An interesting offering from Reasoned Audacity. Thoughts on how to relate American Matriarchy and Robespierre.
Yoest links to Atkinson's 'Looming American Matriarchy' and highlights the view of certain convictions as "ideology", defined as: "it incorporates a political agenda which makes it impervious to empirical evidence". I might connect that with the new connotations of fanaticism. 
The article is interesting and on point as it sticks closely to the topic at hand: recent hamhanded institution of feminist/diversity ethics in the military. However, one needs to handle these topics gingerly as they are prone to equivocation, the swapping in and out of words and ideologies which are similar in sound, only, not basis.
If we talk about Matriarchy...especially as a divergent system, we are beginning to buy into a system that pits female and male against each other in a contest of will and position. This is not thinking that is "complementarian", but a mirror image of the eschewed "Feminism". Simply "Anti-feminism", and subject to all the abuses of ideology gone rampantly wrong.
This polarity is very seductive, especially within the highly charged political environment of changing power balances, of the type seen in Nixon years and those we are moving into at this time.
Why did I feel the need to insert this little caveat? The image on the linked site. It is an unfortunate choice ...which plays up all the fears of past injustices and excesses.
Yet, that in itself is telling.
The reported miscarriages of justice have the earmarks of a witchhunt, but who are the ones portrayed as witches? The Women, Radical Feminist Women, but all the same... women. Unfortunate in my opinion.
One of the great mistakes, as I see it, in the Christian political activism of the past two decades is this lasso-ing of our fervor for restoring foundations and jerking us around to promote ideology. Ideology which is really not in sync with our Christian essence as it is found in the person of Christ. The fact that there are those who use that very thing to discredit politically active Christians as "true Christians" just underlines how we have been compromised. And our deepest concerns dismissed and betrayed. Not by Republicans, lest you misread me, but by the political bureaucracy... it doesn't seem to matter what partisanship; and it is because we have not been true to ourselves, as Believers in Christ.
We've been wheeling and dealing like everyone else... but sadly that is not the currency of the Kingdom of God, and we've been caught up short. Remember the parable of the children of light? The Good Steward? I think that can be applied here, in the battle of the systems, we have forgotten the character of our own.
Issues are important, and they are intrinsically tied to our views of justice and a wholesome society. I'm in no way attacking the idea for the need to be politically aware and activated. The point is a point of caution in the way we use words, however, and discerning the real topic at hand. Further, being more careful of our allegiances and alliances.
One of the salient points this has impressed within me is that we are not defined by what we are against, or what we are not.... we are defined positively by what we are and what we advocate, our substance. The negative outlines will take care of themselves, if we do this as we should.
I agree with Yoest's assertion, in her post, that we need to find our way and express what truly constitutes our system of "the Anglo-American way", although again, I think this is an unfortunate choice of illustration and definition. It muddies the actual source of what sets apart our way of form and freedom, implicating the culture of England and the American colonies they planted here. Those cultures had plenty of injustices and excesses of oppression and "PC" monkey business. It was the distinctly Christian and specifically Protestant line of philosophical thinking married to the secular popularity of freedom and form concepts that produced the system we so value today.
What I mean by this criticism is that "the Franco-German way and the Anglo-American way" describe processes, yes, but they also describe differing endpoint goals. Perhaps also the definition is rooted in a historical context and propensity of those cultures at certain times rather than an actual cultural idiom. Such thinking doesn't bring out the brass bands to play, but it is more accurate and less prone to getting hijacked into a political agenda.
When will the modern day Robespierres find their just end?
Well, that is a hard question... as some find it duly meted out in the overturning of power in the pendulum swing of events, and others not in this lifetime. Remember, Robespierre got his start bringing on someone else's "just end' as the myopia of the times would have it.
Political agendas are useful for moving mass numbers of people in a desired direction, it just doesn't always end up where you thought it would. Or think it ought.
Now, ask yourself:
What does the banner of Christ look like to you? Your answer will be a litmus test of how deeply seduced or soundly clarified you have become.
