|
Review Summary: Finally...the TRUTH! |
Date: 2008-10-03 |
|
| |
|
Details: Excellent and Scholarly. Rare truths generally unheard of today. Real women understand the importance of headship in the Bible. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Miss Kassian's Mistake |
Date: 2007-10-12 |
|
| |
Details: For someone who's so knowledgeable, Mary Kassian is quite..naive. 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. Now, you may wonder: what could possibly be the connection between the early feminists, many of whom were devoted wives and mothers, and the anti-men radicals today who give the entire movement a bad name? The answer is, there IS no connection! We're talking about two very different kinds of women here, who just happen to claim the same title. This, however, is 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. To the radical feminists, Kassian's rebuttal could be very useful and well-aimed. To the normal feminists, however, it comes off as nothing more than patronizing dribble.
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 (including me) are usually docile, rarely attend marches or meetings of any sort (I have yet to attend any), and honest-to-goodness just 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. 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 those 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 feminists 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. Kassian, sweetheart: I KNOW men and women are different. EVERY feminist knows this, even the radicals. In fact, in case you weren't paying attention, the radicals don't try to claim that women are the same as men, but that they're better than men. The fault of radicals isn't that they try to turn women into men, but that they try to prove that men aren't needed. 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 assinine, 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. |
| |
|
Review Summary: How to Review a Book |
Date: 2006-10-05 |
|
|
| |
Details: I plan to order this book for the college bookstore because it addresses the problem with religious feminism--not feminism as it relates to race.
To those who have given this book one star (or protested the lack of 'o Stars)--read the entire book and address the weakness on their own basis. Telling us that the book is 'horrible' tells the readers of these reviews NOTHING! Why shouldn't I buy this book? Because some random female was offended by the subject matter and told us not to?
Give specific examples and logical and practical reasons why the author was in error in her assertions. Is there outrightly FALSE information that we should be aware of? Can YOU provide proof of these problems? If so--cite them...honestly. But don't waste your time with a 3 sentence opinion and tell others not to buy it. Your true colors (biased defensiveness) are shown when you write such useless reviews.
In any case--I am excited for others to read this and engage those who HAVE read the book and disagree with it on an objective, less emotional level. Such will make some lively and mind-sharpening conversation--even if we don't agree. |
| |
|
Review Summary: Excellent overview of the impact of feminist ideology |
Date: 2006-02-07 |
|
|
| |
Details: I would highly recommend this book for a solidly researched overview of feminist ideology on our culture. As a traditional Conservative woman, I found it refreshing to read many of my own views with good documentation (which I'd been too lazy to do for myself).
"The Fewminist Mistake" is Kassian's follow-up to her earlier "The Feminist Gospel". She has added to her research an examination of the effects of the ideology as well as the history.
I don't think any woman (or reasonably enlightened man) would disagree that women should be treated as equals and should be able to make choices about the direction of her life. The important point made is that women are not the same as men. Equality does not mean "the same". We have a different biology and a different emotional construct. While some of us might choose to have careers outside the home, the feminists have degraded and minimized women's choices. Their twisted ideology has created a cultural atmosphere for the woman who wants to stay at home and be a mom - or even a wife. Interestingly, many men I've spoken with have made it clear that American women are no longer marriage material. They are looking to other countries and cultures to find suitable wives.
Mary Kassian gives a particularly religious analysis of a woman's role and the reasons for it. I agree with her but some women may appreciate a more secular approach. The facts remain the same, regardless of the color of the cloak they wear. Read this book for the history, if nothing else.
For a similar, but lighter, presentation of similar material, I would recommend reading this book along with Kate O'Beirne's "Women Who Have Made The World Worse." It's a good appetizer. If it whets your appetite, you'll appreciate Mary Kassian's more in-depth examination.
|
| |
|
Review Summary: A non-sensical scare tactic |
Date: 2005-11-17 |
|
| |
Details: Anyone who writes about feminism as though there is only one kind of feminism is not only short-sighted, but extremely arrogant as to suppose one's thoughts were worth the killing of innocent trees, whose resources could have been better used for a written work that recognizes and distinguishes between the different types of feminist approaches.
All feminism is not the same. Ms. Kassian failed to see that. She also failed to acknowledge that not only are there many different feminist approaches in the white women's movement, but there are also African-American, Caribbean and Chicana women's movements, of which there is none of the garbage propagated by most of the white feminist movements (sorry to the white feminists out there).
A retitling of the book should be: "The Common Mistake: Not Distinguishing Feminist Approaches While Privileging White Feminism." |
| |
|
out of 8 Reviews
