Mistaking boundaries for chains . . .

Carolyn Custis James has a new post up, The Devil's Gateway . In it, she writes,

I was a speaker at a gathering of pastors who were interested in doing a better job of utilizing women's gifts. The first question asked during the open forum afterwards stunned me, "If we work with women, won't we be tempted?"

What followed was not a candid discussion about the heart and where is the real problem when there is a moral failure (as in as what goes on behind closed doors when a man is alone with his computer), but a laundry list of precautions to safeguard oneself from moral hazards when working or dealing with women.

Women find this kind of thinking offensive, and rightly so.

It's funny that the religious feminists, who so often complain about being taken as a class and not valued as individuals, assume all women think like them. The problem here is not that some women might find such thinking offensive, but that more men can't be bothered with it for fear of offending the easily offended religious feminist.

I responded to Mrs. James on her blog so will not say much more here other than to note something Mr. Chesterton wrote just over a century ago:

The first two facts which a healthy boy or girl feels about sex are these: first that it is beautiful and then that it is dangerous.

When they mistake proper boundaries for chains, religious feminists deny our differences. They aren't "Egalitarians" at all, even thought they prefer to style themselves as such. In fact, they are Indifferentists.

And therein lies the danger.