We will move on to Part Three of Mary Kassian's You've Come A Long Way Baby.
Part Two is HERE.
Part One is HERE
She now gets into what some people consider the roots of the 2nd rave of Feminism.
She continues by speaking of Simone de Beauvoir. In 2009 her book The Second Sex was revised, and released as an anniversary issue. It was revised because there was huge chucks of the book that was mistranslated, and it was not true to what her points were. Please note: I'm not sure that was available at the time this lecture was given.
Kassian wants to describe this as:
She argued that in the relationship between men and women, women were the second class and men were the ruling class. They got all the perks. They had the power. They had the authority, and they got to say what the world looked like.
De Beauvoir argued that in order for women to live as full human beings, they needed to demand their rights, collectively rebel against men, and overthrow all of the societal structures that men had constructed to keep women in a state of servitude. Most specifically, de Beauvoir encouraged women to get out of the home and deconstruct the Judeo-Christian ideas about marriage and motherhood and morality.
I may not agree with de Beauvior on every count, but she does not encourage women to deconstruct the Judeo-Christian ideas about marriage, motherhood, and morality as the basic theme of her book. She may not have lived the lifestyle that Christians would consider proper, but again she isn't asking people to live as she did.
I look at this part: not to understand women or their problems and not to help them, and that this stereotyping was always done in societies by the group higher in the hierarchy to the group lower in the hierarchy.
That's history, and that is what has happened all over the world. This happened to men and women, people of different colors, races, and faiths. Is that the Judeo-Christian ideal? If she thinks so we have a different idea of what the bible says. The bible is very clear about what God feels about those that do not help those they know need help for example.
Ms. Kassian states the underlying message of Feminism is:
We—women—need and can trust no other authority than our own, personal truth. We need and can trust no other authority than our own, personal truth.I understand we can take this one or two ways. I'm sure Ms. Kassian is coming from the position of God is our true authority. That's fine! I agree! I realize she also is coming from the Complementarian position, and they look to their husbands as the authority as well.
When they speak about trusting 'authority' in the context of what de Beauvior is trying to get across? She was speaking about 'group higher in the hierarchy to the group lower in the hierarchy.' We are talking about the 'ruling class' at the time. That is an entirely different can of worms.
They didn't understand the lower group, nor could they relate to their issues. The ruling class did make the rules for the society, and did so without the type of 'loving and benevolent' leadership that the Complementary position speaks about. The ruling class did not care about their 'personal truth' of their lifes, nor did they care to learn about them. If you look at it that way? Those men and women of the lower group truly have no incentive to TRUST the higher group in the hierarchy.
Its not a slam - its history!