Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Sunday, June 10, 2012
This post illustrates perfectly everything I loathe about "complementarian" ides. French objects to a pastors exhortation to husbands because the church has been "feminized," which he conveniently for himself never defines. Abraham Hess notes that Webster's has a definition which includes "emasculated." Dictionary.com lists a number of definitions of "emasculate," but the first one after "geld" is "to weaken or make less effective." Thus, according to French and Abraham Hess, to make something feminine is to make it weak and ineffective. Gee, guys, thanks, love how you honor us so much. See, complementarians don't actual like women very much, even conventionally feminine ones. We're weak and ineffective and should leave everything that matters to the world to the penis-people. Lest anything think this is something reserved to Evangelical Protestants, there is this thread wherein the blogger discusses the horror of being naked around Teh Gheys, and completely misrepresents Puritanism in the process. The main thing, though, is in the discussion about why women can't be priests one person mentions that it's because women get pregnant. To these people and to the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, the biological process of pregnancy and lactation is exactly the same as a position that requires years of learning and thinking and which provides a great deal of prestige and authority. Coma patients can get pregnant. The mind has exactly zero role to play in the process, which is the same basic thing for rats and cows as for humans. Actually, rats and cows have it a lot easier; they don't die in childbirth. Being a priest, however, requires years of learning and effort and has no equivalent among animals. To say that being a placental mammal is the same as being a scholar and that women should be happy with our status as placental mammals is so insulting it reduces me to spluttering, ranting rage. To the Roman Catholic hierarchy and to complementarian Protestants, women are nothing but bodies. We have no minds or wills to speak of, and they can't get their pathetic heads around why we find this insulting. French and Abraham Hess both list a buch of things they find wrong with churches, from breathy quasi-pop hymns to "thought for the day" sermons which don't discuss the Bible. All of these things are wrong. I quit attending the 9:30 service at my church because the music is all Justin-Beiber-meets-Jesus. The difference between me and those guys is that I don't immediately connect bad music to being female. There is an entire thesaurus of adjectives to describe this kind of thing without referencing gender: insipid, dull, colorless, trivial, boring, flat, saccharine (I really like that one because it combines sickly sweet with fake), childish, treacly, dim, weak, and simply wrong. Why immediately go to a word that refers to being female, unless deep down the speaker really does think that a primary characteristic of being a woman is to be weak and saccharine? There are differences between men and women, but French and the Catholic hierarchy presume that all the differences favor men. Men are active, strong, and intelligent and women are passive and weak and required constant oversight from men.