Feminism Gone Haywire
The celebrated robustness of Israel’s democracy has sadly produced some very dangerous ideas
Member of Knesset Merav Michaeli’s talk at the Australian ABC Q&A show from September 11 has gone viral on Israeli social media. Michaeli, from the leftist Labor Party, is a strange bird in the Israeli political scene to begin with. Her annoying Hebrew that changes pronouns to suit her feminist agenda is a symptom of the world in which she lives. And bizarre as her world is, the fact that she got elected to the Labor Party Knesset list means that there are enough people in that camp who support her ideas.
Michaeli’s idea of family is demonstrated in her own personal life. She has a male partner to whom she is not married. They live separately in the same building, one apartment above the other. The couple is childless by choice. Different as it is, this new brand of family is neither new nor radical. What’s radical about Michaeli is that she sees the traditional husband-wife-children family as an institution that must be eliminated altogether.
Feminism, to be sure, has for a long time gone from a fight for equality to a fight for the alteration of Western society. Feminism’s true political agenda has been expressed time and again by radical feminists, Michaeli being the latest. In her Q&A talk, Michaeli didn’t hold back and laid out her full view on the kind of society she is striving for.
“This is not funny,” she says to the audience with a stern face. “The core family as we know it today, unfortunately is the least safe place for children … the custody, this total custody that we have in this structure of marriage, which still gives men … complete domination over the children and too often over the women, who are called ‘wives’, is the part, really, the unbelieve[!] hurt in children.” Her make-believe world doesn’t stop here.
“I believe that instead of marriage, the state should offer two kinds of default agreements. One is custody over children. A child can have more than two parents. They don’t have necessarily to be his biological parents, or her biological parents. The person who takes responsibility for the child … needs to be obligated for certain criteria that the state should actually decide on … a shared household cannot necessarily have to rely on couplehood or sexuality or romance. It can be roommates, it can be sisters, it can be friends and it can be a couple who love each other and wants to live together happily ever after.”
The idea that instead of biological parents the state will be the custodian of all children is Orwellian to the core, and enough futuristic movies were made that well portray this kind of nightmarish world. From the many social media comments debunking Michaeli’s vision stands out that of Roy Iddan, who wrote, “Cambodia 1970s. In the picture children who were taken from their dangerous parental custody to the state’s bosom. Some of them were privileged enough to execute their parents in a distinctively progressive and anti-patriarchal act.”
Putting Michaeli’s views in biblical perspective, her idea of family is the exact opposite of the one described in Genesis 2:24. What she suggests is in fact the return to the self-destructive pre-flood society that was plagued with theft and incest (homosexuality included). The family she envisions is sterile, which means that her future family will not produce life, but will take it from others. It is exactly this kind of life-taking society that had ignited the wrath of God.