On the seventh day, when the heart of the king was merry with wine, he commanded Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha and Abagtha, Zethar and Carkas, the seven eunuchs who served in the presence of King Ahasuerus, to bring Queen Vashti before the king with her royal crown, to show the peoples and the princes her beauty, for she was lovely to look at. But Queen Vashti refused to come at the king's command delivered by the eunuchs. At this the king became enraged, and his anger burned within him.
Esther 1:10-12
One of the biggest issues you run into when getting ready to discuss feminism as a topic is that there is often a lot of misunderstanding on what exactly it is supposed to mean and that is quite intentional. Let me explain briefly what the dilemma looks like. Feminism is defined as the advocacy of women’s rights on the grounds of equality of the sexes and will be shown currently to have similar goals of dismantling patriarchal structures to create an environment that guides us to a more equitable future. This is a problem for a couple of reasons. A clear look into the historical advancement of feminism will reveal that not only has the movement been active for literal centuries but a lot can be said for how the groups that had the banner worked towards what they felt was the right solution.
Feminism has been around from possibly as early as the 3rd Century meaning that it predates a lot of the notions carried by those who understand it today. It has always stood for different things at different periods of time, has represented different kinds of women at different periods of time, has often had more discord than agreement on what counted as women rights with two significant periods of times when there was mutual accord over what it stood for, namely the Enlightenment era of the 15th and 16th Century and the suffrage movement of the 19th and 20th Century, has had groups of people who were active in opposition with each other over goals especially in the 2nd and 3rd waves of feminism, has had vocal rejections from women who did not feel represented by what was stood for at the time, has had to constantly shift priorities depending on the political climate...you can tell what is going on. The movement is a lot more nuanced than people initially believe it to be.
However, for a lot of people, the suffrage era is the most significant point of origin to point to because it represents the era when women had the biggest success in attempts to get certain rights because to be clear, unlike what you might have believed to be true, women did not start with zero rights. Feminism, in the suffrage era, instead stood for independence in regards to voting, education, employment, and political representation of women. This is important because when you see someone say something like “those days when women did not have rights'', I want you to keep this in mind.
Now the other thing to note is that different nations had different periods of picking up the idea of feminism and currently, some still have not picked it up but that does not always mean something good. In fact, areas not challenged by the ideas of feminism might still have oppressive control over women. Knowing this is important because a lot of people discussing the issues often like to view this movement with a more Westernized lens and charting success based on what they achieved as opposed to looking at the effects of the movement on a global scale. This is why many women are fixed onto feminism that sounds very hostile and entitled towards the idea of men in general, with even some claiming that women would make better leaders without really looking into the history and seeing that women in power have had just as many opportunities of wreaking evil as men did. If we had agreed up to this point, this might be shaky ground moving forward.
Now that we have established the idea that feminism is not truly just one thing or at least for the sake of argument claimed as such, let us begin looking into our text. Biblical bias will be applied from this point.
Behind Enemy Lines
As a guy discussing feminism, there is unfortunately already a fixed bias or label attached to my discussion, one that will stick to the reader depending on where I choose to go with the topic. Since Christianity has been tied to the ideas of oppression, even merely thinking about discussing feminism from a Biblical perspective seems harmful enough. Let me ask you something to challenge you today. Do you know that Esther and Ruth are the only prominent books of the Bible named after women? In 66 books nonetheless. Both of them are in the Old Testament in fact so think about it.
I may not have needed to suggest sexism for you to consider it for a moment. You probably have not gone to confirm if this is indeed true. You probably are not interested in looking at how many women actually were instrumental in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. You probably heard rumors that there are some oppressive verses against women in the New Testament, so not even Christians are off the hook. This is how dangerous things have become. There is an inherent need to see blatant offense in anything that does not remotely discuss equality to a degree that you would be comfortable with. Let me help you even further with that.
Ruth starts off with a woman losing a husband and ends with her finding a husband that will take care of her. No splitting of the Red Sea. No prophecy. Just a simple story. Esther, on the other hand, you ask? Well, it is the only book in the Bible where God is not even remotely mentioned and does not seem to be active in affairs. For someone looking for offense, you found one. I even added salt to the injury if needed. If that is the only lens that is allowed to view the Word of God, then that is all Ruth will be to you. Now, let’s use that lens to see the problem one may arrive at when reading Esther 1.
When reading Esther 1. You may come to two very wrong conclusions afterward and that has a lot to do with whether or not you are pro or anti-feminism.
- If you are a feminist, more specifically a radical feminist, then the notion of seeing a King such as Ahasuerus hold that much power can make your blood boil. 127 provinces under patriarchal rule. To add to the narrative of toxic masculinity, said King holds a feast and calls on his wife to come that people in that feast may see his beautiful wife. This is the height of hubris. But wait, there’s more. Queen Vashti actually refuses to arrive, what a queen! We actually have cases of feminism before even the 3rd Century. Unfortunately, that is as far as the story gets with that notion because Vashti’s refusal leads to her being removed as queen since her actions may stir rebellion in other women, and of course, she broke patriarchal rules so she suffers under the rule of men.
Moral of the story; Men are toxic no matter what century they belong to.
- If you are anti-feminist, specifically a male anti-feminist, the story looks a bit different for you. King Ahasuerus invites a couple of his pals to his kingdom and then, like guys always do, just wants to show off his bride, like you would post your girlfriend on Instagram or something. It’s literally no biggie and all she had to do was show up. But then, as women do, she bailed. Something about making a statement or something. She doesn’t get that her actions have consequences so naturally the King is like, I don’t want riots in my kingdom because my wife decided to be unbearable so he cuts her loose. This is the kind of entitlement that women are being force-fed today and it sucks.
Moral of the story; Women aren’t worth it no matter what century they belong to.
Depending on which side you are on, one of the two, at face value, seems more obviously true than the other. So you might be wondering why it gets added to the same trash bin that the other clearly unreasonable one ends up in. It is very simple.
Both views are hatred in disguise.
Hatred in Disguise
To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain, you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.” And to Adam he said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust, you shall return.”
Genesis 3:16-19
How do I know that this is truly hatred in disguise? Because you probably read the earlier verses in context to Genesis 3 with the same intention. You either see Eve as an example of what women are like or you see Adam and perhaps the Bible itself as an example of patriarchal oppression. Essentially, both sexes are locked into a holy war of sorts that feminism did start but that has always existed since the fall. Women in history have always desired the power that men seem to hold and the responsibilities that men have been given throughout history, seeing them as unfair that they don’t get to participate. Men have always desired to not hold such authority over women that they find to be wayward and rebellious. There is a good reason Proverbs 21:9 states…
It is better to live in a corner of the housetop than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife.
Proverbs 21:9
The reason why I believe both versions to be wrong is that both versions are interested in the purity of their gender. Women are evil but men are most definitely not. Men are evil but women are most certainly not. It is essentially what Matthew 7 points out as…
Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
Matthew 7:3-5
One of the biggest issues with feminism is that they rightfully understand men to be evil but refuse adamantly to accept that women are just as evil. The issue with anti-feminism is that it rightfully understands women to be evil but refuses adamantly to accept that men are just as evil. I believe third-wave feminism has been made to carry the cross of criticism of feminism as a whole because both the first and the second wave hid neatly within the boundaries of a righteous mission. The whole foundation of feminism is built on wholly depraved human beings, but people could ignore it because the mission was righteous. Sadly, once the third wave hit and the issues were mostly solved, the sinful heart remained. Moreover, third-wave entertained postmodernism so hard that their faults could no longer be hidden. Everyone could see power corrupting women in the same way power corrupted men. Currently, if you attempt to point this out, you will either be gaslit to silence or be reminded of the righteous path feminism once stood upon. Those who try to look to the past are forbidden because those days were the days of women suffering harm. This is also why some women will not be open to discuss societies that were matriarchal in nature, female monarchs who were less than exemplary, or the women who are currently so drunk in power that they feel they can say whatever they want and get away with it.
Every single first wave of feminism always understands that there are problems to fix. However, once the problems are fixed, since their identity is tied to the narrative of pain and suffering that has never been fixed for years, there is resentment that no amount of equality will solve. Women in the western world hold so much freedom and power but remain fixated on the religious path of feminism even if it comes at the cost of their happiness because they would rather self-destruct than admit fault and error. This is the problem with every version of atonement outside of Christ; it is perpetual. It is a cycle of goodwill to appease your soul that will never end until the day you die because ladies and gentlemen, the real issue feminism is fighting is not patriarchy, it is sin.
Unqualified Savior
What then? Are we Jews any better off? No, not at all. For we have already charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin, 10 as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”
Romans 3:9-18
You heard that right. Feminism is in active war with much of sin and its effects but they have a fundamental problem, or rather a two-fold. The problem is that they call sin patriarchy. By actively divorcing themselves from the same issues they claim men always bring them as well as women who are brainwashed by the patriarchy, they cannot see their own sin. They are not able to come to the reality of their own shortcomings. They feel like admitting they are wrong means that automatically men stop being evil. They don’t. They believe that admitting their cause has lost all moral grounds will destroy the advancements they have made so far. It won’t.
The moral ground that a feminist holds is one they are unable to keep because sin corrodes man to the core. A feminist is more unable to keep their laws than a man is able to keep because their hearts are not seeking the light. They are not morally perfect but they expect everyone to be because the law demands perfection from everyone. The law is there to break any and all forms of pretenses of maintaining it, to break people until they feel they cannot do a thing. The feminist must come to the reality that there is only one way equality will be achieved and that requires submission and submission to Christ.
Ahasuerus and Queen Vashti are not representative of what all men look like, what all women look like, and what marriage should look like. They are carnal people who made carnal decisions and unfortunately, they are decisions that we, even the believers, are tempted to make. We have been tricked into successfully hating each other and seeking to find companionship in ways that God did not design. It is no secret that many who are lesbians also happen to be feminists. There are even women who grow up with the natural response to hate men and men who grow up with the natural response to hate women. Men were told for years that their immutable traits are nothing short of toxic and were asked to embrace femininity so that women could be more comfortable in the world. Men have also seen this as a big reason to hate women. It is an active cycle of violence and the one who is winning is the Devil himself.
The only way the holy division is fixed is with both sides repenting and crying out to God. If you are a man that has been trained or grown-up hating women by either direct or indirect influence of feminism in the world, I advise you to seek Christ. If you are a woman who has been trained or grown-up hating men by either direct or indirect influence of feminism in the world, I advise you to seek Christ. This isn’t just an issue that needs to be fixed by women, that’s the problem that formed feminism in the first place. This is an issue that both genders need to fix and heal from if we are going to start having healthy relationships with people.
Maybe you are not comfortable letting go of hate. Maybe you feel it is way too much to let go, as a man or a woman. I am on the same bridge as you. Christ holds out his hand to us. His satisfaction will heal us of the pain and though it will not be a journey that ends immediately, it will be a necessary one. I don’t want to give you false and empty promises, it will be a struggle. But with a world that has decided to destroy itself in order to find love, we will have to be the ones that will show them the love of Christ. From this point onwards, I want us to look into the lives of Esther and Ruth, not from some bigoted or sexist view, but in regards to the simplistic life of obedience and rest in God. Please look forward to that and may the Lord give the grace to explore this topic for His glory.
Shalom.
Author
