Defenseless

Sheila Gregoire has a post about a twitter fight she and another Christian feminist (Julie Anne) had with a complementarian Southern Baptist pastor (Steve Camp).  Sheila and Julie Anne were defending an article denying headship and instead arguing for mutual submission in marriage.  Pastor Camp started off boldly, saying that the women were being emotional, and suggesting he should speak to their husbands instead.  In asking to speak to their husbands, Camp was no doubt making an allusion to 1 Cor 14:35 (ESV):

If there is anything they desire to learn, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.

Julie Anne immediately sensed the weakness of a complementarian pastor making this allusion, because the verse is despised by complementarians.  When it comes to the topic of headship and submission, complementarians teach the opposite of 1 Cor 14:35, insisting that husbands must not instruct their wives.  In what appears to be a deleted tweet, Julie Anne reminded Pastor Camp of the complementarian rejection of 1 Cor 14:35, and Camp had no choice but to immediately concede the point:

Julie Ann: BTW, if a woman submits after you tell her to, it’s not true submission. Submission comes from the heart. It is not prodded by someone else. It is a natural response when someone is treated lovingly. If your wife (in general) is not submitting, look at self first.

PastorSJCamp: Straw man.

I’ve never once said in my entire life that a man should tell a woman to submit- ever.

Shiela’s daughter Rebecca joined the fray and confronted Pastor Camp by asking if he thought women were more easily deceived than men.  This was a brilliant strategy, because the complementarian position is that the Apostle Paul was not saying that women were more easily deceived in 1 Tim 2:14.

As Sheila accurately observed, Pastor Camp never managed to give a straight answer on the question:

At this point, my daughter Rebecca (@lifeasadare) jumped in, asking for a straight answer on one question: Does Steve Camp believe that women are more easily deceived than men, since he used that as an excuse to end a debate? The thread is quite illuminating–she keeps asking, he keeps dodging.

Elsewhere fellow complementarian Ron Henzel attempted to jump in and assist, but Julie Anne  effortlessly forced Henzel to concede that complementarians don’t believe in hierarchy:

Sheila took a different tack in her post, and brought in her husband Keith to explain that he is an egalitarian and rejects the very idea of headship and submission:

At one point, Pastor Camp made a comment that he was glad Sheila was going to “allow me to speak”. This strongly suggests to me that the mindset here is that if I, the husband, am not in charge than clearly she must be. It is a sad a terrible thought to me that some people see the world this way. Unfortunately, my life experience – including hateful commentary directed at me on Sheila’s blog – has taught me that there really are people out there who think like that.

For the record, Sheila and I are a team.

We both submit to God as the Bible teaches. We both submit to each other as the Bible teaches (Eph 5:21). We make decisions together and when we disagree we keep talking, praying and seeking God’s will until we figure it out. If we ever got to the point where we were truly at an impasse, my natural reaction would be to seek Godly counsel from friends, mentors, parents or a pastor. The idea that I would make the decision because “I am the man” is just not in our DNA. I see no Biblical problems with holding this view.

 in what universe is it okay for someone to say, “I’d rather hear your husband’s opinion on this as women are prone to be deceived.”? The thought of saying that would never cross my mind, nor any of the men I know. If a man were to speak like this to a female colleague at work, he would certainly be disciplined and perhaps fired – and appropriately so. But a pastor can say this publicly and no one blinks. This baffles me. And it needs to stop

Keith’s insistence that he and Sheila have an egalitarian marriage is a fantasy that only exists in Keith’s imagination.  As Sheila explains in her signature book, she and Keith practice Pastor Doug Wilson’s wife as despot model of marriage.  Sheila’s job is to give Keith lists of chores.  Keith then twirls around the house cleaning:

Often men feel superfluous at home, like they don’t even belong, because you manage everything. Make honest requests of him that allow him to help support you and feel involved in building your home…

If you want your husband to take responsibility for certain chores on his own, without being asked, you need to find a delegation method that conveys to him what needs to be done without threatening him…

My husband is motivated by lists. If I just tell him I would like him to help clean up after dinner, he doesn’t know what to do. But if there is a list of daily and weekly chores on the fridge, and he can see what is left to be done, he’s like a Tasmanian devil whirling around the house, cleaning.

More importantly, there is nothing Pastor Camp can say to rebut Keith’s endorsement of egalitarian marriage.  He is the one who asked for Sheila’s submissive husband to give his perspective on marriage roles.  Moreover, had it turned out that Keith was not submissive to Sheila, Pastor Camp would have to insist that Keith couldn’t weigh in on the topic in front of Sheila, since per complementarian theology husbands can’t instruct their wives on what the Bible says on the topic!

But Camp’s problems don’t stop there.  He pointed out that Sheila and Julie Anne were being emotional.  From the complementarian perspective saying such a thing is abuse.  Sheila understands this, and cleverly responded to him pointing out that she was being emotional with an emotional appeal to other women:

steve-camp-sexist-twitter-fight

Sheila then followed up with an appeal to women to rebel against their husbands and pastors if the men don’t toe the Christian feminist line.  She specifically invites the women in Pastor Camp’s congregation to rebel against him:

And now a word to my readers:

Steve Camp normally wouldn’t matter. He’s a pastor of a small church with very little influence.

But there are women in his congregation who need to know that they do not need to accept being spoken to like this.

And Steve Camp is part of the Southern Baptist Convention. The SBC obviously has no problem with having their pastors go on Twitter like this. To me, this is part of a larger issue within the SBC, which I’ll be talking about tomorrow in solidarity with those who will be holding a rally asking the SBC to take abuse issues seriously.

Finally, please hear me on this:

If anyone ever tries to silence you because you’re a woman, telling you that you’re emotional, that you’re deceived, that only your husband’s opinion counts--you don’t have to take it.

It is okay to speak up. It’s okay to have opinions. You matter dearly to God, and He created you with your intellect, your giftings, your brain. You are not someone that is to be easily dismissed.

And when you do speak up–know that even if your circle thinks of women that way, most in our culture do not. Many, many men would stand up for you. Many, many women would, too. And if you are in a circle where pastors think it’s okay to speak like this about women–then quite frankly, get out.

How can Camp possibly respond to this?  Not only has Sheila called him abusive, but he can’t point out her rebellion because complementarians don’t believe feminism represents a rebellion by women.  Complementarians believe that feminism is a logical reaction to patriarchal tyranny.  Sheila called him a tyrant, and told the women in his congregation to rebel.  There is simply no way a complementarian pastor like Camp can argue against that.  If the women in Camp’s congregation take Sheila up on her invitation to rebel, the complementarian answer is for Camp to love and serve them so much that they no longer feel the need to rebel.  As fellow complementarian pastor Matt Chandler explains in his sermon Women’s Hurdles, if Sheila can tempt the women in Pastor Camp’s congregation into rebellion, Pastor Camp owes the women an immediate apology:

Really, men, here is a great way to gauge how you’re serving, loving, and practicing your headship.  If the most secularized feminist in the world showed up in your home and began to kind of coach your wife toward freedom and liberation from your tyranny, our wives should be so well cared for, so nourished, so sowed into and loved, they would say, “What you’re describing is actually tyranny. I love where I am. I am honored. I am encouraged. My man sacrifices so that I might grow in my gifts. He will oftentimes lay down his own desires in order to serve me more. My husband goes to bed tired at night. He pours into our children. He encourages me. All that comes out of his mouth, sans a couple of little times here and there, is him building me up in love.”

Men, here is a good opportunity. If you’re like, “Well, gosh, I don’t think she would say that at all,” then, men, I think on the way home, you should probably repent and confess before the Lord to your wife.

H/T OKRickety

Advertisements
Posted in Attacking headship, Complementarian, Headship, Pastor Doug Wilson, Pastor Matt Chandler, Pastor Steve Camp, Rebellion, Servant Leader, Sheila Gregoire, Southern Baptist Convention, Traditional Conservatives, Turning a blind eye, Ugly Feminists | 143 Comments

Fortunately they had a strong woman to row them to safety.

In my last post I shared accounts from Lifeboat 8 on the Titanic demonstrating the chaos and loss of life the chivalrous WACF policy caused.  Ida Strauss and her husband perished after Isidor chivalrously refused to enter the lifeboat, and his wife refused to be saved while he perished.

He urged his wife to board, but she refused, saying, “We have lived together for many years. Where you go, I go.” Her words were witnessed by those already in Lifeboat No. 8 as well as many others who were on the boat deck at the time. Isidor and Ida were last seen standing arm in arm on the deck.

Mrs. Emil Taussig was only saved because she was physically thrown into the lifeboat:

“Then the boat swung out from the deck. I was still with my husband, and Ruth had already disappeared below the deck. I gave a great cry—I remember perfectly calling out the name of my daughter—and two men tore me from my husband’s side, lifted me, one by the head and one by the feet, and dropped me over the side of the deck into the lowering boat. I struck on the back of my head, but I had furs on, and that fact probably saved me from greater injury.

There was yet another problem with refusing to allow able bodied men to accompany their families in the lifeboats.  Someone needed to row the boats.

“When we came on deck,” said Mrs. Taussig, “Capt. Smith was preparing the eighth boat to be let down. There was only one seaman in sight, but a number of stewards had rushed up between the crowding men and women. The Captain turned to the stewards and asked them if they knew how to row. They answered ‘Yes’ hastily, and four of them were allowed to jump in.

“Only twenty women were near the boat, and these were put in. My daughter Ruth was among the first, but I said that I wouldn’t go if my husband did not accompany me. There was room for fourteen more after the last woman had found her place, and they all pleaded to let the men take the empty seats.

[Mrs. Taussig] said that her husband, who was abandoned while the half-filled boat was lowered, was an expert oarsman and volunteered his services to the Captain.

But he was ordered back,” she said, while the four stewards who couldn’t row at all were permitted to jump in.

In another account this is spun as a feelgood story of girlpower coming to the rescue, filling in where feckless men were too incompetent to do the task:

The officers were strict on the port side of the ship and allowed only women passengers to enter the boats. Mrs. Penasco was persuaded to enter it together with her maid, Fermina Oliva. When the lifeboat was in the water, she realized her husband probably would not survived and had to be comforted by the Countess of Rothes. About 20 or 22 ladies had found seats in the boat, including Mrs. Straus’ maid and Mrs. Allison’s maid. There were four crew; two seamen, a steward and a kitchen hand. There were probably about 26 people in the boat. In the words of Mrs. Swift:

Slowly we dropped down, down and down until the keel of our tiny craft struck the sea and the captain shouted to pull over to a red light in the distance…we also began to realize that the seamen were not oarsmen. One was unable to pull the long heavy oar with any strength and Mrs. Swift took his place….the weak and unskilled steward and some of the other men sat quietly in one end of the boat. The countess of Rothes was an expert oarswoman.‘ (New York Herald, Friday, April 19, 1912)

It is interesting to see that over 100 years ago the narrative of strong women taking over for incompetent men was already firmly entrenched.  Moreover, the speed with which the narrative changed is astounding.  The memory of the chivalric sacrifice of the men left on deck disappeared in a matter of seconds.  The instant the lifeboat hit the water, the new girlpower narrative suddenly sprung forth, fully grown.

Titanic’s lifeboats were designed to hold 65 people.  Since there were only 26 people on board there was room for another 39 men on Lifeboat 8.  But had these 39 men been allowed to board (and survive), we wouldn’t have nearly as romantic a story, and we also wouldn’t have an empowering story of women stepping in and saving the day where feckless men failed.

Posted in Chivalry, Titanic, Ugly Feminists | 207 Comments

Killing her with chivalry.

Over at Instapundit there is an article/discussion offering chivalry as the antidote to feminist charges of toxic masculinity.  Specifically, the article points to the men on the Titanic as the gold standard for noble masculinity. Few conservatives would argue with this sentiment.  One commenter approvingly offered a Heinlein quote:

Attempts to formulate a “perfect society” on any foundation other than “women and children first!” is not only witless, it is automatically genocidal.

I wasn’t familiar with the quote, but with a bit of searching found a more full version of it (all emphasis mine):

All societies are based on rules to protect pregnant women and young children. All else is surplusage, excrescence, adornment, luxury, or folly which can–and must–be dumped in emergency to preserve this prime function. As racial survival is the only universal morality, no other basic is possible. Attempts to formulate a “perfect society” on any foundation other than “Women and children first!” is no only witless, it is automatically genocidal. Nevertheless, starry-eyed idealists (all of them male) have tried endlessly–and no doubt will keep on trying.

Having not read the book, I don’t know if Heinlein meant the quote to be ironic or not.  But either way, the claim that Women and Children First (WACF) is a practical philosophy in opposition to starry eyed idealists is deeply ironic.  For WACF is the philosophy of the hopeless romantic.  It stems directly out of the Medieval literary tradition of Courtly Love.  Courtly Love is founded on the starry eyed idealism that men suffering for women is the ultimate masculine virtue.  Moreover, the more unnecessary the man’s suffering, the greater the masculine virtue.  The archetype of noble chivalrous manhood is Sir Lancelot in Chretien de Troyes’ late 1100s tale  Sir Lancelot, Knight of the Cart.  As you might guess from the title, the cart is central to the moral lesson of the tale.  Joseph J. Duggan explains in The Romances of Chretien de Troyes:

Lancelot is also about shame, but a paradoxical shame inflicted in seemingly arbitrary fashion on Lancelot by Queen Guinevere. The scene of Lancelot in the cart, after which Chretien named his romance (Lancelot 24), and by which Godefroy de Lagny calls it (7103), is one of shaming.

Lancelot is searching for the queen and meets a dwarf who is driving a cart… The dwarf tells Lancelot that if he climbs into the vehicle, he will soon know the queen’s whereabouts. Understandably Lancelot is reluctant to ride in this nefarious conveyance in which felons are often transported. His hesitation is occasioned by his receiving contradictory interior advice from Reason and Love. Reason tells him not to do anything that will bring him shame or reproach. Reason, says Chretien, is not in the heart but only in the mouth… Love, however, which does dwell in the heart, advises him to jump into the cart… This is precisely the Lancelot’s problem and the core problematic of Chretien’s romance…

Chivalry is a starry eyed glorification of men’s suffering, and the more capricious the suffering the better.  Heinlein’s character makes chivalry out to be a matter of practicality, but as the originators of the genre fully understood it was precisely the opposite.

And it is not merely in fiction that we can see this truth.  In the Titanic itself we learned that WACF is a terrible way to approach saving lives on a sinking ship.  It is even a terrible way to save the lives of women and children.  The reason for this is that women understandably don’t want to separate from their men in times of extreme danger.  Their men are their protectors, yet WACF demands that women enter into the terrifying unknown of the life-raft without their men.  As a result, women tend to refuse to enter the lifeboats under WACF.  In the prototype for WACF, the sinking of the HMS Birkenhead, the women had to be forcibly picked up and dropped into the lifeboats.  From the Daily Mail:

Some women did not want to go on their own — they had to be torn away from their husbands, carried over to the bulwark and dropped over the ship’s side. Most of the soldiers and sailors aboard drowned or were eaten by sharks, but all the women and children survived, and the  chivalric ethos became known as the Birkenhead Drill…

The same problem came up on the Titanic.  Women were too afraid to enter the lifeboats without their men, and as a result not just men, but women and children needlessly died:

All 14 lifeboats, the two emergency boats, and two of the Engelhardt boats were launched. These had a capacity of 1,084 passengers. Obviously, many boats were not loaded to full capacity. There were many reasons for this; at first, many women and children were simply unwilling to be lowered 65 feet from the boat deck to the water. Some of the men put in boats were put there simply to show it was safe, and allay the fears of other passengers.

…there was enough lifeboat capacity for ALL women and children (534 persons total), AND 550 men as well. (Total capacity of the boats launched was 1,084.) This explains why, especially as the situation became more urgent, more men were put in the boats. Indeed, if the boat crews had loaded one man for each woman or child loaded, they could have expected to save all women and children, plus as many men.

From an account of the last lifeboat launched from the Titanic:

Collapsible lifeboat D was the ninth and last boat to be lowered from the port side. Second Officer Lightoller had managed to fit the collapsible boat into the now-empty davits of boat 1. He tried to find women to fill it with, but had trouble in finding any. Finally, he said, he managed to fill the boat with 15-20 people…

Mrs. Hoyt gave a concise account of the tragedy to her father. She did not leave her husband’s side until the last boat was being lowered and then she was torn from him and thrown into a boat.

Another woman wasn’t so lucky.  She wasn’t physically thrown into a lifeboat, and perished as a result:

On the night of the sinking, Isidor and Ida Straus were seen standing near Lifeboat No. 8 in the company of Mrs. Straus’s maid, Ellen Bird.   Although the officer in charge of the lifeboat was willing to allow the elderly couple to board the lifeboat with Miss Bird, Isidor Straus refused to go while there were women and children still remaining on the ship. He urged his wife to board, but she refused, saying, “We have lived together for many years. Where you go, I go.” Her words were witnessed by those already in Lifeboat No. 8 as well as many others who were on the boat deck at the time. Isidor and Ida were last seen standing arm in arm on the deck.

We know from another account of the loading of Lifeboat No. 8 that there was plenty of room for Mr. and Mrs Strauss.  We also learn of another woman who survived only because she was physically thrown into the lifeboat.  From the Encyclopedia Titanica:

Only twenty women were near the boat, and these were put in. My daughter Ruth was among the first, but I said that I wouldn’t go if my husband did not accompany me. There was room for fourteen more after the last woman had found her place, and they all pleaded to let the men take the empty seats.

“But the Captain said that he would not allow it. I was frantic. There was that boat, ready to be lowered into the water and only half full. Then the order came to lower. The men were pleading for permission to step in, and one came forward to take a place next to his wife. I heard a shot and I am sure it was he that went down.

“Then the boat swung out from the deck. I was still with my husband, and Ruth had already disappeared below the deck. I gave a great cry—I remember perfectly calling out the name of my daughter—and two men tore me from my husband’s side, lifted me, one by the head and one by the feet, and dropped me over the side of the deck into the lowering boat. I struck on the back of my head, but I had furs on, and that fact probably saved me from greater injury.

The terrible thing was that we had so much room left for the poor men who were snatched away

The story of the death of Isador Strauss and her husband is indeed a romantic one, but it is not a story of practicality.  Had Mr. Strauss not refused to enter the lifeboat, Mrs. Strauss would have been saved.  The focus on romance over practicality costs lives, not just of men, but of women and children as well.

Posted in Chivalry, Romantic Love, Titanic, Traditional Conservatives | 177 Comments

Chivalry and the kickass conservative gal.

While they may seem like an unlikely match at first, chivalry and the kickass conservative gal are a marriage made in modern conservative heaven.  As commenter Mother_of_4_Original demonstrates in her response to the article Male Feminist Declares: ‘End Chivalry Now’ (emphasis mine):

I’m not the slightest bit worried that any of my 3 sons will ever harass or assault a woman.

First, all of them have been taught that it’s the duty of the strong to protect the weak.

Second, all of them have been taught to respect woman as a gentleman ought (both the oldest son and the “spare kid” who lived with us for a number of years were in high demand among our daughter’s friends at the community college when they wanted an escort through a part of campus they weren’t comfortable traversing alone).

Third, all of them have been raised in a Christian home and a Bible-believing, gospel-preaching church and have accepted Christ into their heart.

Fourth, all of them are aware that having a concealed carry permit and a 9mm is normal female behavior — just like mom — and understand that a man who lays an aggressive hand on a woman deserves to suffer from acute lead poisoning.

Men need to be traditional and help the poor defenseless (traditional) women.  And if the menfolk get out of line, the kickass conservative gals will let them have it!

So open that door and pull out that chair, because the sistas are doin’ it for themselves.

Also note the implication that chivalry is sexy.  All three of her chivalrous “sons” were in high demand, not as dates, but as escorts.  The article Mother_of_4_Original was commenting on made the chivalry-is-sexy claim even more directly (emphasis mine):

…the moment when a womynist observes a frat boy who brings her a beer at a party: “It’s like, if you’re nice to them, they bring you things.” This act of subjugation was as much of a turn-on then as it is now.

H/T:  Instapundit.

Related:

Posted in Beta Orbiter, Chivalry, Guns, Instapundit, Kickass Conservative Gals, The Real Feminists, Traditional Conservatives | 111 Comments

A picture of Southern Baptist marriage.

If you’ve ever wondered what a “complementarian” Southern Baptist marriage looks like, wonder no more.  Behold, the Servant Leader:

H/T Cane Caldo

Posted in Complementarian, Disrespecting Respectability, Servant Leader, She's the boss., Southern Baptist Convention, Ugly Feminists, You can't make this stuff up | 285 Comments