Been mulling this over more recently.
I think these two posts a year ago accurately pointed out some of the systematic effects of feminism, but didn’t get to the heart of the issue.
- Feminism is an inferiority complex and white knights are enablers
- Feminism is the promotion and glorification of rebellion
So in Genesis 1, you have God creating man in his image:
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
The key point is verse 27. God made man in his image, not man and woman. Very easy to miss if you don’t read closely.
1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8 For man [i]does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
Paul uses a similar argument in 1 Corinthians on head coverings.
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Skip over to Genesis 3, and Eve is tempted to be (‘ĕlôhı̂ym — elohim) “like God” or the “as gods.”
That’s one of the interesting nuances of the English translation here as KVJ translates it “as gods” (elohim — lit. gods) which would mean that Adam and Eve would become gods. Most other English translations put it as “like God” (elohim — the supreme God).
Interesting parallel to Jesus in John 10 and Psalm 82 here.
John 10:31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’ (elohim)? 35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may [f]know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” 39 Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp.
In any case, we know the rest. Eve is punished thusly,
Genesis 3:16b Yet your desire will be for your husband,And he will rule over you.”
Her temptation from pre-fall and post-fall has always been the same: to be like/as God, and to be like/as man (who is made in the image of God).
I suppose, in essence, it is envy personified.
Reply to Objection 1. As Gregory says (Moral. xxxi, 45), “the capital vices are so closely akin to one another that one springs from the other. For the first offspring of pride is vainglory, which by corrupting the mind it occupies begets envy, since while it craves for the power of an empty name, it repines for fear lest another should acquire that power.” Consequently the notion of a capital vice does not exclude its originating from another vice, but it demands that it should have some principal reason for being itself the origin of several kinds of sin. However it is perhaps because envy manifestly arises from vainglory, that it is not reckoned a capital sin, either by Isidore (De Summo Bono) or by Cassian (De Instit. Caenob. v, 1).
Reply to Objection 2. It does not follow from the passage quoted that envy is the greatest of sins, but that when the devil tempts us to envy, he is enticing us to that which has its chief place in his heart, for as quoted further on in the same passage, “by the envy of the devil, death came into the world” (Wisdom 2:24).
I did a little more digging and came across this excerpt from Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae.
St. Ambrose used to instruct people thus:
“Vainglory and pride are one and the same thing. Vainglory manifests its works, so that people see how you go along, how adroitly you do things, while pride then begins to disdain everyone. Vainglory is like a worm—at first it crawls and bends. But when it grows wings, it flies up high, and that is what pride is like.”
This from orthochristian shows the interactions between vainglory and pride. Vainglory in the form of flattery can lead to pride, or a high view of one’s self can lead to vainglory.
Difference between had a pretty good analysis.
Vainglory is a condition that results from the human desire to be seen, appreciated, acknowledged, and accepted. It is often attributed to people who are attention seekers and have a thirst for honors, rewards, status, or other forms of acknowledgment from other people. The pattern of attention is outward and decentralized. In a sense, vainglory is what an audience or other people think of a certain person.
People with vainglory are described as boastful of their achievements whether large or small. They celebrate their accomplishment or qualities in a grand scale. If their assumptions or achievements are ignored or disproved, they act like it was a matter of no consequence.
That’s most women in today’s culture, feminism or not. Feminism is just one of the way pride and vainglory manifests as envy.