When I passed around a link to the Her.menutics discussion of the boy-girl wrestling news, one friend responded this way:
Actually, reading that post was helpful to me. It helped me to see that there is no hope for Christianity Today. They are completely gone.
My correspondent is right, of course. Moral confusion is too generous a term for what reigns at the women's blog - moral bankruptcy gets it just about right. Among the 100+ responses to the blog post in question, there was this response from another Her.meneutics blogger:
But, most importantly, it seems we are forgetting that Cassie Herkelman CHOSE to be in this situation! . . . she wrestles competitively and is asking to be taking seriously as a competitor . . .She earned her right to be there.
And as far as the sexual component goes... these are athletes, and highly skilled ones at that. I would think they can separate competition from sexual playfulness, in much the same way a doctor can separate a physical exam from sexual touching. It's about context! If the wrestlers who have to face girls know they cannot handle the situation, then I completely respect their decision to forfeit. It's unfortunate that it has to play out like that, but as Caryn mentioned this is the way the system is set up and we must deal with that reality. I have absolutely zero desire to wrestle anyone, let alone men, but Cassie (and other girls) want to and the school system has decided they are allowed.
I completely respect Joel Northrup's decision to forfeit. It was his decision to make and if he recognized that he could not or would not glorify God in this situation, then he made the right choice. But I don't this it follows that his choice is the right choice for every male wrestle who has to face a girl.
Forget about the constant derision of young Mr. Northrup - their ssumption that he couldn't "handle it" or that his decision had to do with "his cultural view of girls". Did you catch the language in the quote? It's all about personal choices and what the system allows. One wonders if Ms. Leonard and Ms. Rivadneira (the respondent and original blogger, both Her.meneutics bloggers) would feel the same way if the school system decided their 12-year-old daughters get access to birth control without their consent or knowledge? Should their daughters be in a co-ed class learning how to put condoms on cucumbers? If it's all about what is allowed, one wonders if there ever is a line they would draw?
I'm guessing the Her.meneutics gals have never heard of Moral Theology. I am sure it is both too Catholic and too catholic for our Evangelical friends. But, as we are reminded in the (currently) last response, Her.meneutics is a place for the diversity of evangelical opinions and voices.
And therein lies the problem.
Update: Since religious feminists often cry "Fowl!" when it is said their aim is to blurr the differences between men and women, further, I thought it would be interesting to note how Cassy Herkelman's dad views all this:
"She's my son ... She's always been my son."
Update: It will surprise no one who has read the Her.meneutics blog post to find that the authoress is a fan of Rob Bell.
"...in much the same way a doctor can separate a physical exam from sexual touching."
ReplyDeleteGreat reasoning by the blogger or commenter. Because doctors abusing patients never happens, of course, so it follows that teenage wrestlers wouldn't be confused about "context" either. Blecch.
The concepts that struck me were about competition and merit, as in:
ReplyDelete"she wrestles competitively and is asking to be taking seriously as a competitor . . .She earned her right to be there."
This is meritocracy, a "monstrous fiction, which, by inspiring false ideas and vain expectations into men destined to travel in the obscure walk of laborious life, serves only to aggravate and imbitter that real inequality, which it never can remove."
Unless she is unusually dense, this woman will never be able to escape the suspicion that her defeated opponents went easy on her. She is being thrown into an environment for which she is unsuitable, and then told her setbacks are due to backwardness and bigotry.
It's a self-reproducing system of misery and lies. A lot like feminist academia!
This isn't likely something the school district chose, either. Just look up the Title IX regulations and rulings which have helped destroy America's non-feminist subcultures.
Speaking of "sexual touching" in the context of co-ed wrestling, here's a really gutsy woman in the Bible wrestling two men at once!--
ReplyDelete"If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." -- Deuteronomy 25:11-12
That's the LORD talking to Moses. [My wife and I ran across this passage two days ago in our reading.] I don't know what all that sobering verse means, but one thing for sure -- feminist theology is foolish make-believe and irrational arrogance. This hypothetical woman in the Bible should be a feminist heroine for fighting a man to rescue her husband.
heh. You don't want to go confusing those poor Christianity Today postmodern feminist with Biblical illustrations. They don't need no stinkin' Bible, they got their rights!
ReplyDeleteThis is really tangential to your point, but one of the things that amazed me the most about the feminists on this one is the constant reiteration of the meme that Joel "robbed" his opponent of something -- BY FORFEITING.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I understand the convoluted sleight of hand whereby, by means of attributing blatant lying to Joel, they came up with the idea that "losing to a girl" was worse than a forfeit, but the complete and utter failure to acknowledge that Joel's decision came at a significant cost and that his opponent had a further chance to "prove herself" shows that this brand of feminism can only be supported by removing one's brain entirely. I mean, outright lying about the cogency of their ideas is the alternative, but I do believe these people don't *think* they're lying.
> "She's my son ... She's always been my son."
ReplyDeleteWow -- sick! And we're not merely talking about "blurring the differences" with such a comment as that. Feminists should be furious at her father calling his daughter a son. Isn't that highly insulting to females?
The joke is, feminists want women to be manly, while insisting it is still totally womanly.
She is being thrown into an environment for which she is unsuitable, and then told her setbacks are due to backwardness and bigotry....
ReplyDeleteCredit Counseling
You should look at it as you would any major financial decision, such as buying a house, buying a car, or taking a vacation.
ReplyDeletetennessee bankruptcy
Find out what you need to know in this simple yet comprehensive guide. The cost is only $4.99, about the same as you would spend for a large coffee and donut.
ReplyDeleteillionis bankruptcy