Some comments I left over at Rebekah Wilson’s blog, on this thread:
steve hays
July 20, 2012 at 11:30 am
Hi Bekah,
I grew up watching movies and TV shows with Joan Crawford, Bette Davis, Mae West, Katherine Hepburn, Joan Blondell, Barbara Stanwyck, &c. These were strong-willed, self-made women who succeeded in a man’s world long before women’s lib. It’s odd to see feminists like Rachel Evans act like fainting violets.
steve hays
July 20, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Why are some defenders of Rachel Evans trying to put Bekah in her place? Why is it praiseworthy for Evans to be so outspoken, but blameworthy when another woman is outspoken in response to Evans? Why, in the name of feminism and egalitarianism, are some commenters faulting Bekah for not being more dainty, demur, and docile?
Reminds me of the double standard in the media, where it’s okay for liberal women (e.g. Rachel Maddow, Ellen DeGeneres, Janeane Garofalo, Roseanne Barr, Kathy Griffin, Joy Behar, Whoopi Goldberg, Rosie O’Donnell) to speak out, but if a conservative woman (e.g. Sarah Palin) speaks out, she’s demonized.
steve hays
July 20, 2012 at 2:32 pm
Mary:
“Rachel Held Evans is speaking out against abuse (and as much as complimentarians [sic] like to sweep it under the rug, tons of women have been abused in complimentarian [sic] marriages and have left that lifestyle for that very reason) and she never attacked anyone personally.”
No doubt that’s the back-patting role she’s cast herself in. The dauntless superheroine, speaking up on behalf of the voiceless and oppressed.
In the course of which she indulges in a lot of stereotyping. That’s the problem with identity politics. You only care about your special interest group.
For instance, there’s also a war against boys in this country, and that has casualties too. But you and Rachel turn a blind eye to that.
It’s the one-sidedness I object to.
steve hays
July 20, 2012 at 3:12 pm
Mary:
“A war against boys? What pray tell, is that?”
Thanks for illustrating my point to perfection. Because you practice identity politics, you only know about the grievances of your own special interest group. You’re oblivious to anyone outside your bubble.
The war against boys is the title of a well-known book, written by Christina Hoff Sommers.
“…but I think in a patriarchal society in which men are the ruling class…”
That’s an example of how your feminist bigotry blinds you to the facts. Women can run for public office. And female voters outnumber male voters, so there’s nothing to prevent women from “ruling.”
Do you think men are the ruling class in WA state, where both the governor and two senators are women?
In CA, both senators are women. CA voters also had a chance to elect women to the governorship, but chose an old white guy instead. Why did a blue state like CA pass over a qualified female candidate? You can’t rationally chalk that up to California’s “patriarchal society.”
And it wasn’t so very long ago that the Speaker of the House was a woman, until her party took a drubbing in the last Congressional election cycle.
We currently have three women on the Supreme Court. Women can and do hold top jobs in academia.
But that doesn’t play into your feminist narrative.
steve hays
July 20, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Mary:
“Steve Hays, I’m familiar with all those arguements and like I said, every group faces struggles based on their gender…”
Since there are only two genders, that’s nonsensical.
“…men do have privileges that women don’t.”
No, men in 21C America don’t have any unique “privileges.” The privileged class reflects social class, not gender.
“Women are still told that their ‘proper place’ is in the home…”
Is that what they’re told in blue states?
“Lets have this conversation again when there is a female president of the United States…”
Well, Hillary narrowly lost the nomination. Had she been nominated, she’d probably be president. It was a bad year for Republicans.
Why didn’t Democrats nominate her? Is that because the Democrat party is a patriarchal party?
“…or when 1 in 5 women is not a victim of rape and sexual assault.”
Let’s not forget false charges of rape (e.g. the Duke Lacrosse case). Likewise, as Dorothy Rabinowitz has documented, accusing the ex of incest is the weapon of choice in custody battles.
Likewise, women can also be sexually abusive. Take the Nazareth House scandal.
You keep stereotyping men. Bigots never recognize their own bigotry.
“…or when women stop being told that the only way they can be truly succeed in life is by ‘submitting’ to a man.”
Many men have to submit to women to succeed in our society. Many women hold positions of power over many men.
steve hays
July 20, 2012 at 3:51 pm
You’re obsessed with power. But power is not a priority in Christian piety. Christians don’t live for power.
steve hays
July 20, 2012 at 5:49 pm
Mary:
“Okay, then why does the complimentarian movement spend so much time telling women that power and leadership is only for men? If it’s not about power, then why can’t men and women share it? Why do we have to say that leadership is for men only, and submission is for women only?”
i) For starters, you need to learn the correct term. The term is complementarian, not complimentarian. It’s based on “complete,” not “compliment.” Men are incomplete without women, and vice versa.
ii) It’s not about power. It’s about responsibility.
iii) Both men and women must be in submission to the word of God.
iv) Most pastors are remarkably powerless. The congregation holds all the high cards.
steve hays
July 20, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Mary:
“I’m not a Christian, though I suppose I have a great amount of respect for all world religions and spiritualities. I believe there is more to life than what we see but organized religion is way to confining and dogmatic for me a lot of the time.”
If woman are just a byproduct of biological evolution, then women have no intrinsic value (or men, for that matter). On that view, women are just animals with a built-in expiration date. They exist to incubate and raise their replacements.
Likewise, on that view, women have no genuine freedom. They are slaves to their genetics, hormones, and social conditioning.
It’s only if Christianity is true that women have inherent worth. Indeed, eternal worth.
steve hays
July 20, 2012 at 6:42 pm
Mary:
“I’m not incomplete without a man, Steve.”
Of course you are. Men and women were made for each other.
“…and I don’t want to support a system that continues to tell women they must play second fiddle to a man or else God will punish them.”
Historically, most men have been in subjection to women. And that’s because, historically, most cultures have been hierarchical. At the tippy top of the pyramid were monarchs and aristocrats.
As a result, male commoners were subject to queens, queen mothers, empresses, and noblewomen.
steve hays
July 20, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Mary:
“Steve I pretty much disagree with everything just said. Everybody has inherent worth, whether they are Christian or not. How on earth can you suggest that people don’t have worth if they don’t belong to a particular religion?”
It’s all a matter of whether a particular religion corresponds to reality. And the alternative to reality is fantasy.
“Do you realize how many people that you just called worthless?”
No, it’s evolution that implicitly calls them worthless.
“And I don’t even know what that has to do with anything I said. I never said anything about biological evolution.”
Don’t be evasive. You said you’re not a Christian, and you said you reject organized religion. So you’re logical alternative is secularism. Which, in turn, dovetails with naturalistic evolution.
“I just said that I’m not into organized religion, but that I also do see value in the spiritual side of life and then you start spouting about how people don’t have worth unless they’re Christian. Like, what?”
You value religion for humanistic reasons, not religious reason. You don’t value it because you think it’s true. So that leaves you with secularism.
“This is why Christianity turns me off.”
Well, that’s a purely emotional reaction. And, ironically, that plays into a stereotype of women which I think you’d be at pains to avoid.
“I actually think Ghandi said it best: “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.’”
But, of course, that’s utterly disingenuous. Gandhi didn’t believe in the Christ of the Gospels.
steve hays
July 20, 2012 at 7:02 pm
Mary
“I believe in God, Steve. I just consider myself more of a universalist. I don’t think any one particular religion as all the answers, though I thinkt here are some good moral lessons embedded through out them.”
That makes you just as dogmatic as any organized religion.
“I think everyone on this planet has worth and that God, whoever or whatever Gods, loves them all.”
If you don’t know whether it’s God or Gods or whoever or whatever, then you’re in no position to know if it/he/she/they love everyone or anyone.
You call yourself a critical thinker, but you’re emoting rather than reasoning.
“Even you with your smug, self-righteous attitude.”
That’s not the response of a critical thinker. Rather, that’s just an emotional, defensive reaction.
steve hays
July 20, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Mary:
“I’m just telling you what I believe…”
It doesn’t matter what you believe unless your beliefs are true.
“I don’t know if you’re doing it to work me up so you can feel good about sticking it to a woman who doesn’t fit into your mold of what you think a woman should be, but you know what? I’m done playing your little game.”
Actually, I’m talking to you the same way I talk to other men. You keep saying women are fully the equals of any man. Well then…why are you so resentful when I take you up on the offer? You can’t be a feminist on a pedestal.
“You’ve done nothing but push me further away from ever wanting to be a part of Christianity. I wouldn’t want to surround myself with people like you.”
So much for being a critical thinker.
steve hays
July 20, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Mary:
“You’ve done nothing but push me further away from ever wanting to be a part of Christianity. I wouldn’t want to surround myself with people like you.”
That’s emotional blackmail. And that plays into another stereotype.
“What makes you so sure that your beliefs are true?”
I’ve given my reasons in different venues.
“Does the Bible not say they will know us by our love.’ Where’s the love, Steve?”
You’re alluding to 1 John, which, in context, has reference to Christian love for fellow Christians.
“Haven’t felt anything even remotely like love from you this whole damn time.”
You’re resorting to emotional manipulation. That’s a transparent ploy.
It’s also phony to recast the issue in terms of “love” when all I’ve done is to treat you as an intellectual equal. Do you or don’t you wish to be treated as an intellectual equal? If yes, then stop acting hurt when I take you up on the challenge. If you want to be a feminist you need to get off that pedestal.
“I honestly can’t imagine Jesus behaving this way towards a non-believer.”
Which Jesus would that be? The domesticated Jesus of a religious pluralist, or the real Jesus of the Gospels and Revelation?
steve hays
July 20, 2012 at 8:48 pm
Mary:
“Hmm, the Jesus I remember reading about was kind and compassionate towards everyone and really only had harsh words for the religious leaders and hypocrites of his day.”
That’s a popular cliché. In actually, Jesus came down hard on anyone who refused to bow the knee to him. That includes you.
“I see a lot of those types of people around these parts.”
The hypocrisy I’m seeing is feminists who keep a bottle of artificial tears handy to daub their eyes when they can’t defend their position by honest means.
“You’re not treaing me like an equal. You are being condescending and rude. If this is how you treat your equals then damn, I’d hate to see how you treat people who you think are beneath you. I know what it’s like to be treated like an equal and you are failing big time, buddy.”
All you’ve been doing for the last few comments is threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue unless we cave. That doesn’t work on me.
steve hays
July 21, 2012 at 8:09 am
Mary:
“But see, people listened and wanted to follow Jesus because he wasn’t rude, self-righteous and condescending towards them.”
That’s another purely emotional reaction. People ought to follow Jesus because he is who he says he is. It’s about reality, not feelings.
BTW, I imagine the religious leaders felt Jesus was being pretty “rude, self-righteous and condescending towards them” in Mt 23.
And it’s not as if you were polite in your response to Bekah.
Keep fighting the good fight, Steve.
ReplyDeleteAll you’ve been doing for the last few comments is threatening to hold your breath until you turn blue unless we cave. That doesn’t work on me.
ReplyDeletelol
Steve you mentioned emotions a few times in this post. I'm curious, do you have anything to say about men like John Boehner who wear their hearts on their sleeves and are constantly crying in public?
ReplyDeleteSometimes that's cultural. For instance, men in Mediterranean and Middle Eastern countries are apt to be more openly emotional than N. Europeans.
DeleteMen and women can be equally emotional about some of the same things (e.g. family). However, they also tend to be emotional about different things. The very different reaction of male and female jurors to the Menendez brothers is a classic case in point.
"You are being condescending and rude."
ReplyDeleteLogic is always rude to the illogical. If it wasn't, we'd all be a bunch of really nice idiots.
Hey, Steve. First time commenter (I think). Your dialogue here, along with the rest of the Wilson-Wilson-Evans kerfuffle, has definitely helped me to see first-hand the common ploys of feminists. Feelings get "hurt" as soon as the first blunt word is spoken, and from that point, all hope for reasonable discussion is lost. It's helpful when another woman, in this case Rebekah, can effectively blow the lid off this tactic:
ReplyDelete"If she doesn't like the stereotypical 'little woman' thing...then she should stop being the stereotypical little woman. She’s ready to cry and get her feelings hurt at the drop of a hat, and she does so because it's very hard for a man to argue with a woman who's pulling that trick."
I'm sure it's frustrating for you and others to have to constantly be painted as the big meanies, but no one will ever stop the mouth of feminism by capitulating to its devices.
Oh, and just an FYI: I think her name is Rebekah Merkle. Wife of Ben.
Grace and peace.
You're seriously my new hero. Well done :)
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, if anything, I posted the following in Rebekah Wilson's combox.
ReplyDeleteMary said:
"But see, people listened and wanted to follow Jesus because he wasn’t rude, self-righteous and condescending towards them."
Actually, not all people listened and wanted to follow Jesus. Only some people listened and wanted to follow Jesus. Jesus was divisive.
Jesus was gracious to the humble and repentant. But he likewise rebuked the arrogant and unrepentant.
"My favourite story is the of of the woman at the well. Yes, he told her to 'go and sin no more' but he also saved her from all the people who wished to do her harm because she was a sinner. She decided to 'straigtened up and fnly right' because Jesus treated her with respect when no one else did. That, to me, is what I think Christians should be striving for. And unfortunately, many don’t."
At best you're conflating two separate events: Jesus and the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4) and Jesus and the woman caught in adultery (John 8).
However, it's the second story which features Jesus saying, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more" (John 8:11), and in which Jesus "saved her from all the people who wished to do her harm because she was a sinner."
There's another slight problem. John 7:53-8:11 (pericope adulterae) isn't featured in the earliest and best NT manuscripts. It's virtually certain that the pericope adulterae was not part of the original Gospel of John. For example, just check out what a couple of the foremost modern NT textual critics have to say on the topic (e.g. the late Bruce Metzger, Daniel Wallace).
So the fact that you can't get the events correct is a bit of a concern given that you're attempting to interpret and draw moral conclusions from the passage(s).
Or to put it another way, for starters, why should Christians believe a non-Christian's interpretation of passages with which she herself isn't familiar enough to know basic plot points?
"Sorry that you think I’m being dishonest. I see it as pointing out your hypocisy. You claim to follow the Savior and yet you are nothing like him. Sad."
You claim to be morally superior in this regard to Christians. But you haven't exactly been very kind, gracious, and loving toward others in this combox let alone the author of this post.
Zing, headshot! To God that I could marshal my thoughts like this. Well, well done, Stephen. Signed, your newest reader.
ReplyDeleteIf the point of this is to win a debate, you won.
ReplyDeleteIf it is about winning a person, you lost it.
What makes you think she's open to being "won" (whatever that's supposed to mean)?
DeleteThere is also a basic difference between a private conversation and/or face-to-face conversation and a public debate.
Explain how you'd win the person without winning the debate? Would you let her many false beliefs go unchallenged?
DeleteIf the point of this is to win a debate, you won.
ReplyDeleteIf it is about winning any rational person reading the debate, you won it.
It was a magnificent victory for you, Mr. Hays. And this is the exact way it needs to be done. Unapologetically, and directly, until you break through the arrogance and the pride. Then you can be compassionate. BUT NOT BEFORE.
If only all Christian men could hold feminists inside and outside the church accountable for their views, using reason and evidence like you can.
Sometimes, I wonder whether people who talk about "winning the person" have ever actually read the Bible to see how Jesus debates with people who are not teachable. Maybe they have some sort of alternate set of rules of engagement that they have adopted in order to feel superior to Biblical Christians, or to be admired by their secular colleagues. But as for us, we follow Jesus, and Jesus is not a doormat.
ReplyDeleteIf the point of this is to win a debate, you won.
ReplyDeleteIf it is about winning any rational person reading the debate, you won it.
Question: Let's suppose an irrational person who's prone to hysterical emotionalism holds to a faulty conviction or a faulty set of beliefs. If reasoned debate can't win them over, and can't win them away from their faulty set of beliefs without triggering hysterical emotionalism, then what method would turn them away from their faulty set of beliefs?
You're seriously my new hero. Ha ha ha.... I loved every argument and some stood out and they are below,
ReplyDelete1. “Do you realize how many people that you just called worthless?”
No, it’s evolution that implicitly calls them worthless.
2. “Even you with your smug, self-righteous attitude.”
That’s not the response of a critical thinker. Rather, that’s just an emotional,
defensive reaction.
3. “Haven’t felt anything even remotely like love from you this whole damn time.”
You’re resorting to emotional manipulation. That’s a transparent ploy.
It’s also phony to recast the issue in terms of “love” when all I’ve done is to
treat you as an intellectual equal. Do you or don’t you wish to be treated as an
intellectual equal? If yes, then stop acting hurt when I take you up on the
challenge. If you want to be a feminist you need to get off that pedestal.
3.