hardwired
November 12, 2007 by moriahjoy
If I were the last man on the planet to think so, I would want the honor of saying that no woman should go before me into combat to defend my country. A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he’s a wimp. He should be ashamed. For most of history, in most cultures, he would have been utterly scorned as a coward to promote such an idea. Part of the meaning of manhood as God created us is the sense of responsibility for the safety and welfare of our women.
- John Piper, from the World Magazine article, “Combat and Cowardice” November 10, 2007.
As a strong-willed, independent woman (or so I’m told ;p), I could not agree more with Piper. God has made male and female unique and different, and I have no problem with acknowledging that. We intrinsically have different functions and roles, and I am quite happy to place myself under the protection of good and honorable men. While I question the abuse of patriarchal structures, I do not question that men and women fulfill different, complimentary roles, and one of those roles is men as protectors.
Piper’s point regarding competency verses nature within his article argues that regardless of competency, men have been hardwired to protect women, and that despite a woman’s competency, a man should always seek to protect the woman, even if he is less competent. Piper contends, “[A man] should step in front of [a woman] and be ready to lay down his life to protect her, irrespective of competency. It is written on his soul. That is what manhood does.”
There is something delicious entwined within manhood. And we need to start acknowledging the need to embrace both manhood and womanhood respectively. Piper furthermore states, “[C]ollectively that is what society does—unless the men have all been emasculated by the suicidal songs of egalitarian folly.”
Would you agree? Have men been hardwired to protect women or have we evolved past that notion and are now liberated? I’m not a man, so I cannot speak on behalf of my hardwiring, but from the men I know, I see within them a natural desire to protect, to fight, to defend their women, and as a recipient, I, for one, am thankful.
Men are hard-wired to get in front of their women—between them and the bullets. They are hard-wired to lead their women out of danger and into safety. And women, at their deepest and most honest selves, give profound assent to this noble impulse in good men. That is why co-ed combat situations compromise men and women at their core, and corrupt, even further, the foolhardy culture that put them there.
A friend who is a Stryker once commented that he hates being in combat with women because he automatically feels as if he must protect them and look out for them before attending to his job and he is thus distracted from fulfilling his job 100%; it seems inane to compromise everyone’s safety if this is the general sentiment of men in combat. What are we thinking? Are we willing to be so foolhardy in response to appeasing the feminist movement that we would risk lives for the sake of some ideological commitment?
God wrote manhood and womanhood on our hearts. Sin ruins the imprint without totally defacing it. It tells men to be heavy-handed oafs or passive wimps. It tells women to be coquettes or controllers. That is not God’s imprint. Deeper down, men and women know it.
When God is not in the picture, the truth crops up in strange forms. For example, Kingsley Browne, law professor at Wayne State University in Michigan, has written a new book called Co-Ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn’t Fight the Nation’s Wars. In an interview with Newsweek, he said, “The evidence comes from the field of evolutionary psychology. . . . Men don’t say, ‘This is a person I would follow through the gates of hell.’ Men aren’t hard-wired to follow women into danger.”
Men may not be hard-wired to follow women into danger; however, as a woman, I am prepared to follow a man I respect through the gates of hell because I trust him; I have been hardwired to not only trust, but to place my life and protection into the hands of good men. What is unsettling is when the men around me do not step up to their calling and do not command my respect by their character and integrity, or lack thereof.
Piper’s argument is a refreshing voice in the midst of a society in which the gender roles have been utterly confused. Beyond competency, which is a worthy argument, we are forgetting the reality that there is male and female; we may intellectually and philosophically desire to fight it, but our physical natures’ voice, although silent in the media and intellectual arenas, shouts more loudly than all of our arguments to the contrary. Perhaps it’s best if we started listening to it.
I would say that the imperative for men to protect women from harm is hardwired into our beings. It might be genetic or it might be purely cultural - either way, it’s truth.
I’ve seen women who very competent at warfare, and know plenty of historical references to others, but there’s no way in anyone’s idea idea of Hell that I’m ever going to be even remotely comfortable with the thought of women in combat! Never! No way, no how!
Every man who’s served in combat that I’ve talked to shares the same sentiment. Coincidence? I’m going to guess not.
Thanks for weighing in. I was hoping you would.
The only people who would argue against your point are feminists, and since they openly reject God’s plan for women, their argument is null and void.
Congratulations . . . you win!
Though women may be capable to fight, they shouldn’t have to. They shouldn’t have to because men are doing their jobs, and they shouldn’t have to because they feel they need to compete with men. That’s where the feminist misses the whole point: as long as they try to live up to the standard of a man they’re stripping everything that makes them unique. They are women; not men. They have a different role to play.
Hate to break it to ya, but I’m a feminist, Kevin. ;)
http://christenpatterson.wordpress.com/2007/08/14/redefinition-letting-go/
Out of curiosity, what is God’s plan for women and what role should they be playing?
P.S. Do I still win?
Interesting debate. In the arena of physical defense, I would agree that by design men have a God given responsibility to protect women. My only qualification would be that the women too have the responsibility of supporting that effort. The relationship is complementary…and whereas nature hardwires guys to defend, women can help nurture that role!! In my own experience my mom was both mother and father to me, both female and male voice. Having seen her “lead through hell” in the past I am glad to be able to confer with her on “various battle plans” and to lean on her experience!
David,
I couldn’t agree more - that women play an integral role in nurturing men to protect. Men need something worthy of fighting for; oftentimes, it’s the woman who inspires a man to protect, to fight.
My mother has been both mother and father to my brothers out of necessity.
I was talking with a friend last night and he commented that men are naturally more aggressive, too, which, especially on the battlefield, comes into play.
Indeed Moriah, I’d argue that most men are looking for the kind of woman who would inspire a kind of Mel Gibson-Braveheart persona in them. (Incidentally have you read Shakespeares macbeth??)
Going back to your arguments on competency, if you were more apt at bringing the daily bread in, would you be comfortable with a role exchange where you focus on career while your hubby stays home to change daipers?
Disclaimer: I am not a feminist in the way most people understand the term. ;p See above article I wrote explicating.
Yes, I’ve read Shakespeare’s Macbeth but it’s been many years – you’ve now made me wish to reread it. And yes, most women are also looking for a man who would display a kind of Mel Gibson-Braveheart persona for them and their families (or Patriot persona, etc.). I think we’ve been created that way.
In terms of your question, my immediate response is no, I would not be comfortable with a role exchange as the ideal or for long term; of course, this would be something to discuss with my husband, and I could see perhaps a job sharing situation but that’s about as far as I would go (I’ve known couples who share a job and thus both work part time and are home part time with the children) – but especially in the early years, a woman has been created to nurture and the time with the couple’s child(ren) in the very early years, especially, cannot be replaced and is instrumental for the child’s development, so even if I were more “competent” to bring in the daily bread, I would not seek to take that role, nor would I want to. (And what does “competent” entail here – merely monetary considerations? Or is the husband physically unable to work? If it’s the former, definitely not; if it’s the latter, then of course I’d work as the primary bread winner to support the family. But if it’s simply that I might make a better wage, I would rather learn to live on much less and be content with little than focus on a career when my children need me.) And that’s furthermore not to in any way disparage the absolute importance of the father’s role in his children’s lives, but in the very early stages of development, a child needs his/her mother, and so ideally, she should be the primary caregiver his/her first couple of years.
Touche my dear ‘true feminist’!
There is a lot of debate about role reversal. Personally I’d say I would be comfortable with role-helping or temporary swapping as appropriate. In the end men and women are different!
Its not every woman I know that might agree to hold back on her own potential to let a man be a (the) man! It would takes great love and humility to do that. But I believe that is what God would desire, for women to practically preach love (to chip in at your earlier question of the role God would have women play). The ideal wife in Proverbs 31 spends about 80% of her time in service to her family! It is humbling to think of all the sacrifes women make for their families and as a man it puts many things in perspective especially certain machoistic tendencies. I understand better the ultimate sacrifce Jesus made on my behalf when I experience in a thousand small ways the sacrifices of service the women in my family make for me. I believe if a man experienced such love for a woman, he would have no trouble following Christs example of dying for his beloved church. (Men are hardwired to protect, but I think that drive is best ignited by love)
About Macbeth, his wife was very much a corrupted feminist to borrow your term. Her evil prayer to be “unsexed” as a woman is representative of the usurpist drive of world corrupted feminism.
Oh, I have no problem with role-helping (I think that’s actually needed and greatly desired in any partnership) or temporary swapping as appropriate – I don’t think rules can be put into place for each couple or even each season – that’s where wisdom and discernment come into play about what is best for the family, etc. But men and women are different, and I believe one of the greatest callings a woman has is to be a mother.
[ http://christenpatterson.wordpress.com/2003/09/03/the-ultimate-career-motherhood/ ]
Anyway. I think you captured it well when you said that love is what drives a man to be willing to follow Christ’s example to give up his life for the Church, his bride.
And I think a differentiation between “vocation” and “career” should be made; simply because I may not pursue a “career” and instead focus on my family does not mean I have put my potential on hold or curtailed it; my potential as a woman and as a follower of Jesus can be fully expressed/pursued in whatever role I play, in whatever job I may fulfill (wife, mother, career-woman) and my vocation is not interchangeable with whatever my career may or may not be.
Its not every woman I know that might agree to hold back on her own potential to let a man be a (the) man! It would takes great love and humility to do that. But I believe that is what God would desire, for women to practically preach love (to chip in at your earlier question of the role God would have women play). The ideal wife in Proverbs 31 spends about 80% of her time in service to her family! It is humbling to think of all the sacrifes women make for their families and as a man it puts many things in perspective especially certain machoistic tendencies. I understand better the ultimate sacrifce Jesus made on my behalf when I experience in a thousand small ways the sacrifices of service the women in my family make for me. I believe if a man experienced such love for a woman, he would have no trouble following Christs example of dying for his beloved church. (Men are hardwired to protect, but I think that drive is best ignited by love)
I agree; I saw an amazing relationship of reciprocal service, love, and respect in my parents’ relationship – each sought to “out serve” the other, thereby out-loving the other and demonstrating great respect for each other; they were truly a team. Dad worked outside the home; mother was a homemaker/wife/mother. Together, they were one, and neither could fully function without the other’s support, encouragement and love. The more my father served my mother (whether it was simply getting her a cup of coffee, doing dishes after she made dinner, or helping with his children in whatever capacity was required), she desired even more to serve and love him through keeping the home, cooking, etc. My father didn’t have an expectation that she should do any of those things – he was grateful and thankful and wildly appreciative that she did. I remember clearly that he would praise her cooking and thank her for it – even if she happened to accidentally burn something (probably due to having seven kids clamoring around her), he never once complained and would go as far as to eat it, thanking her. (And my mother was an amazing cook but sometimes the phone would ring or a kid would get hurt and the food would be put on the back burner, so to speak.) His attitude was such an example. He was purposefully not a picky eater…and that freed her up greatly.
Dad never once took Mom for granted, and vice versa. She fulfilled the traditional role of stay-at-home wife and mother but she delighted in it. Why? Because it was a joy to serve my father through that and his attitude was not one in which he expected or thought he earned it; he was blessed by it.
Anyway, that’s all to say that although he was the bread-winner of the family, they both shared the roles of parenting and responsibilities. They team-taught us as children (we homeschooled) and kept house together, etc. It was a great picture of what a family can look like. (And yes, we had our dysfunctions as always families do, but my parents’ example was nevertheless an awesome example.)
As for Macbeth, it’s coming back to me now (I read it in highschool). I’ll be sure not to make Macbeth’s wife my role model. ;p
I read your article and have one comment. Be careful in redefining a movement to suit a fine-point distinction. Feminism is, by their own admission, a Godless movement that encourages women to live outside the Lord’s will for their lives. It may be true that a small group of women classify themselves as “feminists” under a different banner than “those other feminists,” but unfortunately it takes more than a minority to redefine a movement. There are certain features of evengelicalism, presbyterianism, and even the democrats I can agree with, but I can’t side with them completely. As movements they have collective beliefs I cannot (and will not) associate with.
Let me use Islam as an example. Today there are tons of Muslims trying to argue their religion is a religion of peace. The problem is two fold: 1. It’s not a religion of peace, and 2. Most Muslims KNOW it’s not a religion of peace and aren’t going to redefine their movement to fit the reinterpreters’ notions.
So, though I’m pretty sure your views on women are biblically sound, it’s unwise to adopt the term “feminism” to describe them, because the VAST majority of feminists don’t agree with you and wouldn’t support your thesis.
It’s kind of what J.K. Rowling did with witchcraft. It doesn’t matter how much you want to argue it, witchcraft is the worship of Satan (or some other demonic entitiy). Rowling created a “new breed” of witchcraft that had no ties to devil worship. Okay, that’s fine and good for fictional stories, but she garnered no support from people who know what witchcraft is and who refused her re-definition.
In closing, I could call myself a devil-worshipper but tell everyone my definition of “devil” is actually Yahweh (Jehovah) of the Bible. That would be both silly and counterproductive. So I suggest you either coin your own term (previously unused) or allign yourselves with a group who espouses your beliefs (which I’m sad to say, Feminisim doesn’t.)
Thanks, Kevin. Iron sharpens iron, eh? I shall carefully consider your objection.
In the meantime, my only point is that feminists have hijacked true feminism, which is what my article laid out; do I openly proclaim I’m a “feminist” in the public sphere (except in joshing with you on a blog)? Of course not, because I know my culture and the audience to which I speak, and I know the current understanding of the terms “feminism” and “feminist” have been corrupted to mean what they do today to the general majority.
On my blog, however, to be provocative, I have and do occasionally claim to be “feminist,” but I always give a disclaimer, lay out what I believe, and use it as a tool for the purpose of making people think.
I’m not seeking to redefine a movement, but I would suggest that Freidan-feminists of the 60’s and 70’s hijacked the progress made by the true feminists of the early 1900s and have distorted what was true and good; I do support a woman’s right to vote and I do support a woman’s right to receive wages comparable to her male counterpart for the same work. I do not espouse Freidan-feminism, which “feminism” as a movement has come to be associated with, and I hope I made that clear in my article.
Thus, my point is that the Freidan-feminists have corrupted something good. And because I was rejecting “feminism” (i.e. Freidan-feminism), I was throwing the baby out with the bathwater because the bathwater was drowning the baby. (Sorry for the terrible analogy…but it’s been a long week. ;)
There are reasons feminists sprung up – because there were abuses of power that were not Biblical going on in the relationships between men and women. Because it has become what it has today, a political ideology that has become its own monster, it does not mean there were not problems that needed/need to be recognized/addressed. When I study Scripture, I see a very different treatment of women than what the history of the church has sadly demonstrated throughout the ages. Men have taken their God-given role as the head and abused it (not all, and this is by NO means meant to “bash” men or blame them for the issues both men and women face today in their relationships – women are just as much culpable for abusing their roles as well).
And for the record, I think it’s pretty apparent (at least I would hope) from my writings that I am in no way encouraging anyone, male or female, to live outside the Lord’s will for their lives, and that I furthermore seek to espouse and live out a Biblical worldview on all matters, including men and women and their roles, etc.
As for your point about semantics, I agree; it would be fruitless and counterproductive to call yourself a devil-worshipper but define “devil” as actually Yahweh (Jehovah) of the Bible. If I am doing that, then I will desist. But I don’t think it’s quite the fair analogy; my argument is something that was good and true has been corrupted and I’m seeking to reclaim it (and this, by the way, is not something I spend any energy defending anywhere else than on my blog – this is not an “issue” for me that I go to coffee shops and strike up conversations over ;p). The “devil” if I may use your analogy was not God to begin with and then the understanding is corrupted…I’m not switching one thing for another (at least that’s my argument; if you reject it as sound, that’s fully your right).
The term “Christianity” has been hijacked by those within this country; I am not fond of associating myself with the term (and I wrote an article on that as well).
[ http://christenpatterson.wordpress.com/2007/07/06/rebels-with-a-cause-why-some-shy-away-from-the-label-%e2%80%9cchristian%e2%80%9d/ ]
But do I believe we should reclaim it? Yes. In the meantime, however, I do not seek to confuse people about the Lord I serve by putting a stumbling block (i.e. the term “Christian”) in their path.
So if I may come full circle, if my use of the word “feminist” is causing confusion rather than clarity, then I will think twice before using it to describe myself.
(Thanks for the food for thought.)
P.S. Side but related point: I don’t seek to align myself with any group, period. Just with Jesus, Himself, as his follower. And that’s it.
There is a difference between the feminism of the 60’s and 70’s and the current wave of feminism. Many older women who were part of the earlier movement are likewise rather appalled at the turn the movement has taken and the way “feminism” is represented/understood in the mainstream by young women today. Thus Kevin’s point about identifying with an entire movement is well-taken, except that there is no way to identify with the entire feminist movement, because it is in fact many movements. It is primarily people on the outside of the movement who would be most interested in lumping all of its manifestations together, seemingly merely for convenience’s sake. Such negation of distinction, however, only produces straw man arguments. Likewise, I would take issue with the labeling of an entire series of movements “Godless.” True feminism, at its core, is concerned with human value and dignity, which seems far from Godless to me.
It’s ironic that Kevin’s argument calls attention to limitations of language, when many feminists make the same critique. His insistence on a single meaning of the word as he himself defines it is exactly the kind of abuse that second wave feminists sought to challenge.
None of this is to say that feminism (in all its manifestations) has not missed the mark. But to dismiss it entirely without engaging in honest consideration of its primary aims is to perpetuate the very oppression that made feminism necessary in the first place.
Just here to stir things up a bit…
There’s “good magic” in the CS Lewis and Tolkien’s books. Are they Satan worship?
As a Christian who reads, I find that there are a lot of deeper truths in the Harry Potter series. Rowling has created an entire world in those books, from her own mind. There’s nothing about real witchcraft in them–she’s cleverly named all the spells herself with latinate terminology. What she’s done is set an imaginary stage on which she can delve into some complex, relevant subjects. For example:
1) Online Predators.
A girl finds a diary that will write back to her. She pours her heart out to it and never questions who might be behind the responses. The person behind the responses turns out to be evil and seduces her to evil. She overcomes the evil in the end, but meanwhile, Rowling has planted the idea for kids to think about who is on the other side of these conversations. If that isn’t good literature, what is?
2) Corrupt and Lying Governments Driven By Fear.
The “Ministry of Magic” feigns victories in a war against evil that is way over their head. They have good intentions, but end up making a mess and spewing justice in all the wrong directions.
Rowling is not a Christian, but she’s writing about truth as it comes to her. And these are solid truths. CS Lewis also used fantasy–a made up world–to show truth as it came to him. As did Tolkien. In her books, there is a line between good and evil, but sometimes the characters have trouble percieving that line. That happens to us believers, too. It happened to the Pharisees in the Bible. Our perspectives get out of wack and we can’t see straight. But Evil is defeated in those books, every time. Jesus defeats the evil in our lives, every time. So where does devil worshipping come in?
Nora,
Many Christian leaders would say that Rowlings, Lewis and Tolkien all served the desires of Satan - perhaps unknowingly - by including “good magic” in their texts.
When the Church claims that all magic comes from the Devil, then any example of supposedly benign magic can be seen to serve no purpose except to lure people into magic and therefor service to the Devil.
Thanks, Jonolan and Nora,
This is a raging debate; I’ve seen friends become very heated over discussing this topic, for it seems an issue that some are not willing to agree to disagree.
I do not take a conservative stance on this whatsoever and will challenge others to think critically through their beliefs, but if they determine they want nothing to do with fantasy, that’s their decision, and I will feel sorry for their children who will miss out on some great, great literature but I will respect their decision, thankful for the freedom to make my own. But to categorically give a stigma to any literature in which “magic” appears and then judge anyone else who may not ascribe to your same belief/conviction is a mistake.
Am I judging those who judge others over this subject? You bet. =) We all make judgments but there is a difference between making judgments and being judgmental.
As a believer in Jesus, and as someone who believes God is the creator of everything, including good, and that evil is a perversion of that good, I absolutely love stories in which good and evil are delineated, for I see bits and pieces of God’s great story (i.e. life) woven throughout literature. I haven’t read Rowling to comment on her works, though I trust the reviews of those friends who have and believe she does set up good and evil within her stories and doesn’t twist evil to be good, but I have read Lewis (my favorite author) and Tolkien and absolutely love their literature. The “good magic” within Lewis’ Chronicles is clearly identified as good, and you see themes throughout the entire series of good triumphing over evil. I think it takes careful consideration and thoughtfulness of each piece of literature (or movie, for that matter, to expand the discussion) to determine its value and worth in teaching your children, etc. (I jump to using children as an example because I expect adults to be able to discern for themselves and it is children to whom much of this literature is initially directed.)
To the parents who allow their children to watch any movie that is rated PG but refuse to allow them to watch anything rated R seems to me a grave mistake; the nudity in Schindler’s Listis not gratuitous nudity; coarse language is sometimes appropriate, and adult themes are reflective of reality, and we want our kids based in reality when it’s appropriate for them to handle it. The question should be, what is the story conveying and what message is it promoting? There are many “G” rated films I would never let my children watch and there are many “R” rated films I definitely would. It all depends upon a careful analysis of the story, etc., and furthermore, whether or not you discuss the content with your children.
Same goes for books; clearly within Lewis and Tolkien, good triumphs over evil; there is no blurring of the lines…good is good, evil is evil, and no one is in any danger of worshipping Satan.
If this is the case for our children, how much more for us as adults? To be able to discern, use our minds, make decisions, take the good and leave the bad seems to me to be basic to what it means to be a thoughtful individual, and we should use literature as a tool to help our children grow into thoughtful, wise, discerning adults.
As a Christian who reads, I find that there are a lot of deeper truths in the Harry Potter series. Rowling has created an entire world in those books, from her own mind.
Rowling is not a Christian, but she’s writing about truth as it comes to her. And these are solid truths. CS Lewis also used fantasy–a made up world–to show truth as it came to him. As did Tolkien. In her books, there is a line between good and evil, but sometimes the characters have trouble percieving that line. That happens to us believers, too. It happened to the Pharisees in the Bible. Our perspectives get out of wack and we can’t see straight. But Evil is defeated in those books, every time. Jesus defeats the evil in our lives, every time.
Nora,
Thanks for pointing out the above, particularly the point about solid truths. I think Christians can get too caught up on whether or not someone is a Christian or whether or not “Christianese” or preaching can be found within the work and lose sight of the fact that truth is truth. And on a side but related rant, Christians should be known for being “Christian” by the quality of their literature, music, books, films, not because they slap some label upon their works, proclaiming, “Hey, I’m Christian” – I can’t believe half the crap that is found within Christian bookstores – I refuse to go into one because I cannot stomach it. Great music is great music, regardless of whether or not a Christian composes it/records it and good literature is good literature, period. What I don’t understand is people who somehow miss this point. Truth is truth, good is good, and all truth and good can be ascribed to the One who is the Creator of all. Lewis happened to be a believer in Jesus, but even if he had not been, his works have great truths within them; it sounds like Rowling has deeper truths within her works as well. Fabulous!
Satan seeks to get worshippers by convincing them of his power through magical acts. I would like to attempt a distinction between magic and miracles (what I believe is mistakenly referred to as “good magic”). Miracles have at their core the glorification of God as being the supreme creator who posseses benevolent power over nature. Magic on the other hand does not seek to glorify God and is more often than not used for sinister purposes. Miracles are an extension of nature or a correction of errors in nature (as in healing miracles) while magic more often than not is a convulation of nature (e.g shape shifters, were wolves etc)
At the core of the miracle vs magic debate is the issue of power and who is the source of that power! In our minds we’ll always more likely to submit to and serve the person we believe has the most power! I’d say Jonolan’s observation, below, was spot on;
“When the Church claims that all magic comes from the Devil, then any example of supposedly benign magic can be seen to serve no purpose except to lure people into magic and therefor service to the Devil.”
The devil aims to deceive by purporting to have the power to grant good if we obey him and bad if we displease him. In actual fact his agenda is all bad through and through. He only gives to take away in greater measure. I live in a society where the witch doctor plys his trade openly, routinely advertising such interesting services as wealth creation, mending love relationships, healing, granting children etc. However recent news headlines have reported several greasely child sacrifices, grave thefts ( there is currently a boom on human skulls), sexaul crimes and the like purportedly done by people acting under the witch doctors instructions as a prerequisite to growing rich, having children etc etc!
Faced with the very real and present prospect of witchcraft what would you think the safest thing for someone like me would be? To dabble in Harry Potter for the sake of some literary delight? Bad magic, good magic!!! I want to settle in my mind the fact that Jesus never did any magic, only miracles as the Holy Spirit enabled him. I admit to having read Tolkien as a kid, great writing but it created in me a kind of morbid fear for the dark side rather than promoted my understanding of and respect of God! On the whole I’d say any literature on the theme of magic and the like that falls short of helping me appreciate God in greater measure is not helping me at all even if it entertains greatly!
Hi Lis,
I responded more in depth on my other blog but wanted to thank you for your thoughtful responses and I hope to continue the dialogue as I have time. =)
I suppose, in just quickly responding, I was more concerned about the effects and consequences of the many different varieties of “feminism” than in the actual arguments of various feminists throughout the years. That being said…
But to dismiss it entirely without engaging in honest consideration of its primary aims is to perpetuate the very oppression that made feminism necessary in the first place.
I would agree entirely, and it was the point to my piece on the other blog, and somewhere, either in this comment thread or the other, I asserted as such; the reason feminist arguments initially sprung up was because of various abuses of power. Anyway, I do not dismiss feminism entirely, far from it. I just dismiss various outworkings of it as I do not agree with the underlying philosophy/beliefs.
I know! I wasn’t arguing with you so much as other comments that were made.
I really see two separate pieces to the feminist movement(s): practical fairness under the law - i.e. wages, hiring practices, etc… and a separate but related attempt to shift the the gender paradigm.
The legal side of it I think should have been a slam dunk. You work the same, you get paid the same, you get promoted the same and suchlike. the attempt to shift the underlying gender paradigm is where I think most of the problems arose - both from my of the ideas of what that shift should be being poorly thought out, and from reactionary people fighting to maintain the status quo.
Thoughtful comments, David. Thank you.
I loved your description of miracles verses “magic.” I would, on the outset, agree with you entirely in terms of your definitions; I would just suggest that within the confines of Lewis’ Chronicles or Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings, one can enter into the imaginary world they have created and do not, necessarily, have to be tied to the definitions of what we experience and know in reality; that’s the beauty of fiction, of imagination, of creativity.
Perhaps because I was grounded in an understanding of miracles verses magic by thoughtful parents, perhaps because I know Satan cloaks himself in light, perhaps because I know who my creator is and that all glory goes to him, I can dive into the Narnian world and enjoy it fully, because within the Narnian world, themes of good and evil, of good triumphing over evil, of sacrifice, love, courage, bravery, etc. run through – themes we see throughout history, themes we see in our own individual lives.
I respect your opinion, and also acknowledge I do not live in a society in which witch doctors practice, and if I did, I might, necessarily, have a different viewpoint. But I cannot help but think that within Lewis’ Chronicles, the “good magic” stemmed from Aslan, the Creator-God-Savior figure of the series – and thus, there was no question about the source or to whom it brought glory. As such, I personally have no problem with it when one understands it within the context of the world Lewis created.
Faced with the very real and present prospect of witchcraft what would you think the safest thing for someone like me would be? To dabble in Harry Potter for the sake of some literary delight? Bad magic, good magic!!! I want to settle in my mind the fact that Jesus never did any magic, only miracles as the Holy Spirit enabled him. I admit to having read Tolkien as a kid, great writing but it created in me a kind of morbid fear for the dark side rather than promoted my understanding of and respect of God! On the whole I’d say any literature on the theme of magic and the like that falls short of helping me appreciate God in greater measure is not helping me at all even if it entertains greatly!
Great points, and I think, this is an area where each person must know himself/herself. For me, Tolkien did not create a morbid fear of the dark side…we’re not subject to the power and authority of the dark side, being cloaked in the blood of Jesus – His authority trumps all, so I have no fears with regard to that (not suggesting you do, only that personally, for me, there’s no reason to fear the dark side, and in Tolkien’s work, the dark side is defeated – if the end did not have that feat, if evil triumphed over good, and that was celebrated, then I would take issue with the worldview being propagated by the work, but the work lays out a battle between good and evil, and although there are times of desperation and despair, just like in real life, in the end, good triumphs – what an awesome theme to teach our children), and whereas it sounds like Tolkien’s writing did not help you appreciate God in greater measure, for me, it did, and perhaps therein lies why I appreciate the works of Lewis, Tolkien, etc. – because I see themes of redemption, sacrifice, courage, bravery – I see themes that shadow the great themes of history/Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation and it has made my faith that much richer – it has not detracted from it.
Thanks, Jonolan, for providing some clarity. =)
(I think, this is an area where each person must know himself/herself.)
I totally agree with you on that Moriah. As Paul argued concerning eating meat offered to idols, it was ok for some but not so for others.
Although to borrow Kevin’s words…”don’t loose your fervour for the truth…” as your explore the make believe!
Although to borrow Kevin’s words…”don’t loose your fervour for the truth…” as your explore the make believe!
I won’t. ;p But this may just end up being an issue like Paul described. I think I become passionate about it when others who disagree cast judgment on those who don’t view things the same way – I’ve seen dear friends get into heated arguments over it, being judgmental over another’s freedom, and that grieves me.
WOW - what a series of dialogues on some pretty deep topics. Interestingly, there was one phrase on your blog that got my attention. When you said
“Piper’s argument is a refreshing voice in the midst of a society in which the gender roles have been utterly confused”.
It reminded me of a related argument I portrayed in a previous blog entry. Today’s world seems to take an ‘everything is equal; we want no extremes’ type of approach. This just does not sit well with me. I agree with your points on understanding the differences between female and male and accepting them; and encourage you to take a look at
http://roacc.wordpress.com/2007/07/07/balance-or-passion-have-we-killed-robust-discourse-in-our-search-for-tolerance-and-diversity/
Cheers,
Diego
Thanks, Diego.
Thanks for the link; I agree - in an effort to not offend anyone and be “tolerant” of everyone else’s beliefs, we are expected to forgo our own; in essence, those clamoring for “tolerance” are intolerant of others’ beliefs. Logically, they have purported a self-defeating argument. They don’t seek to have tolerance of all beliefs (or they’d be tolerant of our supposed “intolerance” ;p); they seek to have affirmation of their beliefs, and disguise their insistence in a smoke screen about “tolerance.”
Since when are we not allowed to have beliefs that are challenging?
Yes people call for “tolerance” but what they’re actually stridently demanding is an extreme form of “moral pluralism.” They refuse to believe that anyone who has a belief-set based on absolute or objective value judgments could be right in their beliefs. If you believe there is a Right and a Wrong they have no use for you and will shout you down any chance they get.
Yes. Furthermore, their intolerance of others’ supposed intolerance is intolerable! ;p
Thanks, Jonolan.
In a biology class, we read a theory that women’s voices remain high (not unlike a child’s) because it helps men to fulfill a more protective role. I can’t comment on it much besides that, but I thought it was an interesting idea.
After a raging debate similar to this one ;) in a philosophy class, the professor outlined a difference between a more traditional philosophical theory labeled “feministic”, and the more recent one labeled “feminist”. Not sure how worked up I get over the differences precipitated by two letters, but I think what he described in a feministic theory was more in line with Christy’s idea of pure feminism (beautiful account, by the way). It follows a more “natural” concept of family, protective roles, etc. than the socially “liberated” one. Unlike a lot of traditional philosophical theories that strive to be impartial, aloof, and entirely objective, it acknowledges the emotional contribution to philosophy, and emphasizes the concept of “protect hearth and home”. Attend to family and things close to the heart first, then worry about the more distant and detached philosophical quandaries. It allows for the concept that men naturally gravitate toward protective roles, and women naturally gravitate toward nurturing ones. I would say it celebrates the diversity and beauty of the sexes.
I looked into the Army after high school (pre-pacifism days) and was fascinated by the jobs females were barred from. It was, of course, all of the gruesome and exceedingly dangerous front-line infantry stuff. My guess is the reason is three-fold: 1. the government reflects the same instinctual desire to protect women that’s been discussed here; 2. male soldiers will, as already stated, jump to defend female soldiers at inopportune times; and 3. it’s an uncomfortable reality that front line soldiers face the highest risk for being taken captive, and a female’s potential for reproduction opens up new methods of torture.
Hmm, now for where I stand. I have no idea, but I’m a pacifist, so it doesn’t sit easily with me to see men march into combat any more than women. If it absolutely must come down to that, I know I would rather go. In my own life, I go bonkers in a relationship where a man tries to fill a protective role. Nothing riles me faster. I think the reason is because I’ve learned to associate that trait with men who abuse. I’ll be the first to admit the extremely slanted bias behind that. It’s led me down the winding and twisted paths of a more Freidan-like feminism more than once, always with unhappy results.