic development. In light of this, you can probably guess which side of the fence I come out on. I align with the "searchers." Primarily. 

To show my hand - I do not believe that poverty can be eradicated. Ever. I think that some form of poverty will always exist - to deny this, I believe, is to deny human nature and the entire history of civilizations in the world. However, I do believe that poverty is still a social ill that individuals should seek to fight and resist - it is certainly possible to reduce poverty - and even work towards a temporary solution by alleviating the amount of absolute and extreme poverty in the world. I believe that poverty is a serious issue and one that many of us, and especially many Christians, fail to devote serious thought or time toward addressing. If Christians, such as myself, claim to follow the teaching and work of Christ - then we should be seeking to address the physical as well as spiritual needs of those around us. Micah 6:8 declares, "He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?" 

So - poverty should be fought - but how?

I believe that to address poverty and limit/eliminate it, one must first understand where the issues of poverty really come from. Is it the result of exploitation by the rest of the world? Is it the result of lack of innovation and engagement? Is it self-caused, or a byproduct of other people's and government's actions?

Answer - Yes. And No. Because global poverty is far too big of an issue to boil down to one cause - in some places, all of these might be the case. In others, none. In some, it may be a mix of a few of these, but not all. This is why I am a "Searcher" and not a Planner - just as this is why I believe in the Free Market and limited government - it is impossible to accurately predict all of the variables that will influence economics in the future or the present - but we have consistently seen that when individuals are provided with a basic framework of law and order and equality of opportunity - then competition allows some to shine, while others fail. Government policies to help those in poverty are not preferable, but at times, they might be necessary. The most desirable approach to fighting poverty, though, in my belief, is by those outside of poverty living with and engaging in community with those trapped in the social conditions of poverty. This allows those who truly need change to have policies formed based on the realities of those in need, not based on the decisions of political elites. It also allows those in poverty to have an opportunity to be equipped and empowered to pull themselves out of poverty - when they see the decisions and choices that must be made to achieve success, and observe them working, they will be more willing to accept these changes than if someone simply tells them what to do.

The most important thing to remember, however, is that talking about poverty and doing something about poverty are not the same thing. Tossing money to homeless person might be all well and good, but it does little to actually help them out of their situation. I admit, that I am often guilty of repeating this mistake, because it is much easier to give money than to give time. However, if you do have time or the resources, I would encourage us all to make time - even if only on occasion - to volunteer and assist organizations and individuals seeking to address local issues of poverty. Small steps can lead to big changes. Only by going out of our way to help equip individuals with the knowledge and skills that they need to pull themselves out of poverty, do we have any hope of solving this very real and tragic issue in society.

WJU San Francisco Outreach Team, November 2013

Of Love and Hope

Today rather than bringing you a long and boring discussion on the nature of politics in the United States, or the future of the nation, I would instead merely pass along some information that has recently come to my intention that I believe deserves fervent support.

On October 5th, 2013, in Sacramento, there will be an event known as "Of Love and Hope" which is dedicated to repairing the damage done by human sex trafficking. This event will feature speakers such as Jenny Williamson and artists like Transparent. You can read more about this community event at my sister's fantastic blog --Eucatastrophe.

This is a great opportunity to engage on a serious political and social issue that has plagued the Sacramento area for far too long! Let's do our part to put an END to Sex Trafficking in our day!