Cyberstones has a wonderful response to feminist reasoning regarding art and rape. I found this (feminist) perspective from his article interesting.
“Male animals want to impregnate as many females as possible and spread their seed. Female animals are incapable of not sleeping with other males, since their instincts tell them to spread the gene pool about”
The first sentence is clearly the definition of patriarchy according to feminism. There is more behind it than just that, though. What lurks beneath, by now also adding the female into the mix as an accomplice in rape and patriarchy, is the feminist achievement of another goal: to denounce Man as the crown of creation. The androcentric stress on creation/salvation history must be unraveled by them in order for feminism to ultimately succeed. The writings from Stanton to Ruether and LaCugna stress this fact. Intrinsic to this is the denial of Eve's history in the story of mankind. If women can be convinced that Eve is mere patriarchal myth; that mankind emanates from the primidorial ooze and is subject to the same urges as the lower beasts; then the Fatherhood of God can likewise be abandoned as well as the necessity of a male Savior.
Cyberstones is correct when he writes, “I realize most people think feminism is the equivalent of the civil rights movement for women, but it is not.” No, it isn’t. He’s right to call it a heresy. He’s also right with regard to feminism being a “wake up call” to abuses suffered by males and females. However, because even in the church feminism/Feminist Theology does not begin first in God's word and therefore end in Christ, it is also a political movement as opposed to a theological one. It always has been. This is because as a heretical philosophical movement politics has been its means to effect its goals, both within the church and without. Its birth-mother, Eliz. Cady Stanton saw this clearly when she used the Bible as a political weapon, then wrote another to take its place, The Woman’s Bible.
Nice piece, Cyberstones!