If there's one thing I've been taught at the public university, it's that men and women are equal -- every which way.
Anything he can do, she can do too -- and better. Men are ignorant, foolish, weak. Women are strong, driven, smart.
Ideas about defined appropriate roles for men and women are relics. The idea of inherent "differentness" is a relic. We've outgrown that.
So it was both refreshing and discouraging to read this article by John Piper: Co-ed Combat and Cultural Cowardice
Refreshing because what he says is true -- things like "[Men] 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."
Discouraging because I know that in the confines of a classroom steeped in a mindset of lies, I wouldn't have the courage to repeat it.
5 comments:
Piper's view is an ideal.
The reality is that if you were born a hermaphrodite you'd have a more complex view on this issue, as would he.
The error in thinking is the unquestioning assumption that sex is a black and white matter - which it clearly is not. (If #2 were studying biology and genetics you'd get blasted on this one, but luckily she's doing chemistry which is a fairly neutral matter).
Back to sexuality, though, it's a spectrum from the hermaphrodite extreme to the girls who are not "girly" girls or the guys who choose theatre over their father's vicarious football ambitions for them.
This is why your "classroom steeped in a mindset of lies" would laugh at you, had you the courage to enlighten them with a Baptist theologian's finest. (I'm not going to do you the dishonor of ascribing these ideas to yourself as they were around long before your time - you are merely a product of them, and as a result have a much easier time assimilating them.)
Now then, if there's one thing I've been taught at the public university, it's that men and women aren't really that different. If anything, sexuality is a spectrum.
Anything she can do, he can do too -- and better. Women are ignorant, foolish, weak. Men are strong, driven, smart. And vice versa.
Ideas about defined appropriate roles for men and women are all relative and vary from culture to culture. The idea of inherent "differentness" is relative as well. We've grown up. Finally. It took some understanding of biology, evolution, and human nature in general, but overall I'd say we're making progress. Progress in ethics? Maybe. Progress in knowledge of our physical world? Absolutely.
So...it was both disappointing and stupefying to read the article by John Piper: Co-ed Combat and Cultural Cowardice: Why I'm no longer relevant to people who aren't ignorant of the world we live in. Part XVIII.
Disappointing because what he says is both shallow and fanciful -- things like "[Men] 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."
Stupefying because I know that in the confines of a secular classroom steeped in a mindset of open-mindedness and an unbiased search for truth, I wouldn't have the courage to repeat it. Because I'm an introvert. Because there's no hope for them. Because I'm smarter than them. Because I'm not much of an attorney and really couldn't make a public defense if I tried, though I'm one helluva test taker.
In short, "ergh."
d,
Your last paragraph is troubling. You seem to be expressing a hesitation to defend a position that you previously described as "shallow and fanciful." Why would you want to provide advocacy for outdated views? Why would you even be thinking about bringing up such primitive, uninformed ideas of sexuality?
One of my conclusions is that you must be thinking about practicing public defense by arguing for a position you don't accept? Hang in there. I'm sure you will become a fine defense attorney with public defense skills equal to your impressive test taking skills.
I'm also confused as to why you have described your classmates as helpless. Do they not have the same access to the educated views that you are reproducing here? Unless you have underestimated your prowess in public defense, there should be no fear that your false-promotion of a Baptist theologian's finest would inhibit your unbiased classmates from finding truth.
Finally, you shouldn't let your introversion keep you from sharing your thoughts in class. Perhaps one small step out of paralyzing introversion would be to attach your name to your comments.
My name is Nate. I've got a couple more thoughts about your last paragraph, but I'll save them for a more personal correspondence. I hope you will email me and let me share them with you. My email address is nateadam@gmail.com
Hi D -
I think it is telling and common of those "taught at the public university", that your post comes down to an attack on the person you do not agree with. You do not even really argue against her post.
Why does citing the Public University mean that your argument is valid. You say, "Now then, if there's one thing I've been taught at the public university, it's that men and women aren't really that different. If anything, sexuality is a spectrum." Nothing in your comment even attempts to give evidence for your position. Please explain why the temple of "open-mindedness" and "free thought" is the ultimate authority on the difference between the sexes. Give an example of a culture that drastically differs from the gender roles described by Piper.
I think it is shameful and cowardly that you have used this post to personally attack Emily. Rather, you should have expressed your differing views in a manner that promotes the quest for "truth."
My name is Joshua Adam my email is chlsadam@yahoo.com if you would like to discus this further.
I am sure my brother would like to reply to your comment as well. However, he is filling outdated gender roles by fighting the fires that have ravaged Southern California.
Joshua Adam
Thanks fellas, but even though I actually agree with Emily about 70% on gender roles and was just pushing her buttons, I was wondering how she would address the hermaphrodite issue.
An issue which is largely irrelevant (how many hermaphrodites do you know?) yet raises difficult questions with regard to assigning absolute sexual morality/roles to a biological creature.
As a church we really don't have a framework within which to accommodate these people. The gays and transsexuals may just be confused but the hermaphrodites are impossibly difficult to classify as A or B.
There is only male and female - an ideal?
D, I fail to see how your post even comes close to an honest addressing of the hermaphrodite issue. It appears to be more red herring and ad hominem fallacies than an actual critique or honest questioning of any sort of sexuality issues.
"Now then, if there's one thing I've been taught at the public university..."
I'm not going to do you the dishonor of ascribing these ideas to you, D, as they were around long before your time. You are merely a product of them, and as a result have a much easier time assimilating them.
Piper's article has nothing to do with hermaphrodites, but everything to do with the current state of genders in America. I completely agree with Piper on this, as a national culture, we are fighting to make men and women the same in every aspect of our lives. I fail to see why being better at something because you are a male, or worse at another because of your sex, is a bad thing. Women do some things in the most amazing fashion that men just cannot do as well. Men are the same with differing traits. Can you explain to me why this is a bad thing?
If you were truly wondering what Emily's views were on hermaphrodites, then the logical course of action would have been to form a question roughly in the vain of "what do you feel about the hermaphrodite issue in gender rolls?", rather than a 400+ word diatribe on Emily's test taking abilities and your learned view of how Emily's classmates would have responded to her thoughts on gender roles in a modern society. (Notice what I did there? I attacked you, rather than your argument. I did that on purpose though, you did it out of the complete inability to stay on point. Crap, did it again.)
And if you have an issue with how the church handles hermaphrodites, state that. Don't use it as an excuse to personally attack someone. Hiding behind it presents nothing and works only to strip any amount of credibility in an argument you may try to make.
So, in short, regarding your replay, "ergh."
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.” - Mark Twain.
Post a Comment