[throwaway66920]

Lots of arguments about whether this is purely historical or disguised opinion. The last paragraph suggests the author’s intention is to discredit feminists imo. Note the use of “God the Father”, “bravely” and “demonstrates” (the lattermost implying that something is factually true and being proven therein). Sure, maybe this was a part of early feminism. But also, buzz off dude. Don’t need this here at least.

> Dr Faxneld provides a most compelling account of how Satanism played a crucial part in early feminism—primarily between 1880 and 1930—as something employed to vilify and denigrate Christianity, and transform God the Father into an oppressive creator and the ultimate enemy of women’s liberation. This book makes for fascinating reading as Faxneld bravely endeavours to demonstrate the centrality of Satanism in influential feminist narrative during the period in a way nobody before him has ever dared to do. His most enlightening book makes a significant contribution to scholarship.

[gatherhunterer]

The author went on a Christian radio station[1] to talk about White Christians being oppressed by allowing same-sex marriage in Australia. I thought the article reeked of preachy double-speak from the first sentence so this was hardly surprising.

1. https://vision.org.au/radio/2018/03/07/australians-why-aband...

[xupybd]

Isn't the "God the Father" used to show the maleness of the Chrisitan God?

While I think you're correct the authors opinions do appear to shine through in that last paragraph, it seems that efforts have been made to show this history without framing.

Does the article make the case that an alignment with Satanism is a bad thing? Many modern western values align closely with Satanism. Satanism in its modern form was a deliberate effort by some to oppose Christianaities stronghold on the western world at the time.

Is the opposition to Christianity a problem for modern Feminism? Even an historical opposition?

To me this article simply reads as early feminists rebelled against a society they felt was oppressive to them by adopting what they saw as their enemies enemy as a mascot. I don't think that is particularly disparaging of feminism is it?

Full disclosure, I’m a fundamentalist Christian.

[throwaway66920]

> Isn't the "God the Father" used to show the maleness of the Chrisitan God?

No, the maleness of Christian God is not something that needs clarification. Appending “the Father” signals the author’s personal beliefs, asserts god’s righteousness, etc. all with plausible deniability

> Does the article make the case that an alignment with Satanism is a bad thing?

Technically correct, persuasively irrelevant. Satanism is without a doubt seen as something blatantly “evil” among his target audience.

> Is the opposition to Christianity a problem for modern Feminism? Even an historical opposition

Aside from abortion probably not. But most religious groups preach conservatism, and are thus anti feminism.

> To me this article simply reads as early feminists rebelled against a society they felt was oppressive to them by adopting what they saw as their enemies enemy as a mascot. I don't think that is particularly disparaging of feminism is it?

Intentions matter. The author’s goal is to create an association between satanism (-> Satan -> evil) and feminism (-> progressive social movements). If we look at this guy’s other works we will find the same agenda. It is enabling a justification of pre-existing beliefs of the basis of rationality because now there are facts, even if those facts have literally zero salience to the issue at hand. To state facts neutrally, but obscure, irrelevant, and persuasively chosen facts is a dirty technique because it’s effective and it gives everyone plausible deniability upon accusations of having a bias

[gatherhunterer]

> Full disclosure, I’m a fundamentalist Christian.

So is the author. You can't recognize a bias that you share. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit.