In reply to Roy S. Askins.

The language is extremely loaded. If you’re going to use terms like “egalitarian” and “patriarchy” and speak to a wider audience than to the theological experts, you need to define terms. I am understanding your comments within the framework of complementarianism vs egalitarianism as Christian gender role theological understanding, but that is assumptive. The language is inflammatory and makes it seem that feminism as a social movement has no valid critique to offer, where as a woman I am quite glad to see the days where a married woman couldn’t own a credit card in her own name gone. The conversation is more nuanced than the treatment given here.