He For She - thoughts on Emma Watson's UN speech

Wow. Very, very interesting.

I certainly appreciate her call for... less... anti-man-ness from the feministic culture. Her approach is winsome; her demeanor is calm and genuine. Her emphasis on the devaluing of fatherhood is HUGE, very appropriate, and about as relevant as possible.

But the whole speech convolutes and combines so many issues that it's hard to know exactly what we're talking about. I wish someone would give some specific examples of the gender oppression that we're talking about, because it would be easier to... talk about.

See, I *am* a HeForShe. I'm just the kind of He that likes to open doors for She and give up my seat on the lifeboat for She and take a bullet for She. And while Emma has done a very good job addressing some things (correctly or incorrectly) from an ideological standpoint, I am left wondering... what is this supposed to look like, practically?

Should SpecialOps start accepting female applicants? Should I or should I not believe in chivalry? How about all-male sports groups like the NFL? What exactly is supposed to happen here? Can I play in the WNBA? And is the fact that I would have a better (which doesn't mean good) chance of succeeding there than in the NBA something that needs to be... somehow... modified? Is offering to carry a heavy item for a woman gentlemanly or insulting? Am I participating in the oppression of womankind by giving a lady my parachute?!?!?!?

The simple fact is that men and women are equal in value.

The other simple fact is that men and women are not equal in a zillion other ways- not in the sense of better or worse, but in the sense of different. Men are stronger. Women are better at having babies. Kids go to Dad for math help and to Mom for a bandage and a kiss.

Interestingly enough, in the pursuit of gender equality, we are actually devaluing both sexes. The girls who don't want to "look muscley"- is that a bad thing? Are they wrong, or less of a woman- er, person? Is it a bad thing that men don't express themselves like women? Are the men who don't generally like to cry in public any less truly themselves? Or is it possible that their ability to control their emotions is *part* of who they are?

Of course, and most importantly, Scripture makes distinctions between the roles of men and women, e.g. Nehemiah 4:14.

Emma's speech assumes that there really are no significant differences between men and women- in capability, in calling, in anything!- and and I am not sure that that actually leads to valuing men and women more at all.

The big round of applause on the applause for "rights over my own body," which means "rights over someone else's body in my womb," must be noted.

As far as the whole pay-differences thing goes, and setting aside for a moment the discussion on gender roles when it comes to careers, that's an issue that is best left to the free market, and not to political campaigns.

So, I appreciate the invitation very much. But what exactly am I being invited to?

Godzilla on Patriarchy

Well HSLDA just threw a bunch of people, myself included, under the bus of public opinion.

Smooth move, Batman.

Before I start, I want to say something about the term "patriarchy," which is... a rather loaded word.  I insist on using the term because I'm tired of letting the world confiscate, misconstrue, chew up and spit out terms that represent well, sometimes explicitly, the teachings of Scripture- patriarchy and dominion among the rest.

Now, in response to HSLDA.  I genuinely appreciate their statement that they will continue to represent folks like me who disagree with them.  I do not so genuinely appreciate the unilateral slash-and-burn treatment given to the patriarchal heretics, especially since I would apparently be one of them.

Which isn't to say that I would adhere to HSLDA's representation of what patriarchy stands for.  In this article, the author topples arguments like skyscrapers in a Godzilla movie, and I'm happy to help Godzilla out by kicking down a few bricks, because I never liked the skyscrapers anyway.  But HSLDA not only destroys the skyscrapers- it blames all the wrong architects for their existence.

Just a few things that stood out from the article: "Treating children well and treating women well is intrinsically the right thing to do."

Remind me again what the battle cry of patriarchy, "Women and children first!", was talking about?  'Cuz I kinda forgot.

Here's another really good one: "Patriarchial teaching: Higher education is not important for women."

This is not only a gross (i.e. either ill-informed or intentionally dishonest) misinterpretation of the passage they cited, but it's also vigorously not true.  No advocate of patriarchy that I know would ever advocate, or has ever advocated, "keeping girls dumb." The validity of the college model for higher education is indeed questioned by many in my circles... and not just for girls.

This: "In sum, patriarchy teaches that women in general should be subject to men in general."

Is rather humorous, because that summary actually doesn't sum up the previous points listed (the ones that actually had citations, however misinterpreted they were); it makes a huge leap and a new claim which is indeed contrary to Scripture... and to patriarchy, which is about patriarchal headship- that would be fathers and husbands, men placed in a relational leadership role by Scripture, not unilateral male headship, AKA "hey random lady, make me a sandwich!"

There is also an element of gender roles that is a more general teaching of "patriarchy" (and of Scripture)- for instance, in the civil sphere, we would advocate gender distinctions in positions of leadership (Is. 3:12).  We also aren't a fan of putting women on the front lines.

This is all, I would assume, similar to the traditional complimentarianism that the author himself adheres to.

This: "Women are not to be the de facto slaves of men. Women are created with dignity equal to that of men. Women have direct and unmediated access to God."

...

...

...

Seriously?

That's a straw man par excellence, a powerful, vigorous, bold refutation of an argument no one ever made.

Like, ever.  Well, OK, I think Islam teaches something like that.

This: "Daughters should not be taught that their only and ultimate purpose in life is to be the “helpmeet” of a man."

I am glad that he said this.  In every critique, we would be wise to search out the seed of truth, however big or small, that we could learn from.  This is something I myself have had to wrestle through in the past, and we in "the patriarchy movement" need to be careful to distinguish between a very true Scriptural proposition- that woman was created for man, and that she was "created to be his help-meet" (Gen. 2:18)- with a false and dangerous application thereof- that the only purpose in a woman's life (or a man's life, for that matter) is marriage.  We treasure marriage, and so we should, but we mustn't idolize it.

This: "We have a really easy way to know God’s universal commands. They are written in the Bible."

I'm pretty sure we all agree.  Condemnations of extra-Scriptural legalism need to be had, but it might be good to stick to specific legalisms instead of taking a carpet-bomb approach to a large subculture of American Christianity.

This: "When it is claimed, for example, that God never wants any daughter to leave home until she is married, the patriarchy movement goes too far."

Again, good for us to hear; the Botkin sisters have done a great job addressing concerns like this in a few of their recent talks, one of which is entitled "It's Not About Staying at Home."

Yet critiques like these could perhaps be postulated better thusly:

"Hey, sometimes it seems like y'all are teaching this.  Are you sure about that?  Because I don't see that in the Bible."

As opposed to:

"Hey, y'all obviously all believe this as an inherent part of your system, so I brought my flamethrower."

This: "It is from their stories that I have learned that these men’s teachings are being applied in ways that are clearly unwise..."

Hold the phone.  Sounds like the problem is with the applier, not the teaching.  I seem to recall some of Martin Luther's teachings being applied rather, um, erroneously, yet struggle to justify a Burn Luther's Bones Facebook campaign.

This: "The personal failure of Doug Phillips in the area of marriage and his mistreatment of a young woman bears directly on the legitimacy of his teaching."

BURN THE PSALMS.  Because David gots issues, y'all.

(And before you build the straw-man that I am comparing the teachings of Doug Phillips with the Divinely-inspired writings of David- I'm not.)

Yes, "you will know them by their fruits."  Mr. Phillips' downfall is a worthy catalyst for a season of close examination, and indeed is reason for his stepping down from a leadership position (which he did).  But I don't follow Doug Phillips.  I follow Jesus Christ.  My family follows Jesus Christ.  My church follows Jesus Christ.  We were greatly blessed by the ministry of Doug Phillips and Vision Forum.  But insofar as we followed what they taught, we did so because what they taught was Biblical.  Even if they were the blind hog that stumbled across the acre of corn, the blindness of the hog doesn't change the sweetness of the corn.

This: "Teachers who claim that they speak for God on matters of personal opinion should be suspect."

Is always true, of course.

This: "Treating one’s wife with love and respect is the best antidote to patriarchy that I know of."

Is, by implication, an enormously slanderous and blatantly false representation of the teachings of patriarchy.

This: "But if officials believe that the homeschooling movement promotes teachers and ideas that inherently treat women as second-class citizens or result in physical or sexual abuse of children, then we can expect that homeschooling freedom will be negatively impacted."

If officials come to the conclusion that the homeschooling movement promotes these things, I fear that it will be largely because of articles like this.