[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.

[xupybd]

Sorry I thought I acknowledged the author had a bias? Simply that they’d made an effort to write something other than an opinion piece.

I’m trying to challenge the notion that this article sheds a negative light on feminism. That the opposition between feminism and Chrisitanity, especially Christianity at that time should be obvious.

I would like to raise the question; is that opposition a problem for non Christians and if so why?

[joveian]

As a non-Christian I find it interesting and not at all a problem if true. I think the same basic thing is common in some punk circles today (partly due to some racist Sweedish metal bands, but that is a different topic, although maybe not coincidence that it looks like the author of the book in question is Sweedish). I don't know anything about the author and maybe it is a interesting book, maybe not.

However, I did quickly get the feel that this article was not what it appeared to be (e.g. "nobody dared to do", which seems an unlikely phrase for actual historians) and after very quickly scanning and reading the last paragraph I didn't read it. I would be interested in a historical look at this topic, but not something written to whip up bigots. IMO this particular article should not be on HN.

[xupybd]

I agree it's an odd article for HN.

But I don't know if there is an attempt here to whip up bigots.

I don't think it's trying to be impartial either. This is clearly written by someone that disagrees with both Satanism and feminism.