From time to time, I have had my differences with The Gospel Coalition. Most of the differences have been adjectival, but they have been real nonetheless. But with that said, I do want to take an occasion that has recently presented itself to make a point that underscores how much we are on the same team, wearing the same jersey.
Rachel Held Evans just recently tweeted something that needs to be mentioned in order to make the point, and then we need to take a moment to trace the source of her allegation upstream a bit.
Here’s her tweet:
 |
Rachel Held Evans (@rachelheldevans) |
|
Doug Wilson says unsubmissive women deserve to be raped. Why do @TGC & @JohnPiper continue to support him?
|
|
Let us begin by looking closely at her sentence. She says that I say that unsubmissive women deserve to be raped. For some reason, she maintains that because I think that women should be protected, women who refuse the protection should be punished. And what better punishment for something like that than rape?
And of course, I say (and think) nothing of the kind. The wispy support for this allegation is said to be found on page 13 of Her Hand in Marriage, where I said this:
“But women who genuinely insist on ‘no masculine protection’ are really women who tacitly agree on the propriety of rape. Whenever someone sets himself to go against God’s design, horrible problems will always result.”
So then, I do not say that women who are unsubmissive deserve to be raped. Why would I say that when I don’t believe anything like that? I say that women who reject the protection of men will find themselves, at the end of the day, unprotected by men. This is not what they thought they were signing up for, but the results are destructive just the same. They will find, when their world comes crashing down around their ears, that it is easier to get many men to stop being protective than it is to stop many other men from being predatory. This is not what they thought they were doing (I said “tacitly agree”), but they have helped create a world in which it is easier for unscrupulous men to get what they want than for honorable men to do what they ought.
To turn this into my supposed approval of punishment-rape as something “deserved” is all you need to know about RHE’s mastery of the logical arts. I feel like somebody signed me up to debate both Wile E. Coyote and his anvil.
So then, what do I think unsubmissive women deserve to get? I am willing to say that women who are unsubmissive deserve to have received a better education in reading comprehension than they apparently got.
Now I removed from her tweet her link to an unnamed blogger who is in the grip of an advanced case of clicklust. He offered an open letter to The Gospel Coalition, calling on everybody to fix things pronto. I am not going to link to it, but those who need to know about this probably already do, or can find it easily enough. In this post, he calls upon the members of the Gospel Coalition to form a circular firing squad, and methodically take care of one another, one by one.
In this post of his, an array of men associated with The Gospel Coalition are accused of a long list of dirty deeds. The list includes John Piper, Matt Chandler, Al Mohler, Voddie Baucham, CJ Mahaney, Denny Burk, and of course, me.
What I would like to do here is turn for a moment to address the leadership of the Gospel Coalition, and then take another moment to speak to those who admire these men.
I began by saying that I am on the same team with Gospel Coalition complementarianism. I say that even though I don’t generally use the terminology of complementarianism because it seems to me too much of another -ism. As a friend said to me recently, why can’t we just call it common sense? When men are men, faithful women like it, and when women are women, faithful men like that. Anyhow . . .
In our corner of the Reformed interwebs, one of the points that has been made more than once is that I draw the animus of the egalitarian intoleristas because of the exuberance of my writing. If I would only tone it down, it would become evident that complementarians are thoughtful, engaging people, and that they do not use flamethrowers in debate. But please note. I have been making the point repeatedly that the thing that makes us the enemy is any kind of principled resistance to the sexual revolution. If you do anything other than offer full-throated support, you will be demonized. You can write with as many pastel adjectives as you like, and you will still find yourself in the same cattle car with me, being bundled off to the sensitivity camps. Now I do not mind different styles of opposition to the sexual revolution, and in fact welcome it. But never make the mistake of thinking that our enemies do nuance. In this post that RHE draws her inspiration from, no distinction whatever is made between those who are soft-spoken in their opposition to What Must Come to Pass and those who are flamboyant. What matters to them is simply this — are you effectively in the way? If you are in the way, they will try to take you out of the way, by whatever means necessary.
Second, I would say this to those who love and admire the men on that list. You may be more thoroughly acquainted with some more than others, but here is the takeaway lesson. When you read slanderous accusations against someone whose ministry you know, this should help inform how you weigh that same source when they make accusations against someone you don’t know. The post in question, if you find it, contains a farrago of slanderous nonsense directed against me. Check what you don’t know against what you do. I know how these people treat evidence when it comes to situations I know about, and so that helps us understand what is likely happening when CJ Mahaney gets “the treatment.”
Wow. I just read the blog post by the guy Douglas Wilson refused to link to. I see why he removed the link. It’s one thing to disagree with a person, but it’s an entirely different thing to blatantly lie about what that person has said. Nate Sparks is a liar. Full stop.
I do not know whether his lies proceed from an overt willingness to lie, or a complete moral blindness that causes him to actually believe that what he writes is a reasonable rendering of what Wilson intends. It doesn’t matter a lot, though; either way, it results in willful lying.
How can you state that Nate Sparks is a liar when he fully backs up with clear citations every single one of his claims?
Nope, he backs up dubious claims with Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Helpfully packaged in the form of links. In the end it all boils down to him disagreeing with Doug, and TGC, and that this hurts his feelings therefore TGC and Doug must be in the wrong and must apologize.
Because the citations refute his misrepresentations.
Hyperlinks provide the reader with the comfort and assumption of citation. I found that if one followed many of his hyperlinks, particularly regarding Al Mohler, that items he quoted as verbatim citations didn’t even appear in his hyperlinked articles.
Unfortunately, if claims he makes about one individual come unwound, it has to make one curious about the veracity of claims toward individuals one doesn’t know as well.
Sparks’ argument is really just a massive “ad hominem” against the Gospel Coalition. His citations are not inductive in nature (starting with observation and deriving a hypothesis) but deductive (starting with a theory and making the evidence fit your theory). He fundamentally disagrees with Complementarianism, which is fine. But he then goes to every article he can find that he disagrees with and makes it look like it’s some sort of oppressive Patriarchalism when it is in fact, not. This is what Wilson is rightly describing RHE is doing with his works. This is a form of eisegesis, and can… Read more »
And once again clear, reasonable thoughts…..
Did you see this interview with the Danish journalist Iben Thranholm about how Europe needs masculine men to protect the European women from the Syrian and other refugees who are committing rapes in their countries?
http://10news.dk/?p=2317
Now that’s an interesting argument. (And one would say, well, of course!)
So…who IS Ms. Evans, and why does anybody care?
No, I mean that as a serious question. She has a blog; she tweets. So do countless hundreds of thousands of other insignificant specks. Why does this lady, when she is so obviously a glorified pot-stirrer, warrant the dignified distinction of a tri-alpha insignia? Why does her reality-slipping opinion continue to make waves?
Not that this is necessarily an answer to your question, but President Obama did just appoint her to his advisory council (President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships), and while many in these circles are quick to write her off, she clearly has influence in certain circles.
Oh…in other words, she’s extra-specially insignificant.
Rachel Held Evans (RHE) is a “Christian” author/speaker and she’s pro-gay marriage, egalitarian, and liberal Episcopal. RHE dislikes Piper, Grudem, and Wilson for being complementarians. I’ve never been impressed with her writings mainly because her arguments rarely ever jive with the Bible.
I’m afraid she has an outsized influence within the Feminist-Grievance axis.
Like Malachi said just above…..”extra-specially”
I you’re slandered with the ‘right’ people, that’s a good thing. Hadn’t heard from RHE in a while, guess it’s about time.
I agree with Malachi, more often than not, to the point of near exclusivity, RHE deserves to be thoroughly and completely ignored. But, as gfkdzdds said, she is a darling because she can be called an “evangelical” and still spout MSM talking points about how horrible evangelicals are.
Near as I can make it, she’s the Christianoid Lena Dunham.
“.who IS Ms. Evans, and why does anybody care?” Been sayin’ that for some time.
Salt stings. As it should.
Wait, that’s not even her own reading of the passage in question, she’s just repeating what somebody else said Doug Wilson said?
That’s low, even for her.
Good catch, I hadn’t realized that. So a bit of gossip really…
RHE’s mastery of the logical arts
She might not be a very good reader. She might be too overwhelmed with emotion to parse and construe your actual words. Then again, she might just be pretending to be stupid. That’s a fun tactic sometimes. It gets your opponent all didactic and mansplaining and off the main point. Don’t know how to counter it.
Tweet in response “Liar, liar, pants on fire, hanging from a telephone wire”?
Seems an appropriate time to stoop to the 12 year old rhetorical level.
Then you can watch her get all huffy about that, and pretend that you’re the immature one, which should be entertaining.
One counters such “tactics” by “Word’splaining”. Something Wilson does often. Expect results to be similar to those of Jesus and the prophets!????????
Using RHE’s logic, if I say you should stop leaving your car unlocked, that means I believe you deserve to have your stereo stolen.
Yeah, depth is not her strong suit.
Or, you could stop placing the blame on a rape victim. No one deserves to be raped for any reason. A woman could prance naked down the street and that would not justify a rape.
Well that’s an interesting point.
And you can open your doors wide, and not deserve to be robbed.
Would you say, though, that such immoral & indecent & anti-human behavior — prancing naked — contributes to the creation of a general environment of delinquency that might reasonably be expected to include more rape?
The issue is not about deserving to be robbed or raped, but rather about certain kinds of behaviors that are foolish in the face of fallen human nature. To prance around without the protection of clothes, or men, or workgloves, or protective eyewear is utterly foolish depending on the context. Bad things will be expected to happen in those contexts, justified or not. Wilson is right to call out the foolishness of those who promote a lack of protection.
“Bad things happen.” As if in rape, unsuspecting men just trip and fall willy-nilly into a woman’s skirt.
Where your beliefs are most fully implemented, women are being raped in the streets, literally. Not Joe Biden or hipster “literally”, but literally literally.
But actual “wars on women” don’t bother you, apparently.
ISIS is waging an actual war on women. Funnily enough, they claim it’s because women aren’t submissive enough, either to them or their particular brand of theology. And those women have hijabs and burkas.
So…which egalitarian society has hords of women being raped in the streets, again?
Germany?
And Angela Merkel may get a Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts!
Sweden… Denmark?
Sweden?
American society, from what the feminists tell us.
The one that refuses to defend its women, and which fetish-izes the exotic to the extent that they can’t oppose it.
“ISIS is waging an actual war on women.”
Indeed they are. So you propose to defend us from … Christians. Brilliant.
No. Wicked things happen if you give wicked men the idea and desire and opportunity to do wicked things. These aren’t accidents. No one said they were. No one said the men were unsuspecting (on your terms), although they are unsuspecting in the wisdom sense, perhaps not knowing that their wicked choices are a path to hell (Proverbs). None of this ameliorates the wickedness or any other moral component in the least. Why would you think anyone is saying otherwise?
Because people keep using words and analogies that communicate otherwise.
Are you saying that women give men the idea of raping them?
When women lead the culture towards sexual confusion, 50 shades of Gray, sexual feminine empowerfulness, creating blurred lines and unrecognized boundaries, yes we do create sexual confusion in men. Date rape is a good example of this. Add some alcohol, uncertainty, mixed signals, and it’s a recipe for disaster. Men are not mind readers. Women are not mind readers either, not even of our own minds, judging from how many women speak of having sex with people they don’t even like for reasons they can’t even fathom.
From reading his works, Wilson and the men who comment on this site think that’s exactly what happens. Women need to be “protected” from our tendency to think, learn, have options, and want to go out of doors. Any woman who does those things without a male owner nearby deserves what she gets.
Apparently KarenJo12 has never met any of the women in Wilson’s church and family.
She certainly has not run up against my wife.
You are so incredibly wrong that I’m not sure where to begin. Are you sure you’re on the right web site?
Well, here we are, allowing you to comment on his web site, so MEGAFAIL for the kind of “patriarchy” you’re dreaming about.
“Women need to be “protected” from our tendency to think, learn, have options, and want to go out of doors.”
Cite where he said that, if you’re not lying.
Jane, I hope you’re not thinking about going outdoors again.
I’m allowed to go outdoors to go grocery shopping and run necessary errands. I don’t even need an escort or specific permission for each outing, my husband is THAT generous.
Ten bucks says lots of the visitors on this thread are going to take this seriously.
That just occurred to me, seconds before I saw your comment. Had you not blown it, it might have made an interesting case study of who is really trapped in their mindset and who is able to see the humor in things. :-)
Wouldn’t the most natural assessment be that women can be guilty of immodesty without bearing any responsibility towards being raped? I’m trying to separate value judgements from probabilistic risk assessments.
Our culture wants to define guilt and innocence depending on what class you are in, regardless of foolish or wise actions. So the reasoning goes that by mere virtue of being a woman, a victim of rape cannot have had any responsibility or culpability. This notion of class innocence or class guilt is otherwise known as prejudice. Shane wrote: I’m trying to separate value judgements from probabilistic risk assessments. However, Jesus told a parable of a wise man who built his house on the rock, and a foolish man who build his house on the sand. In other words, Jesus… Read more »
Men can be raped, too. And are.
The problem with your analogies is that it removes all agency from the offending party. Sand and rock don’t make moral judgments. Rapists and thieves do.
People who build their houses in particular places are making judgments. Did you think the parable was about what happened to the sand?
I’m talking about culpability. Sand cannot be held culpable for destroying the house because sand has no intent. It is inert.
When you use this analogy, you’re saying that unsubmissive women = builder and rapist = sand. It puts all of the responsibility upon the woman for avoiding the rape and none on the rapist for committing the rape.
That’s how analogies work.
It’s a bad analogy…unless this is what you intended to communicate.
Analogies don’t work by associating all the properties of the one thing with the other. If they did, no analogy could ever work because there would always be some distinction between the one thing and the other.They work by associating the similarities. No one using that analogy thinks, or intends to suggest, that men have no more agency than a storm (which is the proper referent in the parable.) The point is that when someone makes a knowing choice, consequences can follow. If that choice is less wise, worse consequences are more likely. This fact does not remove agency from… Read more »
So you are saying that rape is a rational consequence of the victim’s poor choices.
Kelsey wrote: So you are saying that rape is a rational consequence of the victim’s poor choices. In spite of her obvious language trap, there are indeed some cases were rape is an unsurprising consequence of the victim’s own poor choices. It would actually depend on what choices the victim was making. The difference between foolish and wise depends on what those choices were. Kelsey may jump to the conclusion that we are saying that all rape is the consequence of the victim’s poor choices, but if she attempts that leap, it will only indicate that Kelsey doesn’t understand the… Read more »
It is a predictable consequence in some situations, yes. Not always.
Do a slut walk in the no-go areas of France. It is entirely rational to posit that after the beatings by groups of young, non-Christian men who’s last name is not Wilson that these ‘brave, rational, transgressive wymnyz’ will be gang raped. So yes, their rape is a rational consequence of the slut’s poor choices. It is equally rational to conclude that the men that feminism has delegated to egalitarian status will not intervene and why should they? Its your body, your fight. You go girl! There is an upside to this. The former feminists who where stupid enough to… Read more »
“You expect the benefits of Christianized men w/o the baggage. Well, you are expelling them from your world and they are listening and leaving you to the world you create.”
While they should not be surprised when they get the non-christian society they are asking for, it is impropor for christian men to abandon them.
“..wipe the dust from your feet…”
Apparently Kelsey thinks Jesus is guilty of using bad analogies. Fortunately, Jesus was not equating the foolish man with sand. Nor am I equating a little tart with sand. A little tart is analogous to the foolish man who did not assess the dangers. The rapist is analogous to the storm that destroyed the house built on sand.
Kelsey’s attempts to confuse the analogy aren’t working.
I equated the woman with the builder. I concede that the storm represents the rapist.The rock is obviously submission to male authority. So that begs the question, what is the sand? Egalitarian marriage? Singleness? The problem is that Jesus did not use the analogy (in Matthew 7) in the manner or context in which you are using it. The rock in Christ’s analogy is “these words of mine.” What words? The words of Matthew 7, of course. Which say nothing about female submission to male authority. In fact, the closest Jesus ever comes to addressing marriage is the time he… Read more »
“Jesus himself never dictated that women should be in unilateral submission to men.”
And nor do we. All authority is in submission to Scripture. So thank you.
“But he did instruct his disciples in THREE of the gospels to never lord their spiritual authority over anyone.”
Exactly what we are saying. Which is different than saying there is no such thing as spiritual authority.
Apparently Kelsey believes that we are advocating general submission of all women to all men. This is precisely not the case, and I would stand with her to reject such a notion of patriarchy. Rather it is by a woman submitting to her own husband that she is freed from submission to just any man. The nature of her submission is narrow in scope, and only operates in the context of deep relationship. It is an expression of fidelity, just like the Church is in submission to one Lord and one Head. Unfortunately, Kelsey’s reaction to Matthew suggests that she… Read more »
The sand is our feminist driven society where Godly virtue is mocked and where Miley Cyrus sluts are A-OK. We were driven here by pseudomen and feminists who wish to destroy the Christian family and all that it represents.
Hey, April. There is a neighborhood adjacent to where I live where my wife would not dare to walk at night. And I would think twice. Why? Because of the hardness of the human heart. Sin. Depravity. If either my wife and I take a walk, we would never *deserve* to be accosted, but we almost certainly will be – especially if we do it more than once. Now, I can pretend this isn’t the case (because it *shouldn’t* be!), but it is. Likewise, when men ogle a woman, or harass her with words, looks, and maybe a touch and… Read more »
The magic dirt theory of moral culpability.
The point had more do to with a strong spiritual foundation that risk assessment. I’m not claiming that foolishness only stems from likelihood, but that is an angle that many are taking on the subject. This is why I pointed to other examples where people make decisions to take “riskier” behavior that is not commonly considered foolish. For example, one’s transportation choice. If a guy gets killed in an accident driving to work, how would I be received if my first response were that he was foolish because he could have just as easily taking the (considerably safer) subway?
I grew up around Chicago back in the bad old days. I remember walking around Cabrini Green back when it wasn’t safe to do so. If I were shot or robbed (had I been one street over, I would’ve been shot one time) it was still the attackers fault, but can I bear any responsibility for participating in behavior that was thoroughly unwise given my environment? Let’s not be idiots folks. We all get what’s going on here. Doug wasn’t saying that women deserve to be raped. He was saying they are creating an environment where that kind of behavior… Read more »
Foolishness is definitely connected to poor risk assessment (see the man who built his house on sand). Poor risk assessment is a spiritual matter.
Of course there are varying degrees of poor risk assessment, and therefore varying degrees of culpability. Shane wants to use examples from the shallow end, but this strategy doesn’t make the deep end of folly disappear. It’s still there, and still culpable.
Responsibility isn’t zero-sum.
What you’re saying is that woman does bear responsibility for failing to submit to a male protector, right? I’m just trying to cut through the cryptic rhetoric.
I’m saying that if I leave the keys to my car on the front seat and it gets stolen, the thief bears responsibility for his crime, and I bear responsibility for imprudence. Neither detracts from the other.
If I sinfully anger another with some impulsive comment I make, and that person pulls out a pistol and blows my brains out, is it really worth discussing my imprudence?
Well, I expect the jury would discuss it when they tried to figure out if the provocation was great enough to cut your killer some slack. But that would be small comfort to you!
Yes. As the old saying goes, “live and learn, or die and teach by example.”
It is worth discussing your imprudence with the next person, so they make a wiser choice, yes.
And if such an occurrence were somewhat common in society, including within the church, would it be unreasonable to expect the lion’s share of moral indignation to be directed towards the pistol-reaching hot-heads? Would it be reasonable to expect that Christian pastors would spend at least as much time addressing their sinfulness as those who make provocative comments?
Yes. Both should be addressed.
Short answer: Yes.
No one is arguing that any woman ever deserves to be raped. NO ONE. The blame and legal ramifications rest solely on the perp.
Really? Have you seen some of the replies I’m getting?
If you see that in the replies then you are not understanding them.
I’ve seen them all. Which one says women deserve to be raped?
Well, there’s this newer comment above, from BDash76: “if a woman visits a town or village known for raping women, in spite of her father warning her and trying to stop her…
she then was kinda asking for it…”
Hoisted on his own petard. (What kind of villages and towns are ‘known for raping women’, outside the horrors of IS? What happens to the women who live in such a place, the mothers and daughters and sisters of these rapists? The mind boggles …)
Not sure when that was posted, maybe since I made my comment?
Anyway, that’s one, and I’ll concede it. But BDash is an outlier around here. He says ridiculous things almost without exception. It certainly doesn’t suppport April’s implication that such is the general response to her. No one else has said anything like that.
I will happily concede that he’s an outlier. ;)
Cologne
Rochdale
Rotherham
Oxford
Oldham
Birmingham
Stockholm
Detroit
Paris
Vienna
Helsinki
Zurich
Just to name a few that are outside IS.
I see what you did there.
if a woman visits a town or village known for raping women, in spite of her father warning her and trying to stop her…
she then was kinda asking for it…
So what kind of towns and villages do YOU know of which have a reputation for raping women?! (Apart from Islamic State’s reign of evil?)
The fault lies with the people who RAPE. Not the other way round. There is no other crime in which the victim is blamed and is insinuated to have ‘asked for it’.
yes it does but there is partial fault of the disobedient victim
If a father warns a son to not get married to a certain woman, and then she screws him over, it is also partially the sons fault- even though the sin was committed by his wife…
same thing in europe, inviting refugees in is like putting a sign on your door, asking for someone to rape you…
kinda hard to show someone any sympathy then
Gosh, you are ten tons of fun, BDash76. ;)
[You seem confused about the difference between genuine refugees (of which there are millions, including our own Christian brothers and sisters) and economic migrants (many of whom are not opportunistic rapists either).]
I have met Christians who survived rape and abuse. Who were able to forgive their abusers, but also pursued justice through the courts.
I find it hard to believe that you have met anyone who has been a victim of sexual crime.
Every type of crime has victims that can be contributory in their own negligence, depending on the circumstances. The idea that women are somehow in a special group that can never be foolish or contributory is part of the new victim culture that makes judgements along class boundaries. If you are in the approved class, then you are regarded as innocent, by definition, and if you are in the disapproved class, you are judged guilty, by definition. This is the manner in which Wilson is being judged by the #hashtag vigilantes of the interwebs. Class justice is not biblical justice.
“The idea that women are somehow in a special group that can never be foolish or contributory is part of the new victim culture that makes judgements along class boundaries.” That’s not part of my thinking. I certainly don’t think that women ‘can never be foolish or contributory’ (or abusive). Still, the point bears repeating: when I read about a victim of a burglary, or of serious violence, I NEVER think, ‘gosh, I wonder how this person contributed to the crime perpetrated on them?’ No, that unlovely qualification is reserved particularly for rape victims – including male victims of rape,… Read more »
Nienna wrote: That’s not part of my thinking. I certainly don’t think that women ‘can never be foolish or contributory’ (or abusive). Very good. That’s an objective position to take. Nienna also wrote: Still, the point bears repeating: when I read about a victim of a burglary, or of serious violence, I NEVER think, ‘gosh, I wonder how this person contributed to the crime perpetrated on them?’ This is perhaps because Nienna is not a pastor charged with shepherding victims of rape and other violence, who sees all manner of contributory foolishness in multiple directions, and who is charged to… Read more »
Though it would justify arrest for public nudity or indecent exposure. The Law blames the naked person for that. Right?
I absolutely agree. But this is a fallen and criminal world. I don’t think it is blaming victims to say that women should exercise prudence in avoiding danger. In comforting a rape victim, I would never say, How could you have gone out dressed like that? But I tell the girls under my personal jurisdiction to be cautious, to watch their drinks, to avoid drunken frat parties, and so on. How could a responsible person do anything else? Where I might differ from some writers here is that I believe women can welcome male protection but that they also need… Read more »
“A mother with a pre-teen or teenaged daughter is an incredible predatory prize for the wicked, and she needs to be aware of that danger.” Amen. That’s a really good point. Of course human predators should not prey, but out in nature we don’t question the fact that they do indeed prey, and we don’t surrender our defenses, simply because we believe they shouldn’t. It’s no ones fault if they get mauled by a bear, but conversely one must do there best to avoid such things. Blaming the bear is a fool’s errand, not because it isn’t true, but because… Read more »
Or, using the RHE method of interaction, one might now state that “Kayla wants to prance naked down the street.”
Right. William J. Bennett once said on his radio show that the simplest way to massively slash the crime rate would be to abort all black babies, because blacks commit crime at about ten times the rate of whites. But Bennett went on to say that that would be wrong, because abortion is immoral. So I guess by RHE’s logic, she believes that Bennett’s daughters and granddaughters deserve to be raped by a black man? And so do the daughters and granddaughters of everyone who’s against abortion?
A utilitarian/consequentialist may argue that it follows that abortion of all black babies is justified if it reduces future rapes, and other violent crimes. But Norris’ projection of this ethical paradigm onto pro-life Christians is, well, mere projection; an exercise in eisegesis. Norris should get out more, and discover that there are ethical paradigms that involve principles of virtue, in which abortion remains wrong regardless of future crime statistics. If RHE and Norris are utilitarians, then perhaps they may proclaim that daughters and granddaughters of pro-lifers deserve to be raped by black men, but they are the ones who will… Read more »
Read this out loud, seriously! When you actually hear this quote and read other things the spiritual barker and biter has said, I completely agree with Nate and RHE. So this whole post is about parsing RHE saying Wilson said,”unsubmissive women deserve to be raped,” and Wilson saying, “But women who genuinely insist on ‘no masculine protection’ are really women who tacitly agree on the propriety of rape. So if I go into a bank and a robber shoots me in the face, I tacitly agreed to have my brains blown out. Makes sense to me. Natalie Greenfield’s treatment was,… Read more »
It’s funny, after I read your post, I heard the gavel drop. This court is adjourned apparently.
Well your very intimidating. Yea, it’s a real pain in the ass when truth gets in the way of your agenda.
Sometimes I envy those who, unencumbered by the Burden of Honesty, are free to use any tactic they wish in furthering their cause.
I know you jest, but never envy such silliness. The truth shall prevail, always, eventuall…., maddeningly slow really, but prevail it shall!
Sometimes I could almost envy those who are unencumbered by the burden of kindness and fairness. They too have some pretty nasty tactics.
Well, I am a woman hiding in a stairwell, clinging to my handy dandy list of rape prevention tips, pondering, however are we going to teach all the men not to rape? Don’t they already know? Are those who do not know really, teachable? So if we much teach them all, are men sexually uncontrolled wildebeests who simply cannot help themselves, or are they fully autonomous human beings capable of making their own decisions? Can a wildebeest be taught? Conversely, does a honorable man even need teaching? Bit of dark humor here, but one must laugh at all these logical… Read more »
Just to throw a monkey in the wrenches, here’s something contra your last sentence:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwHfibl1AoI
Basically, laws aren’t what protect people. People watching out for each other is what protects people in the civil realm.
In SOME cases, pulling a gun on a wannabe rapist will teach him not to rape. If he insists on trying, use the gun and his father the devil will happily (?) spend as much of eternity as he needs teaching him all about rape being a bad idea.
If you’re going to have a critic, it’s good that the critic has a name that’s also a complete sentence: Rachel Held Evans.
It’s also good to be a student to a teacher with another complete-sentence name, like Clive Staples Lewis.
Ha! I’m blessed to have a name that is a complete sentence in the imperative mood. Two complete sentences really and rather emphatic.
Or one imperative, commanding an action that is rather difficult to understand. Steel is not ordinarily thought capable of possessing.
Steal, however …
Edit: I should have been a lawyer or a politician.
Edit 2: Wait, I finally see what you mean. How about “steel” in the sense of: Leave the gun, take the steel. Strictly speaking only people can be robbed so it’s not correct grammar.
Your name (as printed for the rest of us to see) is actually a double command to commit a pair of similar crimes. I don’t know if I would go around boasting in that…just sayin’.
Yeah. It’s real too, mostly. Rob is a nickname I acquired as a kid, short for Robby, which was itself a nickname short for my middle name Robertson. No one uses my first name William but telemarketers and my children when they’re being arch. Mom said she was worried my name would sound like a question “Will Rob steal?” I’m just glad I didn’t end up as Billy Bob.
I read once that if you want your child to grow up to be president of Harvard, you need to give him or her three names which can appear in any order: Grayson Llewellyn Bryce. Llewellyn Bryce Grayson. Extra points if any of these names belonged to people on the Mayflower.
DW’s explanation is certainly clearer and better than his original quote.
Perhaps, but not enough to justify Sparks’ misrepresentation. Wilson clearly considers the outcome a “horrible problem,” not something “proper.” A sincere attempt at understanding ALL the words in the paragraph might have resulted in some confusion, but not the suggestion that Doug Wilson thinks there is propriety in rape.
Then maybe he shouldn’t have used the words “propriety of rape.” If that’s not Wilson’s view, then he misrepresented himself.
The popularity of 50 shades of gray seems to indicate that our culture is already becoming uncertain about the “propriety” of rape.
I’m a fan of godly patriarchy, but the key to that phrase is in the adjective. Patriarchy in itself has certainly not proven itself to be a protection of women in places like the Middle East and Africa where female genital mutilation and rape as a weapon of war are widely used.
That’s not what’s being advocated and it doesn’t deserve the name patriarchy.
but you are fine with male genital mutilation?!!!
actually in the middle east if women stick to their families and follow the rules, they are protected- have you actually been there?
‘Male genital mutilation’, as you call it, is endorsed by the Old Testament. God seemed to find it legit! Circumcised men are able to enjoy sex without any pain or adverse effects, and some claim that circumcision is more hygienic. I’m not arguing strongly for the practice, mind – but I AM saying that it’s not equivalent to the horrors of female genital mutilation. If it were, then why would the Lord have insisted on it being a sign of the Old Covenant?
how is using rape as a weapon of war a quality of Patriarchy?!!
it is flippin war… people do anything in war…
The rest of us rely on the principle of charity when reading. That is, when a particular text can be interpreted to mean a whole range of things, assume the one most favorable to the character of the author.
Which is, I think, the underlying command to love in that it “believes all things”, that is, it advances good faith to the person by judiciously studying the words that he has written instead of trying to fit them into a favored narrative.
I think the difficulty lay with the words tacit and propriety. No one would say that someone who leaves his car door unlocked tacitly agrees with the propriety of theft. On the other hand, someone who habitually leaves his car unlocked is, albeit unknowingly, making life easier for the car thief.
That’s a good point. I can certainly understand how, with a bit of hyperbole and hysteria, the meaning behind that quote could be misunderstood. But, then there is also the need some people have to misunderstand, making nearly all your efforts futile.
Jill, I think your example differs in that leaving your car unlocked is not a sin, though perhaps imprudent at times. The unsubmissive women are sinning. Thus it is more parallel to a car thief leaving his car unlocked. Given his behaviour there may be a tacit agreement
The analogy isn’t to leaving your car door unlocked. It’s to saying that car locks are a hideous thing. That’s tantamount to suggesting that the stuff in everyone’s car is fair game for everyone else.
How does a distaste for highlighting the defects of folks = tacit approval?
When you drive into a bad neighborhood, ever get embarrassed to overtly reach over to push the door lock down?
Do you ever say that because you might get embarrassed to reach over to push the door lock down in certain circumstances, that doors should never have locks because a racist message might be sent?
Feminists don’t argue that patriarchy sometimes has drawbacks, that’s what patriarchs who acknowledge sin admit. Feminists argue that patriarchy is always fundamentally bad.
Let me try this again. Would the following be a fair paraphrase of how Wilson thinks of the unsubmissive woman’s intent: “Unprotected women in this society run the risk of being raped. However, I believe it is better for an occasional free woman to be raped than for all women to have to live as slaves of the partriarchy.” Am I any closer to getting this?
Not necessarily. The tacit approval does not have to be conscious, just logical.
A closer analogy would be this:
Such an agenda gives tacit approval to the propriety of theft and other criminal activity, because those things will necessarily result from the agenda. In spite of the hooting and hollering, I see no problem with Wilson’s wording. That kind of feminism is wicked. It is hatred of women and of the feminine, and should be confronted for its dangerous tacit approvals.
“Nonetheless, although I eschew car locks as oppressive and degrading, I demand that society protect me from car thieves.”
“Although I eschew the protections of men as oppressive and degrading, I demand the protections of men.”
Perhaps Wilson might expand his analysis to allow that such feminism either gives tacit approval of the propriety of rape, or else it is trivially self-contradictory.
I would say that those who intentionally ignore the reality of life, that there are bad people who do bad things, makes it difficult to advance the term “unknowingly”. This is part of the reality of a fallen world. And even then, since it is an intentional naivete, it is really not unknowingly. God says somewhere, don’t be a simpleton. I think that the entire argument being made (not by you) but by RHE et al is “we can do whatever we want, and none of the consequences for our behavior shall ever be laid at our feet, not even… Read more »
“To turn this into my supposed approval of punishment-rape as something “deserved” is all you need to know about RHE’s mastery of the logical arts. I feel like somebody signed me up to debate both Wile E. Coyote and his anvil.”
True, but it tells you even more about her intellectual honesty. I would assume she is able to master such logical distinctions when it suits her purposes.
I am not sure. Do you think that’s true? Are people trapped in ideology and what basically amounts to cult programming, even capable of making logical distinctions? Honestly, I don’t know, I just often encounter a wall so firmly planted in emotion, logic cannot scale it.
How does someone get to the point of being “trapped in” an unbiblical ideology? In some cases, it might be almost accidental or inadvertent, in the sense that you didn’t know what you were getting into when you got mixed up with some cult; in some cases it might be something you’re indoctrinated in from a very young age and don’t know better.
I don’t think RHE fits either of those profiles. If her thinking is distorted because of her ideology, it’s because she’s previously embraced the ideology quite willingly.
I think that’s true.
This is a case of RHE practicing Alinski’s twelfth rule: pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.
Twitter, because of its 140-character limit, is a great format for disguising selective, deliberate obtuseness.
You got a point for “discussing selective, deliberate obtuseness.” Good job :)
disguising. :)
Naturally, my auto correct was doing my thinking for me again. :)
So one is left with a choice: dim or evil.
False choice Sir, it could be both! :-(
See, that’s why I keep you around.
Wilson is a monument to the implications of not being a yes man!
Salt and light are too salty and too bright for many.
Many Love sugar and shade.
I think a valid objection to your statement would be to point out that there were many abuses against women when society was ordered where men were expected to protect women and wives were expected to submit to their husbands. This is part of the reason the feminism movement gained traction. If most men were acting in a biblical manner toward their wives the complaints of women would have been invalid. As it was and still is, people are depraved. Every system can and will be abused. Women are rightfully distrusting of men in regard to their safety and well… Read more »
By and large, I think you’ll find that most men and most women were mostly better off under a benevolent patriarchy. That said, there certainly were abusers and abuses, and likewise the failure of men to discipline abusers in their midst. But the way to deal with a corrupt police force or government is usually to deal with the corruption; it’s a very rare situation where disbanding the police or government is superior to working to fix and prevent the abuses. Similarly, “Women are rightfully distrusting of men in regard to their safety and well being”. This is mostly a… Read more »
No men lost women’s trust for protection under patriarchy. It’s not the fault of patriarchy rather the out working of man’s depravity. Men abusing women under patriarchy through drunkenness, violence and infidelity is well documented.
Men abusing women under feminism through drunkenness, violence and infidelity is also well documented. If the root issue is the general depravity of man, then that has to be solved. Feminism may recognize the problem, but it offers no solution. It simply adds to the rebellion.
Patriarchy, added on top of man’s depravity, is no solution either. Patriarchy doesn’t change hearts. The solution is Gospel repentance and humility. If men are to practice being heads and leaders, I propose that they lead the way in this kind of repentance, and show the feminists how it is done.
You keep generalising. “*Men* did not lose *Women’s* trust”. Throughout history, *some men* abused *some women*, and some of them got away with it. Some women – often not the abused ones – exploited this to launch an systematic attack on the whole system. With the net result that the “new” system now fails to protect most people. So we’ve gone from a system that protected most people (with a few horrible exceptions) to a system that fails to protect most people (the exceptions mainly being the powerful – who can protect themselves whatever the system – and those who… Read more »
I think you should study history a little more. It was not “some”. It was many, possibly most. Like I said the system patriarchy is not the problem,. The depravity of man is the problem. Under the kind of patriarchy that was implemented men were free from consequences of abusing women. Many men committed adultery or were drunks. Going back to that will not fix anything and it failed miserably at protecting women from abuses by their husbands. That kind of patriarchy got us where we are.
Given that you’re such a wise student of history, perhaps you could back up your claims. Going from “many” to “most” is a big call. I’ve already given you some recent studies to support my perspective. In contrast, let me take a completely different historical tack. Pride & Prejudice was published in 1813, written by a woman, and aimed at a middle-class-ish market. Of the main male characters, one is a dweeb, but his wife ends up happily married to him while tolerating his social awkwardness. One is disreputable, and consistently displayed as such. The narrator plainly warns her readers… Read more »
Your evidence for your assertion is a work of fiction? Perhaps you should broaden your horizons in your evaluation of art and media from the past. I can think of several pop songs from the past when patriarchy was the norm that glories in beating women, committing adultery, and being a poor excuse for a man. I will say it again patriarchy is not the problem. Men failing to protect women under it was the problem.
Define “past”: 1950? 1970? 1070? “I will say it again patriarchy is not the problem. Men failing to protect women under it was the problem.” True enough. But that’s not the point under discussion. Your claim – as I read it – is that abuse of women was egregious and universal. My response is that it was localised (albeit across many incidents) and that even the claim that most women had it bad is a revisionist attack on the institution. The need to enforce appropriate treatment of men towards the women they are responsible for is not novel, nor is… Read more »
The past I was referring to was relatively recent western past. The evidence is too overwhelming. Women pushing for prohibition., rampant infidelity, physical abuse were all much more widespread I look back on first hand sources, including many first hand accounts from payoff my grandparents and great grandparents generations who bear witness to how widespread the problem was. You siting Jane austen is laughable. Despite it being a work of fiction it is also very limited in its scope. Once again do more research and stop revealing your ignorance. It is a fact that in general our grandfathers and great… Read more »
No one’s advocating “that kind of patriarchy.” It’s biblical patriarchy that’s advocated. Any time any system is advocated, it is implicit that the pitfalls, failures, and abuses of that system, and not our current system, have to be part of the package. But since non-patriarchy is terrible both in its philosophical underpinning and its fruits, unbiblical patriarchy is terrible, and every system has its abuses, it seems like going for the biblical one is the best option. Because at least then the target is correct. Sinners gonna sin (which includes all of us) but the standard should at least be… Read more »
Dunsworth, actually Andrew is advocating for that kind of patriarchyby defending it and dismissing the widespread abuses that happened under it. The problem is not with biblical patriarchy. That is what I have been saying all along. The problemis biblical patriarchy was only practcticed in some instances. Men who did practice it did not discipline the abusive men. By failing on this point the failed to protect women. I think Chesterton. The Christian civic ethic was not tried and found wanting. It was found difficult and left untried.
Okay, but what’s the point then? That women are justly angry about abuses?
That much is true, but it does not follow that they are therefore justified in rejecting biblical patriarchy. And it is the rejection of all patriarchies, including biblical patriarchy, that is what’s being discussed here. The abuses of sinful men justify anger; they do not justify feminism.
Perhaps you should reread my comments. I am not saying feminists are justified in rejecting biblical patriarchy. I repeatedly said feminism is a greater evil. I’m saying the kind of patriarchy practiced got us here and that fact should not b ignored like Andrew is so wonderfully demonstrating. People tend to think implementing a system will solve our issues. As our past so aptly demonstrates the system of patriarchy will not protect women because men are generally selfish. Instead like marriage it takes continual hard work done in humility. It takes men who earn womens trust rather than taking it… Read more »
Actually, I currently don’t have a clue what you think I’m demonstrating, because every time I offer evidence or argument you say “No, it was almost universally horrible – just do the research”. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of the research, because it seems my internet connection is preventing me from reading the documents in your mind. I *know* women who were mistreated by their husbands; I’m descended from some of them. I also know that these men are spoken of by descendants of those same relatives as exceptions rather than norms, and I have other relatives… Read more »
Also men who may have treated their wives Biblically failed to protect other women from the abuses of their husbands. This earned the distrust of women in general.
no it would not have
no matter how Godly men were , women would still complain
naive is the person who thinks women will never complain….
Your statement is hypothetical. In the real world many men were drunks, adulterous, and violent. Women rightfully complained. I strive to treat my wife as I am commanded in Scripture. She strives to submit and does not complain. Naive is the person who uses hypothetical situations for arguments and assumes a system will solve the issues. Good luck with your outlook and obeying God’s commands in how you treat the wormen in your life.
keep pretending that women do not sin…
You do know what the word “propriety” means, right? Correctness, decency, protocol, appropriateness. So you’re saying that when a woman is unsubmissive–i.e., she rejects male protection–she is agreeing that rape is the proper and decent response to her lack of protection–i.e., she is asking for it.
How is that better or different from saying she deserves it?
Because Wilson knows that even though she is tacitly agreeing that women should not protected from, among other things, rape, he also knows that she is wrong for thinking that way. She is conceding the propriety, but she is wrong to do so. Therefore, she still does not deserve to have happen to her, that which is always wrong.
Jane, would you please have another go at explaining this to me? I can’t get past the word propriety. I understand that such a woman is conceding likeliness or even inevitability, but how can she possibly concede propriety without suggesting that rape is a proper response to female unsubmissiveness? I understand that no one is suggesting the woman deserves this.
She is conceding that potentially being raped is more proper than being protected from rape by patriarchal family structures. I’ll even agree it’s not the best way to say it. But as David says above, trying to understand Wilson does not yield the interpretation that Wilson himself thinks that rape actually is a proper consequence of feminism. You don’t have to read entire books to get that; the next sentence after the one with the word “propriety” in it demolishes that reading as a legitimate interpretation of his actual intent. You can only get “Wilson thinks rape is proper” as… Read more »
Not only will you fail to arrive at the conclusion that Wilson think rape is deserved and/or a proper consequence, you really only need read what he actually said about that: “And of course, I say (and think) nothing of the kind.”
People can often be poor exegetes of their own statements. Nothing Doug has said makes his use of the word “propriety” seem natural. I do think RHE’s paraphrase misrepresented Doug, but the most natural reading of his statement is that women are implicitly agreeing that it is proper to be raped. Being a Pastor who holds a Masters in Philosophy, Wilson soon should know better when it comes to clear communication of ideas.
They cannot, however, be poor exegetes of their own intended meaning.
When all is said and done, the most you can milk out of this is “Doug Wilson made a poorly worded statement about the relationship between feminism and rape.”
You can’t say, “Doug Wilson believes in the propriety of rape.” So, Doug having clarified, Nate’s going to edit his post and Rachel’s going to recant her tweet. Right? Right?
[Sorry for the repeat, but it seems the better part of propriety.] The problem for Kelsey’s (and RHE’s) argument is that Wilson nowhere says that he thinks rape is an act of propriety, or that he thinks a woman is asking for, or deserves, rape. Rather he says that the feminist thinks that rape is an act of propriety; not explicitly, but tacitly so. Kelsey and RHE may disagree that feminists think this way, but they can’t turn any of it to suggest that Wilson himself thinks rape is proprietary, or deserved, or asked for. Wilson was describing the feminist… Read more »
If Jack consents to do business with the Mafia, he tacitly agrees on the propriety of having his legs broken or even being killed if, subsequently, he acts in a way that displeases one of the Mafia bosses. A friend who notes this reality, and laments Jack’s bad bargain, is not saying that Jack would deserve to have his legs broken, or to be thrown off a bridge with his body weighed down by concrete, if he turned against his thug associates.
Doesn’t deserve…but it would be appropriate and understandable. Because that’s what the word “propriety” means.
Tell me, is there ever a context in which rape is appropriate?
Really? That needs asking?
Of course rape is never “appropriate.” It is always and everywhere a horrible, evil act. And in no case does the bad judgment of a victim mitigate the evil of the rapist’s act one mite.
Then why use the phrase “propriety of rape”? If it is evil at all times, even if someone is tacitly agreeing to it (which no one would or could, because rape denies consent), why suggest that it could somehow be appropriate? I’m not sure you understand what Wilson is communicating here. Wilson is saying that women must practice patriarchal submission to a “godly” father and then traditional courtship and marriage to a “godly” man in order to be properly protected from rape. Because this is the way God designed things. And if she rejects this design in any way…or if… Read more »
So, you do not believe what Wilson says right on this page? He disagrees with your “explanation” of his words a few inches above your comment.
Correct, she does.
He can claim what he did or didn’t mean all day long. It doesn’t change the meaning of the words he used. If he meant something else, he should have used different words. Words have meanings that don’t change just because he says so.
Wilson has a convenient habit of claiming he is being misunderstood any time he says things like this. I’m starting to think he enjoys it. Or maybe he just needs to stick to Latin and leave the English to the English majors.
“I’m not sure you understand what Wilson is communicating here.”
Wilson is comunicating that you can’t have protection from men without protection from men.
Fantastic turn of phrase.
No. Wilson is saying that you won’t have protection from men unless you submit to men in the exact way that he outlines. A subtle but critical distinction.
The way that Wilson outlines is the way that Scripture outlines. Namely submission to her own father, and then submission to her own husband. This kind of submission is precisely what is being rejected by RHE and others.
If rape is the horrible, sinful, inexcusable act that everyone here keeps claiming that it is, why not say that ALL women deserve protection from it whether they are in submission or not? Why all the hair splitting over degrees of submission, foolishness and culpability?
Kelsey wants the protections without the nasty submission part. It’s a bit like wanting the protection of the legal system without submission to its laws. It’s a double standard. Kelsey supposes that men ought to be virtuous enough to protect all the ladies, out of righteous and selfless principle, even when those same women spurn any submission to their own husbands and fathers, refusing any such authority or headship. But if men were this virtuous and selfless, on what ground does Kelsey stand to refuse submission to such a saintly gentlemen? Isn’t the argument that men are somehow unworthy of… Read more »
“Kelsey supposes that men ought to be virtuous enough to protect all the ladies” Um, yeah. It’s called moral courage. Jesus had it. “We love because he first loved us.” If men are supposed to lead, shouldn’t they lead in doing the right thing no matter what the women are doing? Outrageous, I know. Actually, the legal system does protect me even when I don’t submit to its laws. It’s called the Bill of Rights. Even criminals get basic protections and due process. You do realize, right, that not even complementarians agree what total submission looks like? If you… Read more »
Kelsey wrote: Actually, the legal system does protect me even when I don’t submit to it’s laws. It’s called the Bill of Rights. Even criminals get basic protections and due process. It is true that the legal system protects criminals, and hypocrites. Although it is odd that, in using this analogy, Kelsey casts herself in the role of criminal, taking advantage of the system. The law can be taken advantage of by those who reject their responsibilities and submission toward it. So the protection of a man can be taken advantage of by the feminist who rejects submission to him.… Read more »
I mean, if you need a woman doing the right thing to enable you to do the right thing, can you rightly call that leadership?
In the hierarchy model, doesn’t morality flow from the head?
Kelsey may not realize how much a husband genuinely needs the support of his wife in order to lay his life down for her when needed. Men are notorious for abdicating their responsibilities and duties, just as are feminists. God has designed the two to work together. It is a rare man who will be strong and lead and sacrifice in spite of opposition from her. However, the issue is not what is easy, or what we think we can get away with, but rather what has God said, and what has God designed men and women to be like… Read more »
Yet, somehow, you can’t articulate the specifics of what it looks like.
I’m not sure Kelsey is in a position to tell me what I can’t do. I’d refer Kelsey to Ephesians, and to Proverbs, and to Wilson’s various books on the subject. I’m happy to answer specific questions. Generally, it looks like Christ and the Church. Perhaps Kelsey can articulate what her specific objection is, and we can explore whether I might agree with her. There are lots of abusive and twisted forms of patriarchy that I reject, but I can’t reject patriarchy as Scripture narrowly instructs it. Kelsey needs to be honest with Scriptures that speak very clearly of the… Read more »
Moral racketeering. Awesome.
“why not say that ALL women deserve protection from it whether they are in submission or not?”
That would be patriarchal.
C.S. Lewis:
You need a woman to hand you your balls.
Got it.
Please see my second reply, which was a quote from Wilson. In short, yes men should be doing all they can to protect women, even if the women spurn it.
And if I saw you in trouble, I’d still run the creep down and tackle him. And so would most all the other guys here.
I don’t think Kelsey has got it. Castration is a taking, not a giving. God has equipped men, by nature, and by instinct to lead and to sacrifice. But this can be taken away, or corrupted, in a variety of ways, including male abdication, and female rebellion and usurping. Cooperation and humility are required from both in order to be a truthful model of Christ and the Church. Fortunately, God can also restore repentant husbands and wives to the proper roles that He designed for them.
“You need a woman to hand you your balls.
Got it.”
Crowd: “Boooooo….”
Tell me: in the Bible, in the example of Christ, does honor proceed from morality, or morality from honor?
The Lewis quote nails it. Thanks jigawatt.
If rape is the horrible, sinful, inexcusable act that everyone here keeps claiming that it is, why not say that ALL women deserve protection from it whether they are in submission or not? https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/vision-forum-and-blaming-the-victim.html The one who is lost in the woods [i.e. “not in submission”] may not be the best one to ask about how to avoid getting lost yourself. She may not have the best grasp of what the actual predictors are. … We live in a screwed up world, and women do need to be protected. Overwhelmingly, they need to be protected from men. I believe that… Read more »
Well, we DO say and believe that. Then the handy accusations of white-knighting and defending the patriarchy come around, which thankfully most of us ignore. Doing the right thing mean men protect women, starting with our own families, of course, but that stretches out to include anyone in our path. If a woman is getting mugged on Main Street, I don’t tell her to call her daddy. I step in and help — at least I pray I have the courage to do so.
You’ll lack SOME protections he thinks you should accept, but do you think pastor Wilson would hesitate to pull Bill Clinton off RHE if he happened by, or to vote “guilty” on a jury trying any kind of rapist?
Interesting, considering Wilson wrote letters of recommendation to the judge to get Natalie Greenfield’s rapist a light sentence.
Are you sure about what you’re saying?
1 that isn’t subtle.
2 if that is what wilson thinks you need more than the quote in question to prove it.
If that’s all he meant, he shouldn’t have bothered to say anything. No one disagrees with a tautology.
It is stated in the form of a tautology, but the context reveals that this is quite insightful and informative. The kind of man that a woman needs protection from (against), is not the same kind of man that a woman needs to seek protection from (by).
Clever and catchy. Kudos.
Foolishness ushers in some degree of culpability, and it is quite legitimate to point this out, even if the PC police squeal with words like “victim blaming”. Of course foolishness is no excuse for the rapist, but there is indeed a level of culpability if someone rebelliously tosses away normal protections. Culpability varies depending on the context, but, to use a different context, if a little tart engages in “unprotected” sexual encounters, she is effectively saying, by her action, that STDs are okay with her. She doesn’t say this explicitly, but her actions say it very loudly nonetheless. Again, this… Read more »
Spinning probabilistic risk assessments into foolishness is tricky business. Do we call people fools because they drive a motorcycle instead of a car, or drive a car instead of taking the subway? I live in a borderline area and was recently mugged – am I partially culpable for my choice of residence?
It is not foolish (just) because it is risky, it is foolish because it is sinful.
High risk activities may be foolish, low risk sin is always foolish.
Regardless of how the foolishness comes about, the implication seems to be that it renders the fool somewhat culpable for the heinous act.
Yes, a foolish person who builds their house on the sand is not just implicitly culpable, but expressly culpable, to some degree, for the resulting collapse of the house. God has made the world so that we reap what we sow. If we sow foolishly, then calamity will be reaped. God is not mocked.
If a guy commutes to work via driving instead of taking the subway, is he necessarily culpable for being involved in a car accident because he built his sand on a much more dangerous form of transportation? Were the victims of Katrina culpable for their own suffering for living in such a geographically precarious location?
Shane seems to be ignoring the possibility that this guy’s involvement in a car accident may be the result of folly a bit more removed than his mode of transportation on that one day. God doesn’t say that we reap a harvest in the same hour that we sowed the seed. Maybe it could trace back to his increasing texting habit, or beating his wife six years ago, or Adam and Eve rebelling in Eden. These are all culpable forms of folly that are worthy of God’s judgment. God is not beholden to explain Himself to us in the particulars,… Read more »
Do you think sometimes we reap what we have not sown? Going back to your earlier post about STDs, I was wondering about an unsuspecting and faithful spouse who is given an STD by an adulterer. I have been inclined to view that as collateral damage, but do you think it is always a result of personal folly?
We can certainly reap what we have not sown in the sense of civic justice (eye for an eye). But we can’t extrapolate from the civic realm back to God. The civic magistrate cannot see as God sees, into the heart, and so the magistrate is limited, by God, to judge individually, and only in the realm of crimes. However, God can judge perfectly. He can judge all matters, criminal and moral. He can judge along family lines and representatively, rather than just individually. He can judge to the third and fourth generation. He can judge all mankind, as a… Read more »
Thank you, that makes sense. I remember the book about Bad things happening to good people, and being surprised that anyone thinks they are good.
Immoral actions are always foolish. Culpability depends a little on how one is trying to attribute it: the sin itself, or the situation. For the promiscuous woman above, she shares some responsibility for catching her infection (though her sin is one of fornication, not one of getting sick).
A person may not be responsible for a heinous act committed by another, but he may be guilty of sin in the way he got involved.
Galatians 6:7-9 (CEV) 7 You cannot fool God, so don’t make a fool of yourself! You will harvest what you plant. 8 If you follow your selfish desires, you will harvest destruction, but if you follow the Spirit, you will harvest eternal life. 9 Don’t get tired of helping others. You will be rewarded when the time is right, if you don’t give up. April, let’s start be agreeing that God says things better than any of us, Wilson included. Wilson is not saying “patriarchal submission” you are. In any case God says we reap what we sow. If we,… Read more »
I understand exactly what Doug Wilson was communicating in the offending passage of page 13 of Her Hand in Marriage. If I weren’t able to discover his meaning from the rest of the page surrounding the offending passage, I could easily have discovered it by reading his explanation in the very post on which we’re commenting. Nate Sparks, Rachel Held Evans, and now you are willfully misunderstanding him to make political hay. What you have done here: Written a substitute context for the offending quote (the paragraph that begins “Wilson is saying . . .”); passed off the meaning of… Read more »
I didn’t use the words “propriety of rape.” Wilson did. I’m “misunderstanding” Wilson based on the very specific words that he CHOSE to use. Words that have a very specific meaning. If that’s not what he meant, he shouldn’t have used those words. Newsflash: There is no such thing as “propriety of rape.” Because there is no context in which rape is ever appropriate or justified. There is no mental or moral gymnastics that can explain away putting “propriety” and “rape” together in that context or ANY context. And if it is true that Wilson doesn’t mean what those words… Read more »
April, we can’t have it both ways. I personally feel protective towards women in advanced pregnancy, but if they are fit enough to engage in polemics, we shouldn’t expect that they get tender treatment.
She retweeted a post! Nate Sparks was the one engaging in the polemics, not RHE. If Wilson had any balls, he would have addressed his rant to Nate.
But he doesn’t because he doesn’t want his fan club reading all the other things Nate had to say.
I’m out.
Kelsey seems to be assuming that this is RHE’s first rodeo and first poke at Wilson. It’s not. She established her agenda before she got pregnant. While feminism wants to claim strength, and equal stamina with men, we too often see them lash out, and then retreat to the safety and cloak of feminine weakness and fragility and sensitivity and fainting couches. I’m not sure that RHE needs friends like Kelsey to do that on her behalf, but it clearly manifests a double-standard.
Sorry, wrong.
Nate Sparks, as part of an omnibus polemic against the Gospel Coalition complementarians, linked to the page of Her Hand in Marriage, quoting the offending phrase “propriety of rape.”
Rachel added her own, considerably more inflammatory, gloss to the three words Nathan quoted: that Wilson says — present tense — that “unsubmissive women deserve to be raped.”
I guess every writer who fails to head off every possible misunderstanding of every phrase he’s ever put on a page deserves to be defamed.
And it’s us nasty old white patriarchs who used to hang rapists from the highest tree in town.
Tell me, is there ever a context in which rape is appropriate? At the risk of self-righteous heads exploding, we should cautiously face the limits of our language itself on this issue. In the narrow context of God’s permissive decrees, it is appropriate that folly reap what it has sown. In fact, it is appropriate that mankind suffer in all manner of ways in history, as a result of the Fall and the curse. Unless we suppose that a sovereign God is unjust in allowing a rape to ever happen in this fallen world, there must be a sense in… Read more »
I need a bit of theological clarification here. I come from a faith tradition that says God permits, but does not actively will, terrible consequences as a result of sin. If I choose to date a paroled rapist, God will probably not intervene to protect me from my folly. But God did not ordain my rape to teach me a lesson. Do we have a similar understanding here, or does sovereignty mean something different?
Yes, I have a similar understanding with jillybean about the distinctions of God’s will, whether active or passive. God’s sovereignty does not mean that we have access to God’s explanations or purposes in particular cases. We have access to God’s character, by way of natural and special revelation. We are called to trust God.
The disciples asked if a blind man, or his parents, had sinned to cause his blindness. Jesus didn’t correct their inference about God’s ways, but He did not support their presumption to think they knew the specifics.
“At the risk of self-righteous heads exploding”
That might not be such a bad thing. They actually might feel better afterward.
“Likelihood” is a much better word. I think we are having trouble with the word propriety. A woman who knowingly accompanies a well known rapist to a hotel room because he offers her a part in a movie may think: “I know that I am taking a chance here; there is a strong likelihood that this will turn out badly.” But it would never be accurate to say, “If I am dumb enough to do this, the proper (as in propriety) response to my conduct is that I get raped.”
If I were starting this discussion afresh, I wouldn’t have started with the phrase “tacitly agrees to the propriety…”
Still, read in context, you have to use a hermeneutic of the most extreme suspicion to arrive at RHE’s interpretation. Which is clearly not what Wilson meant.
Interesting, because I think his words were perfect. “Tacitly” is not spoken or implied, and propriety means, “conforming to conventionally accepted standards.”
It may not be our intention to create a culture where pedophilia is perceived as a valid lifestyle choice, but that is what we are doing, that is the direction we are heading in. We are tacitly agreeing to the propriety of evolving social mores.
Exactly!
Read it more proverbial. The lazy man is a brother to the destroyer (Pro 18:9).
“Doing business with the mafia” is a far more specific and different situation than what we’re discussing. What if a particular woman disagrees that God has called her to a husband to submit to for a particular time? Surely this is not considered a belief necessary for salvation?
Does she want to be protected from rape or not?
Isn’t it as simple as: “put a sweater on, it’s cold outside” ?
The problem for Kelsey’s (and RHE’s) argument is that Wilson nowhere says that he thinks rape is proprietary, or that he thinks a woman is asking for, or deserves, rape. Rather he says that the feminists thinks that rape is proprietary; not explicitly, but tacitly so. Kelsey and RHE may disagree that feminists think this way, but they can’t turn any of it to suggest that Wilson himself thinks rape is proprietary, or deserved, or asked for. Wilson was describing the feminist view of rape, not his own view. At worst, Wilson may be guilty of misdiagnosing the views of… Read more »
I know I am a bit dense on this point. Is the tacit argument something like this: “I as a woman have the right to express my sexuality whenever I like, wherever I like, in whatever fashion I like, and with whom I like. If I insist on exercising this right, sooner or later I may encounter a rapist. I accept that consequence as flowing from my right to unfettered sexuality.”
I see that jillybean already found my analogous statement of the tacit view above, so I won’t repeat it here.
How are you defining tacitly (implied?) and propriety (accepted behavior?)?
Because, to say a woman implies agreement (by her unsubmissive behavior) that rape is an acceptable behavior, is absolute craziness.
It would be like blaming a 13 year old girl because she’s tall and attractive for tacitly agreeing on the propriety of her own rape.
Yes, because height plus physical features and choosing to embrace a philosophy that argues against the God-given protections of women are very similar things indeed.
It’s utterly bewildering.
Not really, when you consider the whole picture. Sadly.
I meant generally.
But relative to the specific data series, you’re absolutely correct. Not anomalous at all.
James 4:11-13 11 Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister[a] or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it.12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor? Hey Slith’, I was wondering when you would surface again. Did think and pray about you though! Not that clarity matters to you as of yet, but anyway, Wight committed sins… Read more »
Ryan, you are out of your league again. You obviously have not learned much since the last blast of falsehoods. Stop pushing lies.
Just go with who you know me to be to you! Don’t listen to these other people saying mean things about me. They can’t possibly be true think about how nice I am to you. That’s all that matters. Hahahahahaha. Baaaaa. Baaaaaa.
Meds. Take em.
Ha! Beat me to it. Please leave the easy ones for me next time, thanks.
Ah! Is that how he gets you to so blindly follow him no matter how ridiculous he is?
Maybe better = “women who tacitly agree on the propriety of AVOIDING THE BEST PROTECTION AGAINST rape”
When people lie about you because you are following Christ and teaching others to do so, blessed are you. Al Mohler and Voddie Baucham are on that list. It makes me want to find out who Matt Chandler is, and it makes me want to buy some Mahaney and Piper books. Faithful warriors who have earned persecution for being faithful warriors.
On a separate topic, is it true that Rachel Held Evans has been appointed as a White House religious counsel?
She’s on some WH panel apparently (according to some post or the entry here.)
That’s got to be the most outlandish and hysterical thing I’ve ever heard RHE say. I’ve appreciated some of her criticisms of American conservative evangelicalism with regard to the Moral Majority and Christian war lust, but this is really out there.
What does Mrs Evans think should be done with false witnesses?
“tacitly agree on the propriety of rape” sounds kinda strong. How about “are wilfully complicit in a culture whose varieties of fornication will certainly include opportunites for rape”??? Or “tacitly or wilfully agree on the propriety of multiplying opportunities for rape”?? They don’t agree it’s proper. But they do agree on behaviors that make it more likely in some ways.
Something I want to point out, there are so called Christian men running about saying exactly what Wilson is being falsely accused of, and saying things much worse. So while I empathize with the distortion and false attack, I must point out that the men who run about saying things like “all women deserve to be raped” or “just punch her in the face,” as I read today, throw a horrific wrench in things. Women have heard these words, many times over, by men. So all that prior injustice, unfairness, emotion, often causes us to react negatively to anything that… Read more »
You have a very good point. And, for many women–even submissive women–the home can be a very dangerous place.
If I chose to drive my car instead of walking or taking the subway, am I “tacitly agree[ing] to the propriety” of being involved a serious accident? For that matter, if a woman places above her the masculine protection of a pedophile, is she tacitly agreeing to the propriety of abusing their children?
Oooooh. If a preacher marries a child molester to a woman and prays for the blessing of many children is he tacitly agreeing to the propriety of said children’s molestation?
Yes.
(Or was that a rhetorical question?)
If Shane likes his own post, is he tacitly agreeing that his comments lack ingenuity or originality?
“You can write with as many pastel adjectives as you like, and you will still find yourself in the same cattle car with me, being bundled off to the sensitivity camps.”
Word
This particular unsubmissive woman should stop doing theology. She is very bad at it.
When I was a young girl many eons ago, there were social structures and conventions in place to provide some protection against rape. Nothing, of course, protects a woman from random rape by a stranger who breaks into her house or car when she is alone. But colleges had single sex dorms and housemothers and curfews. Hotels had detectives. Well brought up girls did not date strangers. They did not go to men’s apartments, and they did not get drunk with men. I once traveled around Europe on my own without anything bad happening to me. Was this state of… Read more »
I think perhaps those arguing for biblical patriarchy would say that the society with your “healthy societal regulation” would be a broadly patriarchal one.
This is so amazing. You, Doug Wilson, are amazing. Your ability to lead people into believing you and taking your side no matter what you say is really impressive. I’m not being sarcastic. I am amazed. I am scared for you for your judgement day. May the Lord have mercy for how you use Him to lead people astray.
Is it too much to ask that men be taught to control themselves and maybe not rape women? Is that a feminist thought? I think it’s just a decent human thought. Given your thoughts on how women who submit to men in the proper way and they will be protected from rape…. how does that translate to those women who do everything in you rule book and do end up raped? How is that to make their men feel? We live in a fallen world. Rape happens. Murder happens. Preachers who mislead people and say dumb things happen. There is… Read more »
I don’t think rapists are ordinary men who simply have not recognized that they have a duty to control their sexuality; I don’t think most of them are teachable period. We might as well say that thieves should be taught not to steal, and liars should be taught not to lie. Of course they should, but it is never going to happen. I really don’t think that Wilson is saying submission will protect the individual woman from rape. The most submissive woman is sometimes alone in the house. But most women do routinely take precautions against rape. Whether you call… Read more »
Somewhat along the lines of this post, you might consider “SJWs Always Lie,” by Vox Day. While I quibble with some of it, it has the virtue of being outrageous and of offending the right people. And — make no mistake — that is the choice we face.
The enemy of my enemy may help me achieve certain tactical advantages, but if that enemy proves himself to be a despicable person (which I think Day does in his view of other races, at the minimum), fairly loud alarm bells ring in my head when someone quotes him approvingly. I’ve been impressed by Beale’s intelligence, but he consistently puts it to use in defending wickedness. I do think that those he fights are frequently despicable, but I don’t think his self-admitted tactic of stooping to their level is worthy or virtuous.
The only thing anyone ever needs to say about rape was said by Golda Meir: When asked to place a curfew on women to help end a series of rapes, Meir replied by stating, “But it is the men who are attacking the women. If there is to be a curfew, let the men stay at home.”
Because we know rapists observe curfews.
And after millennia of rape being illegal and frowned on by society, what needs to be done is that men be “taught” not to rape. Because they don’t know they’re not supposed to, and they don’t know how not to, but just one more education program will do the trick.
It boggles the mind that Golda Meir didn’t understand the idea of some people being incorrigible in brutality.
The misconceptions behind this school of thought simply boggle the mind. “Oh my goodness,” the Night Stalker says, “I had no idea that I was supposed to respect women–if only someone had told me before I committed all those rapes and murders.”
one can hardly call TGC christian
they basically teach that women lead and men submit…
Hilarious. Just hilarious.
I have
breaking plates and throwing tantrums is known as submission
a husband may listen to his wife but unless he does what she says he is not actually listening
please….
Yet a large contingent of commenters here are willing to call RHE just that.
No lumping in intended here, fellow commenter. :)
worshipping feminism does…
This Jezebel needs to be thoroughly crushed and discredited. A viper, blackwidow needs to be squashed by Providence.
Here is a comment I just left on the blog of the man Mr. Wilson refers to but doesn’t link to. In his most recent post, he doubles down: in a very literalistic and unforgiving way, he focuses on dictionary definitions of “tacit” and “propriety” and basically says this seals his case vs. Wilson. I figured I would concede some points to him, and basically pointed out how his interpretation of Mr. Wilson can still be shown to be completely wrong (uncharitable to say the least). I hope he’ll publish it, but I doubt he will. Here is what I… Read more »
Funny. One of the rules in “SJWs Always Lie” is that they always double down when confronted.
Crowhill – I thought that to. – Nathan
Crowhill and any others interested,
The comment I posted on the blog of the man D. Wilson refers to in his post (reproduced above) was not approved (I was personally informed of this after emailing him [we had talked via email before]).
+Nathan
Rick 20033, the point is actually pretty good. Folks are looking at dictionary meanings of the words rather than the vernacular or common use of them or to examine them in context. Jilly hit very close to the point on several of her comments. American society has fallen away from Biblical views resulting in the morass that we call today. Look around at TV shows which promote immoral behavior, sex with anyone anywhere not just with your wife and sex because you are in a position of power or want to seduce someone in a position of power to move… Read more »
Christians: If you are going to publicly call out another person, whether from the stage, pulpit, twitter or blog, I really do believe that a face to face (or at the very least a phone call) conversation is necessary. As Christians, calling out a wolf is important, but we need to be civil in our preparation to do so.
I apologize for breaking up the Doug WIlson lovefest here, but RHE is correct. Essentially, Mr. WIlson is speaking out of both sides of his mouth. On One hand, he says “Women don’t deserve to be raped” then contradicts himself by saying “If a woman rejects the protection of a man, well, she should expect to get raped”. It’s similar to the argument that women who go to bars alone or wear immodest clothing deserve it. There is no justification for rape. period. Also, there was quite a bit of rape in the OT (sometimes from God’s chosen people), and… Read more »
Acknowledging that a terrible consequence can ensue from risky behavior is not the same as approving of that consequence. A woman who gets drunk at a frat party does not deserve to be raped, but in this fallen world, she is running that risk. We can legitimately argue how much masculine protection a woman needs in order to be safe. We can discuss how much personal freedom a woman must give up in order not to become a victim of violent crime. But to demand that dangerous behavior should never encounter a lethal result is to argue, not against the… Read more »
That argument is similar to the “that girl is asking for it if she wears a miniskirt” argument that I have heard way to many times to mention. Wearing “slutty clothes” is in no way justification of rape. As well, there is also a difference between getting drunk at a frat party (which even in that example, someone getting drunk is still a victim if they are raped. This not similar to someone choosing to drive drunk is risking their lives) is not analogous because not only in our society is there any women alive who would refuse protection if… Read more »
Tony, I said in my earlier comment “A woman who gets drunk at a frat party does not deserve to be raped.” How much clearer could I make that? Rape is always evil and inexcusable. Going naked down the street does not justify rape. Raping a woman because she is drunk should count as an aggravating, not a mitigating, factor. There is nobody here who is arguing otherwise. My frustration lies with those who argue as if they are confusing what ought to be with what is. I don’t personally think a woman’s choice of clothing has much to do… Read more »
Thanks for the clarification……..in all fairness, your original comment was not as clear as this one. There is a big difference between “taking precautions” as you state in your second post and “If you don’t submit to men, you should expect to be raped” as DOug implies. That is what DOug WIlson, Backwardsly, is stating.
As far as I can tell, Doug is talking more about the effect on culture of the attitude of non-submission/non-protection, and less about an individual woman who is raped.
Even if that were the case (which it isn’t when you read other things he wrote), the premise if also flawed because there has always been rape, even during the good old days when men brought home the bacon and women knew there place. The idea that women being protected magically deals with rape is naive at best.
“On One hand, he says “Women don’t deserve to be raped” then contradicts himself by saying “If a woman rejects the protection of a man, well, she should expect to get raped”.”
Wilsons quote was about a woman rejecting the protection of all men, such a woman would object to a man stoping another man from raping her.
Ignoring the fact that there is no woman alive who rejects the protection of all men (basically white-stroking feminism-an ideology which i have disagreements with), especially in the case of someone attacking her, essentially, IF Doug Wilson actually believed that a women who did not “submit” to men’s protection did not deserve to be raped or held no responsibility in any way, then he would have no need to state what he did. With that quote, he IS making a correlation (albeit maybe a loose one in his mind) that women that spur the protection of men shouldn’t be shocked… Read more »
“Whenever someone sets himself to go against God’s design, horrible problems will always result.”
Tony, that is the rest of the Wilson’s quote. My question to you is, what is God’s design? My take on Wilson is he is addressing people, men and women, who reject the Lordship of Christ.
well, part of God’s design is that people don’t get raped. Another part of God’s design is that we do not justify evil or “call good evil and evil good”, but I assume you are talking about God’s design in regards to men and women’s positions. Yes, the Bible is clear that women should submit to men. However, you read all of, for example Eph. 5:15-33, men are commanded to submit to women and essentially, we are all called to submit to each other (especially in the community of believers). Doug shrinks the submission command to just encompass women-very convenient,… Read more »
“Ignoring the fact that there is no woman alive who rejects the protection of all men ”
There are some women who claim to reject the protection of all men, however disingenuously.
It is possible that the woman insiting on no masculine protection doesn’t actualy exist and Doug knows that she doesn’t exist. Therefore the women who are tacitly agreeing on propriety of rape don’t exist, and Doug was pointing out the falsity of insisting on no masculine protection.
There is no women in existence who insist on no masculine protection whatsoever in any and all situations. That woman only exists in Doug’s mind. If what you proposed is true, and that this was Doug’s point, then there was no point in actually writing that paragraph in his book. He could have saved an hour of his life by not writing something he knew wasn’t true.
If you are concerned about how Doug spends his time, he could save more time by not writing anything.
The point of writing about women that don’t exist is that women that do exist are trying to be the women that don’t.
The point (which you are missing) is that Doug Wilson did not write those comments because there are women out there who insist on not “having male protection” in any instance, because that woman does not exist, nor is there any woman that presents that idea. So obviously Doug Wilson is not just using logical assumptions to dismantle a specific philosophy because that philosophy that you claim Doug is trying to dismantle doesn’t exist.
“Doug Wilson is not just using logical assumptions to dismantle a specific philosophy because that philosophy that you claim Doug is trying to dismantle doesn’t exist.”
Dismanteling a philosophy that doesn’t exist is the sort of wild goose chase I expect Doug to go on.
Just because you don’t think he would do it doesn’t mean that we ignore the obvious fact that he is doing it…l
What is Doug obviously doing?
you stated that going on a wild goose chase on a philosophy or worldview that doesn’t exist isn’t (you wrote is, but I assume you mean isn’t because based on your other posts that would make no sense) isn’t something Doug would do. My point is that even if you don’t think he would, it’s pretty obvious that he is.
No I ment is, Doug is a philosophy major and a philosophical goose chase is a likely pitfall for him.
What he is not doing is saying women deserve to be raped which is what people are accusing him of.
First off, no philosopher (especially a “philosopher” like Douggie here who is giving more political/religious commentary than philosophy) typically critiques an idea, worldview or philosophy that no one holds. Either he knows this and pretends that there are women reject the protection of men to give credibility to his own assertions, knows nothing about feminism other than his own twisted interpretation, or is incredibly naive. As per my original comment, it’s quite clear that Doug is talking out of both sides of his mouth. He claims on one side that he does not believe that women who reject the protection… Read more »
Rachel Held Evans… so how long did she hold him?
More importantly… was it consensual?
Who is Rachel, and why is she still holding Evans?
Very few actual rapes occur on college campuses. About 99% of what is being called “rape” these days is consensual sexual activity that the woman later regrets, usually because the man either spurns them later, or turns out to be not quite the catch they first thought he was. A freshman girl goes to a frat party and has a few beers, and finds herself being chatted up by the quarterback of the college football team. She knows little about sports, and doesn’t follow the team, but she does know that the QB of the college team is a BMOC… Read more »
Where are the SJWs? Isn’t this victim blaming?
(I don’t know where Norris gets his stats on college rape, but he sure gives a very believable example of how a foolish sexual encounter can quickly escalate to rape charge the next day.)
You’ve been dissed by Rachel Evans.
Wear it with pride. She is a post-Christian writer, peddling her shallow, fluffy, “women of valor” nonsense to other women who are like herself, engaging in a delayed adolescent rebellion against their parents’ faith.