CHRISTIAN FEMINISM: A SILLY OXYMORON (Updated)

One of the things that young people today need to hear but are unfortunately not being taught to
them is the proper distinction of the roles of the sexes. We are commonly told, or commonly
shown, that women can do what men can do, or vice versa. In the name of “women
empowerment”. Women’s rights activists would claim that gender differences are no big deal
and therefore are okay to be set aside. The feminine can, in the end, execute a task that is
traditionally done by the masculine. They can probably even do it better than man. Hence, the
traditional divide of the duties of the boy and girl, the man and woman, and the husband and wife
is actually non-existent in real life and is nothing but an old relic of the past that lacks sufficient
scientific knowledge that we now have.
            As frequent as that claim is said by many people, I would argue that such a view is
actually erroneous and that the traditional idea about male and female roles should be brought
back to mainstream thinking. Most importantly, and this would be the focus of the article,
anybody who claims to be a practicing Catholic can in no way identify himself or herself as a
supporter of the so-called women’s rights movement. In other words, a Catholic can never be a
feminist.
`           Let’s define the term first: what is feminism? It’s commonly defined as an ideology that
teaches women are equal to men. The problem with this definition is that this is incomplete. This
definition does not enumerate the specific steps that believers in feminism would take in order to
promote their “gender equality” agenda. Also, the traditional view of the sexes never denies this.
Both the progressive and the conservative can and must affirm the equality of the dignity of men
and women. The fact that Eve was created from Adam’s side theologically signifies that they
share the same fundamental nature, the same humanity. This shows that the differences between
the ideologies of the feminist and the non-feminist is, or at least must, be deeper and beyond
whether or not women are equal to men. This is no longer the debatable issue.
            The question that must be answered in order to get the term right is actually this: does
equality in dignity entail similarity in duties? When we dig deeper into the definition of
feminism, we will see that the feminist answer to this question is actually “yes”. The very goal of
women’s rights activism is actually to erase the patriarchal institutions of the society and the
Church, to encourage women, particularly married women, to leave their homes and to use their
energies in the workplace. That is exactly what feminists aim to promote under the guise of
“gender equality”. Now, this is where the non-feminist disagrees with the said advocacy. A true
non-feminist is a firm believer in the patriarchy, which includes the family as a natural
institution. The family, just like the hierarchy of the Church, is a patriarchy, which means the
husband is to lead the home by working outside the home in order that he may provide for the
family. Naturally, therefore, wives and mothers ought to stay at home and to take over it by
taking care of the children and doing household chores, for instance. And, as I would argue, the
non-feminist gets it right.
            Consider first the fact that feminism is an outright assault to masculinity. Feminism not
only has “masculinized” women, it consequentially also has “feminized” men. We see this as
part of the social engineering of the pro-feminist, never-giving-offense media. TV commercials
often portray men who are unable to pick the right soap to use for the laundry until the woman,
often portrayed as a hyper-rational being unlike the man, shows up to the rescue, able to do what
the man can’t do. Many western shows characterize single mothers as heroes, while the single
fathers as wimpy losers. And if we properly read the signs of the times, the feminist agenda to

soften men have been widely successful. Most men are now more and more concerned about
their physical appearance rather than in fighting against the ills assaulting the faith and morals of
their culture. Men nowadays are also unable to control their appetites, most especially their
sexual appetites (this is largely because feminism has encourages women to abandon the
traditional standards of modesty; these two are intertwined with each other). Instead of striving
for virtue, most men today are not using their spiritual and bodily faculties properly and
responsibly.
            Why blame the decline on authentic manhood to feminism? Because to say that women
can work just like men do would logically entail that men can work just like women do. For
instance, men develop testosterone by nature. Testosterone plays a huge part when it comes to
dominance and aggression. It is because of testosterone that men are naturally competitive and
self-confident. Because of this, men are more “devilish” than women. This explains why teenage
boys are “hardwired” in fist fighting more than girls. This is a good thing for men because this
can help them develop the virtue of courage which they’ll be needing in protecting themselves
and their family. Now, feminism basically says that boys and girls are just the same. Not only
does this encourage girls to be open to dangerous, masculine challenges that only men
traditionally step up to, but this also devalues and demonizes the natural inclination of boys to be
“heroic” and brave and challenge-ready. The courageousness natural to boys no longer becomes
something special and praiseworthy. Why? Well, because girls can do what boys can do anyway.
What’s the use of testosterone now?
            The claim that women can do what men can do means that women can also work outside
the home because men commonly work outside the home. The problem with this is that women
are better in handling emotional problems in children than men. Women are good in empathizing
with children. To take them out of the home, or to encourage them to work outside the home, is
to deprive children of a need. And even if the children are all grown up, who makes the house
lovely?
            So far, everything that I have laid out flows from the natural law. The family is a natural
institution because the ability to generate and bear children flows from our natural capacities,
specifically from our sexual faculties. Children, as little rational animals, deserve to be raised
correctly and educated properly. This duty primarily falls to the very people that generated them:
the parents. Now, it’s obvious that the mother has a special role in raising children since in the
primary stages of growth, the baby is closest to his or her mother. From the development in the
womb to the necessity of breastfeeding and beyond, children are both physically and emotionally
ties to their moms. And since financial and material support is also necessary, the father, being
both physically able to work the hard work and endure competition (again, because of their
testosterone) and more mature (at least most of the time, and they ought to be), is obliged by
nature to work for the family to satisfy their needs. See, this is just plain and simple, since nature
has built us, male and female, this way. In fact, this corresponds to our very natural desires. Men,
in the very depths of their being, long to be affirmed in their masculinity. Even if vice prohibits
them to physically work the hard tasks, no man in his right mind wants to be called a wimp or a
coward. Deep inside, men desire to prove themselves, even if this means they would undergo
pain or trial. On the other hand, women are attracted to men who knows how to properly initiate
in giving the gift of love to them. They will never want to marry a man who is vicious, especially
a man who is effeminate. They want men who knows how to plan in advance, whether it’s a date
or balancing finance properly. In short, women are attracted to men who can lead, both herself
and the whole family for that matter. Women also have a deep connection to children and in

caring for them in a way that men do not. It’s babies (besides puppies) that make women’s
voices rise in a higher octave and make them say “aw!” (that’s the effect of estrogen, folks).
Women are “maternal” by their very nature, by their very being.
Simply by looking at the natural law, we see that men are called to lead and to be the
head of the family, to work for the family, while women are in charge of the house, primarily
because they have to raise kids. This is why society is patriarchal, that it is naturally led by men.
Feminism aims to combat nature by demolishing the natural order. This is the reason why
feminism is evil.
            This patriarchal order of humanity is further affirmed by Catholicism. In the sacred
scriptures, to name signifies headship or authority over that someone. This is why God is able to
name Abrams name to Abraham (Gen 17:5) and Simon’s name to Peter (Jn 1:42), to cite specific
examples from the Old and New testament. This is most evident in parents naming their children,
because parents have spiritual and temporal authority over their sons and daughters. This is also
the reason why the Church has traditionally prohibited people from naming their guardian
angels, because angels are superior beings than humans.
            Now, keeping this theological principle in mind, it is clear that ever since the beginning,
man is to be the head of his wife, while the wife is called to submit. Adam, after naming all the
animals and finding no suitable partner for him, was presented by God with the woman that
would be a fitting helper for him. After seeing the woman for the first time, he said “this is at last
bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman” (Gen 2:23). Here we see
that God has willed man to rule over woman from the start, even before the entrance of original
sin in the world.
            Once again, this is not to deny that men and women are equal in dignity. The fact that
woman was created from man proves that all humans are equal in dignity, regardless of sexuality
because we all share the same nature. But this does not mean that hierarchy should be erased in
human society. To promote peace and justice and to shun anarchy, humans are in natural need
for leaders. God, being pure reason, the Logos (Word), knew this. This is why God has willed
man to lead ever since Genesis.
            This God-willed patriarchal hierarchy is exactly what the serpent aimed to destroy when
he tempted the woman. By letting Eve decide when it comes to eating the forbidden fruit (Gen
3:1-6), Satan desired to reverse the natural order by letting the woman take the lead instead of the
man. When Eve fell to the temptation and when she gave some of the fruits of the forbidden tree
to her husband (v. 6), the reversal and destruction of the patriarchy has come full-blown. Eve
now commanded Adam to eat the fruit. Because of this, man has fallen from grace. The
patriarchy was damaged. Feminism was man’s original sin.
            But God won’t be mocked. Because of their sinful rebellion, God pronounced
punishment to man, woman, and the serpent. God declared to the woman that her “desire shall be
for [her] husband, and he shall rule over [her]” (Gen 3:16). Despite Eve’s disordered inclination
to dislike and repress her husband’s authority as an effect of original sin, God willed to retain
male headship despite its brokenness. Afterwards, Adam decided to call his wife “Eve” (v. 20).
Once again, the duty of the man to lead his wife remains despite the fallen nature of humanity.
            Throughout salvation history, God has established his covenant through male headship,
From Noah to Isaac to Moses to David to the priests of the tribe of Levi, God guided the nation
of Israel through patriarchs. When we go to the New Testament, this same God took on a male
body and chose an all-male band of twelve as the first bishops of His Church. The authority of
these twelve were then passed on throughout generations until our time, where we have a male-

exclusive priesthood. Just as in the family and the society at large, the structure of the Holy
Catholic Church is also patriarchal. This is also the reason why St. Paul has said that “women
should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak but should be subordinate…
But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home’ (1 Cor 14:34-35).
            Expounding on the teachings of St. Paul, he also wrote that “[w]ives should be
subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of his wife just as Christ
is head of the church” (Eph 5:22-23). The parallelism of the husband-wife relationship to the
Christ-Church relationship to the Christ-Church relationship is interesting and clear. Just as the
Church is in no way superior to Christ, Her head, so is the wife in no way higher in authority to
her husband, her head.
            The Catholic Church, being the guardian in the deposit of faith, has preserved this
teaching that clearly goes against feminism. The duty of the husband to work for the family and
the duty of the wife to remain at home is affirmed by the Catechism of the Council of Trent
(1545). With regards to what the wife should do, the Catechism states:
To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their
domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to
remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to
leave home without her husband's consent.
            With everything that has been said, it should be clear by now why faithful Christians
ought not to be feminists. There can be no “Christian feminism” at ll. This is just an “either/or”
issue. Since feminism’s goal is the overthrow of the patriarchy, and Christianity is a
supernaturally established patriarchy, trying to combine the two is like trying to find a side in a
circle. It’s just impossible.
            Pope Leo XIII wrote and reaffirmed in Arcanum Divinae, his encyclical on Christian
marriage, what St. Paul and the Catechism of Trent has taught:
The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because
she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him;
not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in
neither honor nor dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents
the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and in her who obeys, a heaven-
born love guiding both in their respective duties. For the husband is the head of the wife; as
Christ is the head of the Church. … Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let
wives be to their husbands in all things. (Arcanum, §11)
            Leo XIII’s successor, Pius XI, would re-echo the words of Arcanum in his own
encyclical, Casti Connubii. He provides a detailed explanation of male headship in the said
letter. He also stated that the patriarchal order in the human community is unchangeable because
God has established it (Casti Connubii, §77).
            To be clear, the Church also teaches that wives are allowed to work as long as there’s
good reason for doing so. As the Catechism of Trent teaches, women may go out of the home if
“compelled by necessity”. For example, if a woman is single and has to financially support her
family in an economic crisis, or if the husband becomes physically unable to work, then women
may leave the house and go get a job. This shouldn’t, however, be a hindrance to the

accomplishment to the demands of the natural law and Church teaching. Male headship remains
the norm.
            The information covered in this article is more than enough to prove that feminism is evil
and Christians ought to fight it and avoid it from infiltrating their families. In fact, the obvious
incompatibility of Christianity and feminism is also affirmed by many feminists themselves.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, the American co-foundress of the Women’s rights movement, considers
the Bible as a “chauvinistic”, woman-hating document that dehumanizes women. Another
example would be feminist Mary Daly, who claimed that since the Christian way of describing
God is masculine (God the “Father”, Christ the “Son” of God), feminism is incompatible with
the Biblical faith, as stated in Daphne Hampson’s 1990 book, Theology and Feminism.
            I know that the anti-feminist stance of the Church may be a hard pill to swallow even
among Catholics, but the Church will remain the “pillar and bulwark of Truth” (1 Tim 3:15).
Whether or not a proposition is considered a “hard teaching”, as long as it’s true, the Church will
affirm it. Catholicism is a religion in love with the truth, because its founder is Christ, Who is
“the Truth” (Jn 14:6). The divinization of women and the feminization of men by feminism is a
deception, a lie from the pits of hell. The people of God, the Catholic Church, is dutybound to
combat such a lie. This duty, first and foremost, lies in the Catholic family, most especially the
youth of the Church. It is our job to restore the natural order and to promote to the world the true
meaning and purpose of masculinity and femininity.