Biblical Logic vs. the 'Red Pill': It's Not Enough to Be Anti-Feminist
If you, like me, are someone who has concerns about the destruction caused by radical feminism over the last century, I beg you to consider that it is not enough to be anti-feminist.
As an ardent anti-feminist myself, I have been saying this for a long time.
The reason is rooted in basic logic, although this logic is sadly often missed in our hyper-tribalistic culture.
You see, simply opposing an idea does not in any way guarantee that the rest of your ideas are sound in and of themselves. This is true of both feminism and many ideas and movements that oppose feminism.
It should be no surprise to thinking people that an issue as critical to the moral fabric of our society as how we view and treat women is simply not as black and white as “feminism” and “anti-feminism.”
Don’t Make Feminists the Defenders of Women’s Rights
The problem with feminism is that it sets itself up as the sole defender of the dignity of women.
So, even if you oppose its false claims about a culture that recognizes and accommodates the differences between men and women, you may very well be fulfilling a fallacious feminist fantasy and further undermining a sound, objective moral ethic on the civilized treatment of women and girls.
After all, look at the state of “anti-racism” in this country. Need I say more?
We are certainly not prepared to give the postmodern critical theorists a monopoly on opposing racism.
Nor should we give this faction, which is the same broader faction that has promoted many modern narratives on feminism, capital on what it means to defend the rights and dignity of womankind.
Feminism’s Illogical Assumptions
Feminists have long capitalized on the assumption that it is bad to oppress women. This is an assumption that the vast majority of Westerners agree with.
Basic biblical ethics confirms that it is, indeed, bad to oppress anyone.
Unfortunately, feminism misunderstands what it means to be oppressed and thus builds upon a faulty foundation.
Patriarchy is bad, the narrative goes, because men are in control. We are left to assume that men being in control is bad.
However, logically speaking, we cannot assume that patriarchy is always wrong because men are in control. We’d have to establish more concretely that male leadership in society is usually tied to negative outcomes, which is another conversation altogether.
All the same, it has long been the prevailing rhetoric in our culture that traditional roles at home are generally negative for women unless a woman is able to “choose” whether or not she will assume those roles.
Again, this establishes the faulty premise that it is wrong to assume a married woman should be the keeper of her house and the primary caretaker of her own children.
Not to mention that it sets up the assumption that any other choice a woman can make will naturally be just as virtuous, simply because she chose it for herself.
People make all sorts of bad choices. Simply having the sovereignty to choose something different than what society has historically expected of you is not inherently good.
(All this is to say nothing of the massive blind spot feminism has on the burden that men have borne throughout history as providers and protectors.)
Women Are Abused in the Feminist West
Built on a similarly faulty foundation is the assumption that if women have equal access to the vote and to educational and career opportunities, it will equalize society.
The error here is the idea that participation in representative democracy and white-collar work is the gold standard for what it looks like when society treats you with dignity.
Now, let me be clear — I am not arguing that education, careers or voting for women are inherently wrong.
This is simply to establish that we cannot assume these things are inherently good or that we have the moral imperative to bring “equality” between the sexes.
My contention is that equality between the sexes is an illusion, as I hope you can see the last half-century of radical social change has taught us.
The truth is, feminism is not the gold standard for the fair treatment of women.
Women are still abused and mistreated in the feminist West; in fact, they’re now being trafficked and exploited in shocking numbers and treated like objects for the raging pornography industry that has been so sickeningly empowered by the postmodern destruction of traditional sexual ethics.
I believe feminism has completely undermined the dignity and worth of women, as it contends that our biological differences lead to unfairness and that unrestricted sex is inconsequential to the well-being of women.
Yet opposing this idea and building on another faulty foundation in no way guarantees that we will help women.
Just look at the Taliban.
What the “Red Pill” Gets Wrong
This is exactly why feminists love that people like Andrew Tate and many of the voices of the so-called “red pill” movement make an easy target at which to aim criticisms of “anti-feminism.”
Yes, Tate and his ilk criticize feminism and make some good points. This is why they are appealing to conservatives and even some Christians.
Their job is easy — the glaring faults of feminism are low-hanging fruit. Anyone can refute them, but the foundation of these critics’ own moral convictions can be just as rotten.
If Tate opposed the fruits of feminism as much as he does its more obvious flaws, he’d be his own harshest critic. He has glorified an idea of manhood built on personal pride, sexual lust, and the blatant degradation of women.
By his own admission, he spearheaded an enterprise that manipulated and recruited young women into being exploited for the depraved desires of wicked men.
Other “red pill” influencers argue men must sleep with a plethora of women to be considered “high-value” or claim that men can cheat on their wives and still be good husbands and fathers.
Feminists defy biology, looking forward to a genderless society in which no distinction between the sexes is necessary. They justify petty jealousies and the female tendency to self-pity.
Red pill figures look to biology to inform their morality with virtually the same degree of hopeless cluelessness.
They justify sinful lusts and the male tendency to crave power and prestige. They deny the necessity of male self-denial to build families, communities and civilizations.
Both of these ideas construct morality out of human emotion.
Neither view takes into account the fall of mankind. Neither protects the dignity of either men or women, because each is based on lies about who men and women are.
The Biblical Woman
There is no denying that men and women are different. We were, in fact, made this way, and any ethic regarding sexual relations must be rooted in this fact.
This is precisely why I am not a feminist.
God completed not only mankind but the entire work of creation when he made Eve from Adam’s rib, thus crafting the only perfect solution to the problem of man being alone (Genesis 2:18).
In 1 Corinthians 11, Paul expounds beautifully on the place Eve had in creation when she was made for her mate in this way, with inherent dignity and worth that is true of all women and also reflected in the role women played in the ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Meanwhile, the Proverbs 31 woman, the great epitome of biblical womanhood, does not deserve this distinction simply because she is excellent at cooking and homemaking.
In her shrewd stewardship of resources, we see the biblical woman’s chief virtue: her fear of the Lord.
It is also the fear of the Lord that leads men to wisdom, as the rest of the book of Proverbs illustrates for us, and the knowledge that we were made male and female in God’s image is the only reliable foundation on which we can build a righteous view of men and women.
No matter how you feel about “women’s rights,” sex relations and modern feminism, the only truth that we can firmly rest our ideas upon — as well as use to do justice in society until the Lord’s return — is the perfectly logical truth of Scripture.
A version of this article first appeared in the Substack “A Homemaker’s Manifesto.”
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
