As expected, Her.meneutics has weighed in on the high school wresting news (Joel Northrup, a young Christian gentleman defaulted rather than wrestle Cassy Herkelman in a high school wrestling tournament). Being a good religious feminist (read: clairvoyant as to Northrup's motives and motivations), the blogger writes:
"My guess is that his decision to default has more to do with his view of who is against him on the mat than it does with actual violence. And I think his refusal has more to do with his cultural view of girls than his Christian faith."
First, if this had been turned around and an orthodox Christian had written similarly about the motives and motivations of a religious feminist, what do you think the reaction would be in the comments? Hysteria? Cries of foul play? Yes, just for starters.
Second. I don't think the blogger checked the relative records of Northrup and Herkelman or she wouldn't have penned that line. Then again, she is a religious feminist and we all know the old saw about statistics.
The rest of the post is confused and contradictory. She is sure Joel is a "good kid who clearly meant well" in spite of his culturally-based fears of getting girl-cooties, etc. What I think is important to note here is the quote above, which is a fairly standard way for religious feminists to dismiss orthodox Christians on matters of sexuality. We are to assume they are sincerely seeking, that they have been led to their positions without regard to the cultural messages and mores - but turn the tables and the automatic assumption is that we hold our positions out of fear -- fear of failure which for men means primarily being bested by a woman, and that we have imbibed a culturally driven patriarchalism which is contrary to the biblical teaching that we are all really "just people".
Never mind the implications of teaching our young men it is OK to get physically rough with young women. It's OK, because the only reason not do to so is a boy's fear of being beaten by a girl. And, when that boy becomes a man and he has imbibed this cultural message that we treat girls and boys the same way because to do anything else would be to take "away an opportunity from her. An opportunity for her to shine using her own God-given strength and ability." -- when he has imbibed that message and really does treat a woman as he would a man . . .
When did we start teaching our boys it's OK to hit girls?
5 comments:
That section on how Jesus touched women looks like it was written on autopilot.
Doesn't the author realize she's talking about body slams and pins?
She doesn't realize how great an accomplishment it is to train men to use their strength to protect women rather than to exploit them. Once those customs are destroyed, they won't come back easily.
"Doing this usually means things get awkward. Doing this means we’re stretched way beyond our comfort zone."
This is the typical cant you see among naive strivers who praise things just because they sound tough. Once you've experienced truly great discomfort, comfort zones feel great places.
Come to think of it, the young man's stand brought national attention from an unsympathetic media. How about that for leaving a comfort zone?
Amazing. Simply amazing.
Well, if you want to subscribe to the magazine that Christianity Today should really be today, subscribe to Touchstone instead. Just like you'll find the authentic conservative continuation of National Review in The American Conservative and Chronicles.
Tradition!
Mr. Jones,
"She doesn't realize how great an accomplishment it is to train men to use their strength to protect women rather than to exploit them. Once those customs are destroyed, they won't come back easily."
Well said. Why are so many women today too naive to understand this?
The whole historical purpose of wrestling is preparing men for mortal combat.
It is not just an issue of women wrestling men; why are women even wrestling each other? There's plenty of "moral confusion" right there.
Post a Comment