The Feminist Quest for Fairness

One persistent argument in response to my blog on Mike Pence was that the VP is not exercising fairness to women by refusing to dine with any woman other than his wife. It kinda kills me that this is even a discussion when, in Syria, where things truly aren’t fair, a man lost over twenty of his family members in a chemical warfare attack. But this is where our country is at these days: majoring on the minor within our own borders, because, as my Mom said the other day, “Americans have become underworked and bored.” Her point was that Americans are largely not busy enough. We no longer struggle to barely keep food on the table. We have plenty. Our needs are met. Wants, too. As a result, there’s an overabundance of time and energy to roll around in self-pity, insisting everything be “fair” in how we work, where we work, how much we get paid for working, and who we are allowed to eat with when we are working.

You know. All those things supposedly worth fighting for while across the world, the man who lost over twenty of his family members also cradled his dead baby twins after they suffocated in the aforementioned chemical attack. 

Nothing like the dastardly deeds of a slaughter house government flashing across the TV screen to put “fairness” into perspective.

Part of what is so taxing about the feminist movement is its overwhelming quest for fairness. The problem is, what fairness looks like, exactly, is never nicely laid out. There’s nothing pat about it. The rules vary from feminist to feminist, depending on which wave of feminism is being practiced, and other more fuzzy factors, like whether it’s that time of the month. It’s exhausting to keep up with. Some are on a quest for equal pay. Some for abortion “rights.” Some for extended maternity leave pay. Some for (though they’d never outright say it) the obliteration of the male sex and the rise of female dominance. Except … there was that one gal who actually did say it.

However cra-cra the feminist agenda gets, the underlying message is:

I’m a roaring woman and because of my gender, life is unfair for me, and it’s someone else’s job to make it fair. 

Men are especially obligated to ensure fairness. And when the prerogative to change the mind is exercised, it’s the American male’s job to adjust immediately, if not sooner.

Additionally, women who do not adhere to the feminist movement are to bow the knee. Repent of Biblical ways. Submit to the higher, vagina hat wearing, baby killing authority. Those who don’t are deemed traitors to their own kind. Or (sob) overly oppressed by (usually white, American) men. Oppressed enough to not even know they are oppressed. They clearly suffer from Stockholm Syndrome or some other equally impressive sounding syndrome. Most of which unfortunate, Puritanic women are oblivious about. And the fact that they are not properly educated in psychology just goes to show you that they are even more oppressed than they realize. All they know is the Bible – an antiquated Book packed full of nonsensical gibberish that promotes rape and other varieties of unfairness toward women.

No. The Bible has many stories depicting the oppression of women, but if one would read God’s entire manuscript, one would see that Jesus comes and shows how to treat a lady as she should be treated. And contrary to The Shack, Jesus, who is also God, was not a woman, but had the gall to protect and guide and heal women who would otherwise have remained battered and lost and sick. Jesus loved and still loves women, and the Bible is the only Book out there that is sufficient to properly train men to temper their God-given positions of authority instead of lording it over others. It is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness (2 Time 3:16). It has the power to transform men into what what Jesus wants them to be, which I believe is what women want as well, ultimately.

The Bible is also profitable to teach, reprove, correct, and train women, and therefore, women have instruction on what to do with the fairness for which their hearts so desperately cry. Nobody is denying that there has, at times, been unfairness toward women – even American women. But the great lengths to which fairness is being fought for, and the supposed reality of what that “fairness” looks like in modern times, is ludicrous.

So what can women shoot for, if not fairness?

I think we should be aiming to get our minds off of others and onto God, and striving for personal holiness. God (being God and all) gets to determine what holiness is, what it looks like, and how to attain it. And this is good, as it is clear by what we’ve seen thus far in the raging battle of the sexes, that if humankind was allowed to decide the definition of holiness, there would be an all out war. Of course, much of what I am saying stems from my Christian view. See, as a Christian, I am not necessarily to strive for fairness toward me or my fellow females. I am to strive for personal holiness, and encourage others to do the same. What happens to me is important, and nobody should be required to put up with true oppression, sexual assault, or any of the other atrocities that have been known to happen to women throughout history. Jesus didn’t teach that kind of nonsense. But while what happens to me is important, what happens because of me is equally important. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell me to require others to operate toward me by what I determine is fair. What the Bible tells me is to look to Him for all I need, and to love my neighbor as myself. Yes, there are times when another person treats me in a way that is not loving. In which case, I have three options:

Overlook the offense.

Forgive the offense.

Confront the offense.

Overlooking can be done in approximately 97% of incidents. Forgiving needs to be practiced in any incident we feel is unjust. But whether that forgiveness is to be expressed to the offender or privately in one’s own heart depends on whether the offender acknowledges the offense and asks for forgiveness. That leads us to our last option, which is confrontation. Confrontation needs to take place when the approximate 3% of incidents are so terribly offensive, we cannot continue the relationship without having words. But beware. It’s easy to turn 97% of what happens to us into a confrontation-worthy incident, and if we are constantly offended, chances are, we’re being a bit of a snowflake. And on the flip side, if confrontation never finds its way to us, the assumption shouldn’t be made that confrontation is not deserved. Most people avoid confrontation like the bubonic plague, and for good reason. It’s painful. Unless you’re on Facebook, and then it’s fun.

Even as I lecture about fairness, I clearly perceive the negative responses toward Mike Pence as unfair. I mean, say the VP came up to me and said “I prefer to dine with a minimum of three, as it helps me stay faithful to my wife. But I do hope you’ll consider joining us.” I don’t have a problem with that. I’m not going to take it personally. I’m going to respect a boundary that has obviously been proven to keep a marriage healthy. The boundary does not mean I am being treated unfairly. It means Karen Pence is being treated like gold. And it means Mike Pence is working at personal holiness, and the most loving thing I can do is to respect the boundary he’s chosen to cultivate that holiness. Having a boundary does not automatically equal unfairness to those affected by the boundary. In most cases, it simply means a logistical adjustment, such as pulling up an extra chair and allowing a third party into the meeting. And although our VP follows the Billy Graham rule, he also knows how to allow a woman’s work product to determine her success. Not her gender.  Fact is, two versus three people in the room during a meal doesn’t jeopardize a career. What it does, apparently, is jeopardize female egos and the idol of fairness.

American women have very little to complain about. Life is more than fair for us in the grand scheme of things. I often wonder what third world women think of American women who enjoy power, technology, and abundant freedoms, yet scream for more. Maybe it’s time for feminists (and the rest of us) to get their heads out of their own backyards and corporate offices and peer into the truly hurting world to help determine what is legitimately tragic and unfair. From what I can see, modern day American feminist’s cry for fairness comes across as spoiled rottenness more than anything. It’s time to hop off the not-so-merry-go-round of fighting for fairness, and start spending energy fighting for much needed justice in severely compromised countries, where women aren’t even allowed to uncover their beautiful faces without the risk of being stoned to death. By their husbands. Or where little girls and women are forced to undergo genital mutilation.

I could go on, but the sand in my hourglass is gone.

Point is, if someone is called to fight for the rights of women, they should fight against the truly unfair, unjust, and uncivil acts being imposed upon women at the hands of men. Not the commonly petty grievances of American feminists.