Most Helpful Customer Reviews
60 of 76 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Truth About Feminism, June 5, 2005
This review is from: The Feminist Mistake: The Radical Impact of Feminism on Church and Culture (Paperback)
What comes to mind when you think of Feminism? Is it simply the idea that all men and women are of equal worth, or is it more than that? Over the past 50 years it has been much, much more. The bulk of The Feminist Mistake by Mary Kassian is an historical overview of the feminist movement, in both its secular and religious forms.
Mrs. Kassian investigates feminism from its postmodern roots to its present day. She begins with the writings of Simone De Beauvoir and Betty Friedan. The initial result of the movement they sparked was an ideology of women naming themselves. "They claimed this role had been determined by men and was oppressive to women." (80) Naming themselves meant "the freedom of all women to do what ever they wish to do sexually" (57- quote of Shulamith Firestone) and otherwise.
Stage one of Feminism was to re-shape women's self-image. Stage two was to re-shape the world we live in according to Feminist thought. "Through woman-centered analysis, every area of human existence was examined and redefined. Woman-centered analysis was both a systematic analysis of the past and an attack on the values that shaped the past."(105)
Even though much of these first two stages were founded on naturalistic assumptions (in their secular forms), the third stage was a religious one- naming God. "Feminists encouraged women to use their imagination in creating new visions of God and new forms of worship and ritual." (181) What followed was self-worship, the Feminists redefined God as themselves. Many began integrating New Age and Wiccan practices into their ideology.
Religious Feminism followed a similar path. They began by re-envisioning themselves and in order to do so they needed to be liberated. "Feminist theologians believed that the liberation of women would reduce the end of poverty, racial discrimination, ecological destruction, and war. They argued that it would end all dualisms, usher in a new world order of peace, and witness the birth of a new humanity." (64)
They then began to name more than just themselves; they created woman-centered theology. "According to Ruether, only the biblical texts that spoke to women's contemporary quest for liberation were valid."(108) This had a profound impact in all areas of theology: "God's purpose as to assist humans to realize their liberation... Rather than God incarnate, Jesus represented to them a deicitic humanity-a `foretaste of freedom'-promised to all." (114) "Jesus as not to be viewed as the one who saves, but rather as the primary example of God's salvation, which is liberation." Sin was redefined as "a situation in which there is no community, no room to live as a human being." (115- quote of Letty Russell)
When it came to where both the secular and religious veins of Feminism were heading, Mrs. Kassian argues that they ended up at the same place. "Secular feminists had named themselves outright as gods, and, although it took somewhat longer and was couched in traditional Christian terms, religious feminists began to do the same." (226)
In response to some criticisms I made of Feminism, a friend of mine told me I didn't understand it. She was right; it's far worse then I had figured. Consider a 1993 conference in Minneapolis called "Re-imagining God" which was participated in by PCUSA, ELCA, and several other major denominations. Attendees were led in prayer to "Mother God," were told that Asian goddesses could represent a new kind of trinity, and were told that "we don't need a theory of atonement at all... we [don't] need folks hanging on crosses and blood dripping and weird stuff. We do not need atonement; we just need to listen to the god within." (237-239- quote of Delores Williams of Union Theological Seminary)
In analysis, Mary Kassian shows how even the most simple of Feminist assumptions, that there should be no restrictions as to what women should do, inevitably leads down a path to a dark place completely contrary to the Christian worldview. "Instead of promoting a healthy self-identity for women or contribution to a greater harmony between the sexes, it has resulted in increased gender confusion, increased conflict, and a profound destruction of morality and family." (299)
This is not an easy book. Mary Kassian offers an excruciatingly detailed analysis to show how Feminism has progressed. The result is that it would be hard for someone to dispute her case. Anyone who can get through it will be better for it. My main complaint is that it does not really get into the Biblical view of manhood and womanhood, but there are other books on that and if she added that here the size of the volume would have been too daunting for anyone to read. This book should be read by every church leader as it shows the devastating impact Feminism can have in our churches and in some cases has already had.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
15 of 18 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Good until Chapter 18, March 17, 2009
This review is from: The Feminist Mistake: The Radical Impact of Feminism on Church and Culture (Paperback)
Is "Christian feminist" an oxymoron? Mary Kassian thinks so; similarly, after reading The Feminist Mistake, I can categorically deny that I'm a feminist. That is, only if I adhere to Kassian's somewhat limited definition of it.
She admits that she has "not delineated between [feminism's] specific types or brands" because she feels that "all adhere to a common presupposition. Feminism exalts the rights of Women." Sincere Christians will agree that exalting women over God is idolatry, but I disagree with Kassian's assertion that the end result of all feminism is idolatry and societal depravity.
Before I get to that, I will acknowledge that the first part of Kassian's book is an engaging, thorough, solidly researched and relatively fair summation of major feminist thought through the decades. I was particularly disturbed to learn in Chapter 16 of the parallels between secular feminism and religious feminism. Those who call themselves feminists should be familiar with its history and the many damaging and self-centered views that have characterized it, and this book is an excellent resource to that end. Simply by presenting the major precepts and contributors to feminist theory, Kassian has accomplished her purpose of warning readers about the potential consequences of such a worldview, and all without the lecture I was expecting (she saves that for Part II).
Now, on to the two major weaknesses of the book that merit it only three stars. First, as mentioned previously, her choice to lump all flavors of feminism together was an unfair treatment of a complex theory. I understand her goal behind this choice ("all are part of a larger continuum that supersedes and encompasses those variations"), but this inaccurately represents its diversity. For example, she blames feminism for our "pornographic culture," ignoring those many feminists who consider pornography demeaning to women and who actively work to fight it.
Another unfortunate result of Kassian's overly generalized definition of feminism is that she ends up overlooking the many constructive ways feminism has influenced our society. She even cites some positive examples of feminist progress (Christian publishers enforcing gender-inclusive language guidelines; efforts to end violence against women) alongside clearly dangerous examples of feminist progress (changing God's gender in the Bible; advocating abortion). As a result of this overarching false dichotomy Kassian presents, someone who reads this book may come to fear any positive equality-promoting action redolent of feminism and mistake it for the beginnings of the slippery slope to blasphemy Kassian frequently warns of.
Part II, in which Kassian really drives home her complementarian argument, is when the book's effectiveness is diminished. She associates the (admittedly imperfect) egalitarian position with big, evil feminism, thereby setting it up as an easily-defeatable straw [wo]man; meanwhile, she praises traditional complementarianism as "right and good," thereby shutting down important, open discussion about the historically troublesome verses of the Bible. Not all Christians who are legitimately concerned about the seeming sexism in the Bible seek to rewrite or reject the Bible; many just seek to reject the synthetic traditions and beliefs that have arisen from a potentially prejudiced interpretation of it.
Complementarians interpret scripture in such a way as to support the view that women ought to be subordinate to men (to be fair, they don't equate subordination with inferiority). Yet, their interpretation often remains unconvincing (be particularly cautious about Kassian's take on certain verses on pages 292 and 297, for example). Personally, I'm not ready to reject complementarianism outright, but it's not as clear-cut in the Bible as some people assume, and it's certainly not the panacea Kassian presents it as.
Christians concerned about gender issues should take the time to read about the history of feminism and understand its destructive effects, and this book is very useful for that purpose. However, readers should also take the time to critically but fairly study the similarly destructive history of sexism and the ways Christians have been trying to disentangle it from biased biblical interpretation and church tradition. Hopefully then, readers will realize that this case isn't as closed as Kassian says it is.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
77 of 103 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Miss Kassian's Mistake, October 12, 2007
This review is from: The Feminist Mistake: The Radical Impact of Feminism on Church and Culture (Paperback)
For someone who's so knowledgeable, Mary Kassian is quite..uninformed. While her research is excellent and blessedly does not contain flamethrowing insults of feminists after every paragraph (I kept waiting for blows that never came), Kassian has certain trouble seeing the true intentions of many feminists today. Another person on this review page requested that those who criticize the book and give it low ratings explain WHY it's not good and why they don't like it. Well, I'd be more than happy to oblige. As someone before me pointed out, there is more than one kind of feminist. Kassian, however, has a good deal of trouble figuring this out. Before I elaborate on this, I'll begin by explaining the book's excellent points. Kassian does a superb job of explaining how feminism began, why it progressed, what the true intentions of the first feminists were, and quoting many excellent statements by them. For someone who doesn't like feminism, Kassian was awfully patient: for the majority of the book, she focuses on the history of feminism rather than her own disagreements with it and doesn't really explain her rebuttal until the last chapter. In fact, this book could actually make a great reference book for feminism and its history, whether you like the movement or not. Kassian's relation of history goes from the first feminists fighting for women's rights to the radical ones today, who go from man-hating to goddess worship, and really do little more than wreak havoc. This, however, leads to the problem with Kassian; she makes no real distinction between the man-haters and the equality-seekers, and her speech at the end of the book is aimed at both of them. If one is to make any sort of true evaluation of the feminist movement, one has to be aware of the different kinds of feminists; there's simply no way around this. There is the social feminist, firstly; these kinds of women, who generally resemble the first-wave feminists, are usually docile, rarely attend marches or meetings of any sort, and want respect and equal regard. Next, you have the political feminists, who are slightly more pushy and, in case you couldn't tell by their label, are quite active in political matters and believe all women have to the right to be. Lastly, we have the radical feminists; those lovely women who, as my college professor said, consider men to be necessary evils at best. Generally speaking, feminism as a whole is unpleasant and its label is not one you'd want to apply to yourself, if for no other reason than BAD association. Then, there are Christian women like me who believe all God's children should be allowed to serve Him equally, with no spiritual hierarchy. We, the Christian egalitarians, have no interest in empowering either sex; we believe in serving God with no limits and, because of our belief in equality, we're grouped by women like Kassian in there with the feminists. There are few things more displeasing to a modern woman than to be grouped in the same mold as those kinds of women. We frankly don't appreciate it anymore than complimentarian men enjoy being grouped into one big group of misogynists. Yet, this is what people like Kassian seem determined to do, and when they do this, they come off sounding just as uneducated and selective as the radical feminists are to men. This brings me to Kassian's own flawed belief system. In her summary of why all feminism is bad, she makes it very clear that she's a complimentarian and believes women's roles are to be followers to men. She makes this clear just by the quote from C. S. Lewis that begins the last chapter and states, "Men are ineffectual priests because we aren't masculine enough. The solution, therefore, is not to bring in people who are not masculine at all." Now, I adore C. S. Lewis. He was a brilliant, evocative, and wonderful Christian man. He was also, however, a chauvinist. Don't get me wrong; everyone has their weaknesses, and this happened to be Lewis's. If that quote alone doesn't convince you that he had a very uninformed view of God's role for women (inspite of his admiration for them), the fact that he believed equality was a product of sin should. He actually claimed that women shouldn't be priests because God is utterly masculine and we, as females, couldn't possibly present His Holy masculinity to the world! If that's not chauvinism, nothing is. What does C. S. Lewis's views have to do with Kassian's? Apparently, a lot; the fact that she chose to present those disgusting words in her book sums up her own views of womanhood. Kassian goes over all the usual complimentarian beliefs, including the one that claims Eve's sin had to do with rebelling against Adam and not God. I won't even bother explaining, again, how stupid that notion is. Adam is never once mentioned in either God's summation of Eve's sin or in Satan's dialogue when tempting her. Clearly, it was the Holy One, not the masculine one, that Eve rebelled against. Both C. S. Lewis's quote and Kassian's own words also show the insatiable competitiveness of their beliefs. The root of their belief system is built around authority and hording it for men. If anyone who is not male attempts to stand on equal footing with a male, they mistakenly believe that this is done to undermine the authority of those males already in that position. I really can't understand this neurotic tendency; unless you'd like to claim that men become pastors because they like power, you really can't claim that women want to be pastors in order to compete for power. This is simply ridiculous, unfair, and rather paranoid. It's not about competition, Kassian, and for egalitarians like me, it never was. What infuriates me most of all about Kassian's dialogue, however, is the age-old ridiculous defense that people of her mindset try to throw at feminists: men and women are different. I KNOW men and women are different. In fact, the radicals often don't try to claim that women are the same as men, but that they're better than men. By screaming that men and women are different, you're not accomplishing anything; you're just screaming out facts that everyone already knows and proving yourself to have no idea of what you're truly arguing against. I know men and women are different, and I love their differences; it's a hobby of mine to compare and contrast them, in fact. The tendency of people like Kassian to defend their own patriarchal views by claiming that men and women are different is asinine, not only because everyone already knows this, but because it's clearly not the true basis for their belief system. To them, "different" really means "lesser" because, somehow, women are always second and below in rank. You might as well admit this, Kassian; it's a little hard to miss. It is you, not the equality-seekers, who are attempting to place labels on yourself and God that only God has the right to place. Although Kassian undoubtedly gives some great historical facts and good points, her overall failure to either truly understand feminism or even the obvious faults in her own belief system overshadow everything. Radical feminists claim that women should rule. Complimentarians like Kassian, on the other hand, claim that men should rule. Guess what? You're BOTH wrong. God clearly said in Genesis that man and woman would rule the earth together; this one-gender-only idea is unBiblical and wrong no matter which gender you pick. The truth is, the pagan feminists and the severe complimentarians are the flip side of the same coin. The radical pagan feminists hold anti-masculinity rituals and pray to the Holy Mother that maternal femininity will prevail over all else. On the other side, you have people like C.S. Lewis and Mary Kassian who, quite literally, believe that masculinity is holy and should be revered and worshipped (no female priests allowed!). When it comes right down to it, Kassian and her ilk are just as idolatrous as the feminists they despise.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
