While some might wonder why I write so much about life between the sexes, you have to admit that when your culture is a teeny kayak on the swirling lip of a huge sexual maelstrom, it is hard not to. Not only does a new scandal break every day or so, but in response to each new scandal, armies of people then write enormous volumes of nonsense about it. It is like living in the El Dorado of material suitable for satire.
And so shortly before the Al Franken news broke, The New York Times published a piece by an editor named Katelyn Beaty, an editor for Christianity Today. In the course of her piece, she said this:
“The Pence rule arises from a broken view of the sexes: Men are lustful beasts that must be contained, while women are objects of desire that must be hidden away. Offering the Pence rule as a solution to male predation is like saying, ‘I can’t meet with you one on one, otherwise I might eventually assault you.’ If that’s the case, we have far deeper problems around men and power than any personal conduct rule can solve.”
Let us approach this two ways. The first is to lean in to Beaty’s simplistic reduction, and point out that even on her own terms, the Pence rule is starting to appear more and more sensible. What has it been about the behavior of powerful and well-situated males over, say, the last month, that has given Beaty the urge to give gents such a strong vote of confidence? Furthermore, how many women who go to college today will be sexually assaulted over the course of their four years? What statistic is the received wisdom? Twenty-five percent? If you believe that statistic, then stop yapping about the Pence Rule. Embrace the Pence Rule—for the same reason that airlines have you buckle up. Just simple risk management, right?
If we actually do live in a rape culture, as some people incessantly tell us, then the Pence Rule makes perfectly good sense. If we don’t, then it is not the same urgent necessity, but that means we should stop claiming that we do in fact live in a rape culture. Do not manufacture crises in order to get funding for the Women’s Center on campus, and then expect us all to forget the statistics you touted once the building is complete. Or once the election is over.
But there is a second way to reply to Beaty’s reductionism. It is to deny her supposition. She says “if that is the case.” But the problem is that it isn’t the case.
She says that refusal to meet with a woman one-on-one is tantamount to saying that you can’t because it creates too great a temptation to assault the good lady. But there are a host of other reasons why a gentleman might decline to meet with a woman one-on-one. It might be to guard against false allegations against him, by that woman or by third parties—whether it is an investigative reporter or just the town gossip. It might be to protect against the appearance of impropriety, giving no room for jealousy to arise in his marriage. It might be to guard against actual impropriety. It might be to keep a distance so that temptations to impropriety don’t ever arise. It protects against sexual aggressiveness from the other direction. Or finally, maybe Pence doesn’t meet with women one-on-one in order to avoid all those regrettable micro-aggressions.
Think of it this way. Do you think that Roy Moore now wishes he had followed some variant of the Pence Rule faithfully? If he is guilty of the alleged offenses, following the rule would have protected him from immorality. If he is not guilty of them, following the rule would have protected him from these accusations.
Or fast forward thirty years. Suppose Roy Moore was at a nice restaurant with some cute intern, and he was explaining to her how a bill becomes a law. If a photographer from the Post showed up, camera at the ready, would he ask Moore’s permission before taking the shot? “Because, after all, we professionals know that this is probably just business. We at the Post do not wish in any way to hinder the advancement of women . . .” The way some people expect us to not be able to see through their protestations could make a cat laugh.
Anybody or any church that pays money to Christianity Today is giving money to the very people undermining the church’s efforts at cultural reform.
I don’t disagree. But, could you elaborate on what you mean?
CT is hardly christian
How are males to hire females in this environment of “always believe the allegation”? That aside…Pence ought to hold a press conference lauding the beauty and fair qualities of virtuous women he knows (just to turn the knife in the side of feminists and Islamic nations overseas). How he takes his role as family head seriously enough to guard against being Herman Cain-ed or Roy Moore-d or Clarence Thomas-ed, or Ray Bork-ed, etc. As with the Ray Rice case, we have feminists at once claiming A) equality between men and women and B) victim-hood when they are treated without the… Read more »
Just FWIW Robert Bork’s situation had nothing to do with sexual harassment. That was just a case of absurdly and dishonestly demagoguing his views on relevant matters. Clarence Thomas was the first major public figure for whom the attempt was made to ruin his career through sexual harassment allegations.
Yep. Bork was simply a direct attack on a man’s character based on his belief system: Within 45 minutes of Bork’s nomination to the Court, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork in a nationally televised speech, declaring: Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, and schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the… Read more »
Ted and the other Kennedys could’ve benefitted immensely from the Pence rule. If I were a politician, I couldn’t listen to more than about a minute of Ted before I said something about Wiliam Kennedy Smith, Chappaquiddick or JFK’s multiple affairs. Talk about a family known for treating women badly…
So could their old man Joe. Apparently the girls couldn’t safely invite college friends home for vacations. It’s not an excuse, but it is no wonder the Kennedy men believed that wealth and political power entitled them to sex with whomever they pleased.
Rose was considered saintly for enduring her husband’s adulteries. I remember when a perfect Catholic wife and mother simply looked the other way, then went to Paris to do some serious revenge spending. I wonder when that changed so that a woman who tolerates adultery is now looked on with disfavor.
Apropos of all this, the irony is that Joe Biden was one of the major players in the “Borking” of Bork.
It’s no irony. And a major factor for why I have a violent reaction every time my liberal friends and coworkers wax poetic about grandfatherly Joe.
He has done great wickedness, knowingly. I don’t find him cuddly at all.
What are you thinking of in particular, Ian?
Jill: google “creepy joe biden” on youtube
Ginny, thank you for praying for my daughter; her tests came back fine
Jill, so glad to hear that
Biden likes to stand behind women and girls and put his hands on them while putting his face next to their ears. Or possibly while smelling their hair, it’s kind of difficult to tell.
He does this at public functions so there are myriad pictures of women looking really uncomfortable which him hanging over their shoulders.
Not cuddly at all, but I’m not sure why it’s “no irony.”
I have read that Bork didn’t get as much Christian support as he might have because at the time he was an atheist, He became a Catholic before he died. Even now, would an atheist have difficulty getting confirmed to the Court?
Ron, If I were a hiring manager I would never hire a pretty woman under any circumstances I can imagine. “Hags and Gorgons only” would be my firm rule. Men nowadays simply do not follow the Pence rule. If there is a pretty woman in the office, large numbers of men create pretexts all day long for stopping by her cubicle for some face time. No matter how skilled she is, she simply cannot work with that going on all day. And far too many of the men aren’t working because they’re waiting next in line to chat her up.… Read more »
just hire men, they need the jobs…
You can always hire the “motherly” type. That is, someone significantly older than you, who keeps the candy jar stocked and is the one to buy the cards for people’s weddings and deaths in family and all that, but who you will never be accused of cheating with.
Why are you hiring females?
Males already have a disadvantage at college and all major firms….
so many qualified men who would do a better job then entitled feminist women
Bdash, are you comfortable with men teaching kindergarten and primary grades? Are you entirely comfortable with male nurses caring for your wife?
Yes
are you against male doctors and teachers now?!!
Not entirely. I prefer that nurses who handle me in personal ways be women, and I would not want a male GYN. Otherwise I don’t really care. I don’t think, based on years of observation, that men are generally as effective as women in teaching very young children. This is partly based on differing levels of nurturance when that is a really essential quality, and is partly based on differences in male and female ability to multi-task and supervise 25 young children simultaneously. I have noticed that women are often much quicker to apprehend a hidden danger (i,e, is that… Read more »
I’m a male gynecologist and your comment offends me. How do you know that I would not be more skillful than a woman, more gentle and more understanding. In fact, women gynecologist can be more simissive to their patients and get away with it but women are offended if a man treats them that way. A male gynecologist has to actually be more sensitive to keep his patients happy. I’m retired, but I saw a lot of female gynecologist mistreat their patients in ways I never saw a male doctor do. So if you can specify an woman for a… Read more »
Hi Paul, I do entirely see your point and I can see how my comment sounded offensive. For me, it is a personal preference that isn’t based on a belief that one is better than the other. It is just what I am used to. If my HMO assigned me to a male gynecologist, I am sure I would cope with it just fine!
Exactly. I’ve had male obstetricians and i was okay with it. But I’m just more comfortable with a woman PCP and always will be. It is no slight on men, it is a preference and one I believe to be valid.
aah women pilots, with husbands sitting at home caring for the kids while they work
how beautiful and Godly!
and then the Christians have the audacity to rail against gay marriage…
But Paul didn’t say that the women pilots had children or were even married. Perhaps they gave up marriage and children in order to devote themselves to being astronauts.
what kind of unmarried childless astronaut is giving birth to a baby and meeting an OB/GYN
Bdash, even unmarried lady astronauts need to consult gynecologists from time to time, And he said he met some of them because he was ex-military,
yes , women pretending to be men.
I wonder how many men were denied jobs top make room for these quota women
Bdash, you told me you thought Margaret Thatcher was an excellent prime minister. Could it be argued that she was taking a job away from a man? Do you think she was submissive to Dennis at home while assertive on the job? If she was submissive to him at home, why wouldn’t be possible for other women to have responsible careers where they wield authority yet be submissive at home?
Dennis was not a hose husband
Thatcher was against the idea that male and female roles in the home should be gender neutral- she has given speeches on it…
not like the modern christian women who go around trying to gender neutralize everything.
it baffles me that you think a wife trying to be a man in her own way is being a good Godly wife and an excellent helpmeet….
Yes she was a Good Prime Minister.
I was not accessing her personal life choices.
I was accessing her policy and other skills.
It is ridiculous for you to be offended because a woman doesn’t want a male GYN.
You make good points when you say that a male GYN would have to be more sensitive than a female GYN, but I question how sensitive you personally are if you can’t understand why a woman might not want a strange man poking around her genitalia, and then get offended when she expresses her preference publicly.
Arwenb, Why is a strange woman “poking around” not something you’d mind? I’m assuming any context outside a medical procedure you very much would mind.
Must be another one of those differences between men and women. Any context where I’d mind being touched, another man being the one doing the touching is hardly going to make me feel better about it.
then you must not get offended if men do not want female pilots, doctors, surgeons or politicians….
if women get exceptions, so should men
Bdash, as Jane pointed out, some of these situations are not analogous. Both men and women are usually allowed by their health insurance companies to select a male or female doctor. You are totally free to decline seeing a woman (or a man) urologist or proctologist, You are free to decide that you want only male lawyers (unless you’re on legal aid) although you can’t demand a male judge (but neither can women). All these choices are probably made with a view to your comfort level as you discuss things you find very personal. This doesn’t apply to an airline… Read more »
The difference between doctors and airline pilots is that it is a personal decision which doctor you see, and everyone chooses their doctor based on some mix of personal factors. With an airline pilot, you’re paying for the flight and getting to decide who flies the plane is not part of the package. Medical care is a personal service and you should be allowed to decide who you want doing it, on any basis you choose (assuming the person is authorized to carry it out.) Getting on a plane is not a personal service in the same sense. Now if… Read more »
yes yes, funny how there are a myriad oF justifications as to why females should discriminate against men….
yet if any were said in reverse MISOGYNIST!
it is always very revealing of the real intentions of feminists
Actually, my husband and sons prefer a male doctor and I think that’s quite appropriate. Thanks for arguing with the me inside your own head and making up my responses, though, it’s kind of fun to watch.
bdash does offer the option of arguing both sides for you, kind of convenient, saves time and it’s always a fun surprise to find out what you think after the fact.
is that also from the Gospel of Sheryl Sandberg and Gloria Steinem?
thanks for revealing that you think a male doctor cannot perform on a female body…
you are the one who were trying to justify female misandry
Did you read what I said, Bdash? In all the examples I gave, both men and women are equally free to discriminate. Can you name a plausible example of a business transaction in which a woman may discriminate but a man can’t?
yes
you seem to think it is fine for females to discriminate based on their likes
but if a man wants a male pilot he has to fly Saudi airlines ( fyi like 95% of pilots are male)
and a man that wants males doing things should be mocked at
hilarious double standard
bdash,
This logic is no different than black or female special interest groups who lobby for special treatment for themselves because of other unrelated hardships. Using this argument validates their rationale and cements the argument as only being about “who is more privileged”. I don’t merely think feminists wrong about the current societal hierarchy. I think them wrong about the base premise of their methods.
if you are a christian, you obviously believe men have an obligation to provide for the family and protect.
just hire males.
using your logic christian leaders should ensure women are on the frontlines so everything is equal and fair so as to invalidate the feminists…
“if you are a christian, you obviously believe men have an obligation to provide for the family and protect.” It does not rationally follow that no women will have to work. Not all women have a man or a man capable of doing so. “using your logic christian leaders should ensure women are on the frontlines so everything is equal and fair so as to invalidate the feminists…” Which logic is this? I said nothing that resembles this. I merely pointed out that men being “disadvantaged” as a reason to hand them a job is an SJW argument. Putting women… Read more »
bdash is not subtle in his arguments but I think a discussion can be had about whether we should preferentially hire men. Men need to work. Some women need to work. Some want to avoid raising their kids. Some do both but may not give enough time for their kids, especially when they are young.
I am happy with women in most jobs. But I think that having half the workers being women shows that society is getting it wrong.
I don’t disagree with your overall sense of where demographics should be. I just don’t think it wise to use broad demographics to determine individual decisions. That men, generally, should be the ones working does not tell you whether or not any specific man should get a specific job over a woman.
I agree with you and Bethyada
I seem to remember, Bethyada, that you oppose anti-discrimination laws in general. Without there being such laws, you would be more free to hire the deserving husband supporting a wife and child, or you would be free to hire the struggling single mother. I think people actually can do that pretty easily but they have to mask their intentions to evade the law.
it is the argument, you want women to be fairly considered for all jobs
so all positions need to be open to women, elders, deacons, leadership positions, and the military…
I always find it hilarious when women complain about being abused and harassed after they invaded a male organisation…
The civilian (or military) workplace doesn’t tell us anything about what the organization of a church should look like. Not allowing women to be elders is a religious decision which affects only those women who belong to a particular denomination. Not allowing women to be plumbers or astronauts would be a government decision which could potentially affect all women with aspirations beyond homemaking. I have no problem with the Catholic church telling me I can’t be a priest. If I don’t like it, I can vote with my feet and join the Episcopalians. I would have a huge problem if… Read more »
but you would have no sound biblical case to back your “huge problem”
to pretend church life won’t influence civilian life is naive….
a woman who runs a billion dollar firm or fights against enemies on the front lines is never going to submit to her husband let alone actually be a helpmeet to her husband….
so naive
I need a Biblical rationale when I deal with a church organization, In the secular workplace, however, I only need the law of the land.
right so your biblical principles have no effect in the secular world?
If the law of the land mandated that women work and men be house husbands would you follow?
If the law o the land mandated abortion after 2 children would you follow?
I spent half my working life in Canada, and when I came to work in California, I was astonished by the excessive friendliness of the American workplace. To my Canadian eyes, there was far too much standing around chatting, looking at photos, sharing recipes, telling jokes, flirting, bringing food for endless potlucks, and hitting workers up for money to buy shower presents for people they barely knew. And this was pre-cellphone and pre-Facebook. I think a lot of problems can be remedied by a strong work ethic and by clear expectations of workplace behavior. Like you don’t wander around chatting… Read more »
Yeah, and imagine what Japanese must think when they come here and work.
PC/SJW alert: This may be offensive. I’ve also found that my demographic (so-called “privileged” white males) don’t get away with as much of this in some places. In a former job, I found myself doing the work of others while they socialized. I learned more about women’s hairstyles and hygiene than I ever wanted to know (that is, when my headphones weren’t on). And many of the big talkers got more awards and promotions than the real workers.
I hear you. I had the experience of being told to slow down my pace while I was working in a defense contracting plant. It was causing discontent among fellow workers. Nice to know your defense dollars were going to people who resent working quickly!
Jill, It’s the end result of what I refer to as the “conveyor belt culture”. Right from elementary school, the way we’ve structured our institutions discourages being proactive and taking personal initiative in what you do. School is something that happens to you. You ‘re given a test. You complete the test. They give you a grade. Then, regardless of how you did on that test, the outcome is the same. You move on to the next lesson. Your personal performance doesn’t alter your experience in life for the first 16-18 years. By that time, lazy ambivalence towards productive activities… Read more »
I can see how that would be a problem, and I am sure it characterizes a lot of education in many places. Because we knew how to game the system, we had our daughter in very rigorously academic gifted schools, followed by seven years of performing arts training from middle school through high school. She carried a full load of academics in the mornings beginning at 6 AM through noon, then had voice, dance, and drama from noon to 6 PM. It was exhausting, and she was chronically sick. She would be falling asleep all through the four hours of… Read more »
“I think one of the problems of the American workplace is that people tend to think of their workplace as their number one area for making friendships and socializing.”
Well, we’ve given up churches as a social fabric. Our marriages are based on the idea that if you don’t make me happy every day I can leave you, which discourages honesty if it’s not something your spouse wants to hear. Where else are we going to make friends?
I think the workplace can be good for making friends, although I have seen its downside when friends fall out or find themselves competing for the same promotion. I think every worker’s attitude should be helpful and friendly. But I think that most socializing should not take place on the employer’s time. I was shocked on my arrival to see people wasting several hours a day wasting time, visiting from desk to desk, and doing other things that a Canadian employer probably wouldn’t tolerate.
LOL, a person who thinks canadians are hard workers….
I can’t stop laughing
Oh yeah. Almost anything related to the government is like that–whether contracting or working directly. The experience I was talking about falls in the same category.
Interestingly, I’ve never seen this dynamic in male-dominated industries, like the oil field.
To show what a fossil I am, I will now recall a few moments from the 1960s when sexist white male patriarchal oppressors warned everybody that 1) the “women’s liberation movement” (remember that antiquated phrase?) would lead to women getting attacked a lot, and 2) the “sexual revolution” would lead to trashy morals everywhere including women getting attacked a lot.
There. Now I’m done remembering that. Now we can resume entertaining the stereotype that all those old fundies had IQs way to left end of the bell curve.
Steve Steve Steve when will you ever learn. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the sexual revolution or the idea that women make themselves sexually available at the drop of the hat to any man who sufficiently interests them.
Now go to your room and write “I will not connect sexual mores of women with sexual expectations of men” 100 times.
Any idea of where one could find such statements? I’m not doubting you. It would be useful information for logical argument on blogs, etc.
OKR, That would be seriously tough to find. The mid 1960s were before the era of cassette tapes. I honestly don’t know how you’d go about trying to find stuff like that. My recollections come from sermons in my childhood. This was before most colleges were co-ed, and I recall that when the debate about co-ed dorms arose, just about everybody knew that this was just a gambit for unrestrained sex. When the military began to be integrated, it was commonly warned that problems would occur. Well, here we are 50 years later. Unrestrained sex turned into really unrestrained sex.… Read more »
Steve, I supposed it would be difficult to find. I would think there would be some printed media such as newsletters or typewritten letters. [I remember my dad doing mimeograph church bulletins/newsletters.] Of course, I would strongly expect there to be books expressing these concerns. As to audio, I’m not certain when cassette recorders were readily available but there was reel-to-reel recorders (but how would you play one today?). And I remember running the projector at our church for “videos”. I remember some from the late 1960s or early 1970s from Francis Schaeffer. From memory, these warnings sound like something… Read more »
and the destruction of your civilization
Usurping and eliminating Patriarchy tends to lead to weakness and the death of a society, as we are seeing.
From the main post:
Ah! But don’t you see that suggesting that women might be able to mitigate risk of sexual assault is tantamount to victim blaming? It’s all perfectly logical because… well, because shut up, misogynist.
;-)
My caption for the photo would be:
“Franken for Prison 2020”
Let’s make yard signs!????
“Griping Groper is progressive perv patriarch” would work too!????
Franken and Hillary sharing a cell in a co-ed, trans-friendly prison because gender is a myth…or something. They can plan for the 2024 election and Hillary can text their ideas on her contraband, unsecured phone.
This plan needs some “Russians”.
Da?????
I’m not going to lie. There was something actually kind of rather disappointing about this post. Not the content. The content was 100 percent correct. I’m talking about the title. I was a tad disappointed that Doug opted for a little more traditional, heady opinion piece headline, instead of coming up with some clever and creative phrase or pun to convey the same point.
“Progressives Grope for a Response”?
????
“Failed Leftist Social Policy is Coming to a Climax”
“It’s Time to be Moore Frank(en) About the Pence Rule”
I’m not sure if that’s clever or something that would cause others to throw rotten tomatoes, though.
I think in this case I’m glad he opted for clearly displaying the divine dramatic irony of the situation, over being clever. I like the clever stuff, too, but in this case the headline says something really profound that needed to be said.
2 Kings 19:24
25 “‘Have you not heard?
Long ago I ordained it.
In days of old I planned it;
now I have brought it to pass,
that you have turned fortified cities
into piles of stone.
26 Their people, drained of power, are dismayed and put to shame.
They are like plants in the field,
like tender green shoots,
like grass sprouting on the roof,
scorched before it grows up.
Is there a difference between the town gossip and the investigative reporter? Hmmm.
Why yes, I do believe that the most obvious difference is that the genuine investigative reporter is a rarely seen, near extinct species, whereas town gossips are flourishing; even to the point that the “mainstream media” can now rightly be designated as their natural habitat.
One gets paid?
“Oh God, everything’s on fire! What do we do?”
KB: “Put it out!”
“With what?”
KB: “Here, let’s smother it with this kerosene!”
I think the Pence Fence is more of a guideline than a protocol. Not having meals in the evening with a female (when no one else is there ) is a lot stricter that never being with a female alone. I meet with females from time to time for valid reasons, not always alone but it can be difficult. So I might find a very public place for coffee when everyone else is around. I meet with my boss in her office, though the secretary is often next door. I need to meet with juniors on a regular basis as… Read more »
“Jesus talked to the woman by the well which would appear mildly scandalous.”
True, but he was Jesus. A man who has fallen into sexual sins in the past (and is still fighting urges) shouldn’t directly minister to prostitutes just because Jesus did.
I agree it can be a guideline for some but a strict rule for others–depending on the person and situation.
It can be a very foolish thing to do, William Gladstone, the Victorian era prime minister of England, caused all kinds of scandal because of his taking to the streets of London at night to counsel prostitutes., There are times to leave this kind of rescue work to nuns or deaconesses or at least husband and wife teams,
“True, but he was Jesus. ”
This has always been my first thought to “WWJD” marketed items. What Jesus would do is very rarely what I should do. He has greater authority in triplicate. His Godhood, his perfection as a human, and his supreme competence all mean I would be greatly foolish for blindly assuming I can make the same choices he would in any given situation. Even in more terrestrial terms, I’m not Tom Brady. If I’m throwing a football I *can’t* “do what he would do”, I don’t have the ability.
none of this would be an issue if women were interested in being women and helpmeets to their husbands.
but women want to act like men and compete with men…
guess what
it does not work
In my days in a business office, one of the roles of junior executives was to be the third person when men needed to see women colleagues or clients socially. Straight out of MBA school, they had nice new suits and beautiful manners. It was widely joked that this chaperonage was all they were good for to begin with!
Beaty’s piece here. A couple of concern are that it is a tad nacissitic—what matters most in evaluating the Pence Fence is how I as a woman feel—and Beaty really does not understand men. Last year, a ministry leader in the Chicago suburbs asked if I would join his organization’s board. I agreed to meet him at a popular breakfast spot to learn more. Upon arriving, I scanned the crowd to find the man who matched the website photo — and another man was sitting next to him. Immediately, I knew what was going on. Both men were warm and… Read more »
It sounds like the bag was in the room when she was hurt, and she was asking him to carry it for her as they left and he wouldn’t even walk in far enough to do that. Which, I think, even if you intend to obey “the rule” to the letter, is exactly the kind of situation where you have to break it. It’s a donkey in a ditch situation, where a real need trumps an otherwise good and proper standard every time. Yes, she could have called the porter but I don’t care what’s in his past, this is… Read more »
Thanks Jane. I read it as carrying it to her room and no further. But you’re right.
Though the problem isn’t with the rule as Beaty plays it, it is a clueless guy not understanding how it works.
He could do even better by asking another woman in the party to accompany them, and remain with the injured lady to help her make comfortable after he left.
I once pitched a faint at work due to a migraine, and the men I collapsed in front of left me lying on the rug while they ran to get a female senior vice president out of a meeting, I don’t think she was terribly impressed by them!
Assuming any such women existed, yes. But if the donkey really was in the ditch and he was the most reasonable person around to act, her immediate needs trump a “safety” rule in a situation where any unsafety is highly unlikely anyway.
“yet, I got the feel bads! There is so much she does not know about the situation.” What she knows or doesn’t know is irrelevant. All that ever matters is how she FEELS. That should be abundantly clear by now. “One wonders what he thought was going to happen.” He may have feared a false sexual misconduct accusation. It wouldn’t be the first time it happened. And it’s probably the reason women are less likely to receive CPR when in cardiac arrest. http://www.wisconsingazette.com/lifestyle/study-women-less-likely-to-get-cpr-from-bystanders-more/article_a91fc0cc-ca37-11e7-95c6-e760c74cae60.html So, the next time a woman dies because she didn’t receive CPR in time, thank feminists, and… Read more »
A very wise man wrote some time ago that “Men lust and women lust to be lusted after.” I have observed the veracity of this for most of my 69 years. If controlled properly one has a good fire for cooking and warmth. Carelessness, however can lead to a tragic forest fire.
A different formulation: Men desire women. Women desire the desire of men.
The point is that “toxic ” masculinity feminity is merely human nature post fall.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/11/16/married-science-teacher-22-arrested-for-sex-romp-with-teen-boy-student.html
Amuses me about how Christian do not talk about toxic feminininity , of females sinning when so much of this is happening.
makes it clear that capitulating to women is the clear goal of Churches
How much you want to bet she didn’t have a strong father figure giving her love and care and acceptance and self-worth and value? Yes, partial credit given. Churches have a tendency to blame the men-folk instead of directly charging females with the direction of society.
Guys are an easy target. Eventually, ladies don’t enjoy the role of helper and start to pile on…then they take over the church to keep the men-folk castrated and alienated
Her husband will be told to servant lead and stick with her and do her dishes and look after the home for her to show a servant heart ( remember, doing things God commanded men to do-protecting, providing, leading is not servanthood-only being a helpmeet and a worker at home is) while she sleeps with other men.
funny how when the Genders are reversed complementarians tell women to leave immediately
Having actually counseled a female who discovered infidelity (and helping her conscience see that the marriage was not salvageable) I strongly disagree. In the reverse, I don’t comprehend how women can ever trust a male who is sexually contacting female minors. Forgiveness is appropriate, but doesn’t mitigate consequences. The reason I discussed the fatherlessness that she likely grew up with is that females without strong father relationships tend to act out with God given assets, like their appearance, to fill the void. Perhaps this teachers husband wasn’t the best husband, perhaps a thousand scenarios. She reacted to the situation inappropriately… Read more »
Bdash, do you think a wife has a duty to stay with an adulterous husband? What if he is corrupting the children by bringing the mistress into the home? What if he is infecting his wife with STDs? Even then?
Rather importantly, it begs the question how he interprets Matthew 19:9, which is just one of a variety of verses to specifically make a divorce exception for unfaithfulness.
as long as men are expected to do it
YES
bdash
Why are social expectations of humans relevant to a moral question of Biblical duty?
Justin, there’s no one here to support what bdash is condemning. It would be ungracious to ask him to do both simultaneously. He should find somewhere else to rail against it.
I tried to reason with bdash in another post thread only to be called a tranny and feminist….which was hilarious on one side, massively offensive on the other. Not entirely sure where he (assuming a “he”) is coming from, but there are less dogmatic ways to make your point.
you did not try to reason
your case was from Sheryl Sandbergs mouth and not from the bible….
a man who acts like a woman is a tranny and a feminist….
Thanks for reinforcing my point…which is you have no clue as to who those you ridicule are, your tactic is to reinterpret their stance to fit your dogma.
u are unaware of your own words….
u said male and female roles do not matter and are irrelevant, that is Sheryl Sandberg 101
bdash: “u said male and female roles do not matter and are irrelevant,…”
You have me confused with someone else, never said nor suggested that…God made male and female distinct, and for good reason that doesn’t take a genius to figure out. Maybe what you read [into] a prior comment is that society is saying male and female roles do not matter, of which I soundly disagree, only a blind fool would make such an assertion.
“Christian’s have bigger fish to fry than picking nits on peoples personal marital roles”
that was u
roles obviously do not matter
a man can happily pretend he is the wife to show what an excellent servant leader he is ( cause in our age ,protecting, providing, leading is not serving)
bdash: “Christian’s have bigger fish to fry than picking nits on peoples personal marital roles”…that was u…roles obviously do not matter”
Don’t misinterpret…that was stated in context of home/work situation (i.e. one size does not fit all), and how that relates to the divison of work in the home that plays to ones strengths, it was not specific gender (sex) roles as defined in the Bible.
Gotta hand it to you though, you are persistent in this quest…a man’s gotta have something that gets him out of bed each morning.
They are the same thing
A man who chooses to be a homemaker and rely on his wife for provision is no different to
a man who wears a dress
or a transexual
you said that roles home/work do not matter- it does not matter who works and who is the homemaker
that literally means you do not believe in gender roles…
your constant denial of wicked theology is hilarious
as I said before
find me the male homemaker house husband in the bible that was praised by God or the bible and being an excellent man
then you have a case
if not
your nonsense is from the Gospel of Sheryl Sandberg and Gloria Steinem
because it appears to be unequally applied….
women get to follow the culture, men have to follow rules of the bible
Find me an actual quote of any Christian teacher, EVER, who has told men to do anything for their wives “while she sleeps with other men.”
Jane, I presume you don’t count things like (1) call the elders (2) call the STD clinic for a screen for both parties (3) tell her psychiatrist she is off her meds again!
Well, yes, but the point was bdash’s choice of words implied (quite deliberately I’m sure) that the sleeping with other men would be condoned until such time as the man did everything he was counseled to do. If he can find me one Christian teacher anyone has ever heard of who actually said that, as in an actual quote with an actual cite, not bdash’s creative paraphrases, I’m absolutely certain he can’t find two.
do you attend a complementarian church?
if you did it would be obvious
Which when translated means, “I can’t give you any actual quotes.” Thanks for clarifying.
i did below
in your own bible
That wasn’t a quote with a cite. Do you know what “quote” and “cite” mean?
any complementarian pastor….
men are taught to do everything for their wives so they can go to work and submit to other men ( this is new teaching btw, for 6000 years this was not the norm- women were taught to help their husbands)
cheating with them is not that big a jump once you submit to them
but you could look at the biblical example
as for a specific one
God himsellf
with Hosea
I don’t see that, Bdash. I have worked for men and women bosses in equal numbers and I don’t see the kind of submission one gives to a boss leading to sexual submission. The submission one gives a supervisor is task-related; it recognizes the supervisor’s right to assign the work and evaluate how well it has been done. It has nothing to do with the kind of submissive relationship a woman might have her with her husband. A healthy workplace relationship between a superior and a woman employee focuses on the work. He does not concern himself with her thoughts… Read more »
yes you submit to your boss… women just prefer to submit to other men and not their husbands and they must be commended for it. sending women on mass to the worforce because their husbands do not make enough money to then compete with jobs their husbands have and other men need is the nuttiest solution ever…. it has not worked and incomes have not risen ( real) since this nonsense idea. yes you are right, poor people have 2 people working- why, cause their husbands were lazy and did not work hard enough in fact in most cultures the… Read more »
I hope she will be in a prison cell where there will be no need for her husband to do her dishes.
I know
most modern Christian women barely no the basics of running a home.
Its quite easy to determine whether a woman is Godly or not.
The more she expects her husband to do hr homemaking the lazier she is… definitely won’t send my daughters to learn much from her…..
and if the husband ever complains to me about it- you made the choice, live with it.
know… lol
bdash wrote:
Other than the extra “in” in feminininity, Wilson talks about it regularly. Does bdash think Wilson isn’t a Christian?
bdash wrote:
Flippant remarks like this are a sure way for bdash to destroy any credibility he might have left. Besides, it just makes him seem bitter.
Wilson talks about lots of things
Wilson is not in the majority of Christians
the majority of Christians have a disdain for anything male, masculine or the idea that men are different to women .
it is weak and seen as weak
not a single sermon about women in complementarian churches talks about femninism, and sin- think Chandler, TGC, Challies, Keller
it is all about tip toeing around it so as to not offend.
any ideas about caring for the home will always be found in the sermon for men!
bdash wrote:
If Wilson is an exception, and many folks here agree with Wilson, then perhaps bdash needs to be using far more qualifications than he has been using so far. As it is, he simply comes across as the male equivalent of MeMe.
Please let me be clear…I don’t think that Pence is going to make the speech I suggested about the beauty and brilliance of females and how he wants to lead by example, etc. He SHOULD. He should be that character in the story. I doubt that he is. Wouldn’t be surprised if his story-line ran more like Hastert’s, giving him a new set of motivations for the Pence Rule (which would be skewered anew at a later date).
Has anyone ever gone to the bank to withdraw cash? Well, I have. And every time, without fail, the teller counts the cash in front of me. Twenty-forty-sixty-eighty-one, twenty-forty-sixty-eighty, two. It’s almost like they don’t trust themselves to just hand me the money and not lie about it. Like bank tellers are all pickpockets that will steal from me at the first opportunity. And just think of all the time wasted by that counting. Not just their time, they get paid for it. But wasting my time? I must have lost nearly half an hour of my life by now… Read more »
I had a friend who was fired from a teller job for forgetting to lock her drawer before leaving in the evening. (She knew that was the rule, she accepts that she deserved the consequence.) But that’s soooo unfair. We just need to teach people not to pilfer from banks and then it won’t matter whether every teller remembers to lock every drawer, every night.
I agree, Jane. But perhaps we need to begin with teaching them not to pilfer office supplies. A loaded cash drawer offers a pretty high level of temptation to people who have not learned to say no to themselves!
Sarcasm alert
While dubiously rendered in some modern translations, and while taken out of context by many, Paul also had a rule:
Based on her reaction to Pence, it would be interesting to see if Beaty’s head would spontaneously explode on discovering Paul’s guidance.
the fact that she is considered a fellow believer itself in spite of all her feminist nonsense backs my case.
Can you give me a Katecho paraphrase of this verse and exegete it for me
bethyada wrote: Can you give me a Katecho paraphrase of this verse and exegete it for me I don’t believe we should assume sexual relations when the word simply means “touch” everywhere else in the New Testament. So my paraphrase would be that, “it is better for men, in particular, to avoid casual physical contact with women.” I think this is a general recognition that men are initiators, are quickly aroused, and often not the best judges of their own intentions. So, for example, young men in the youth group giving out back rubs is not a great idea, no… Read more »
@bethyada ^ In case you didn’t see this. Thanks Katecho.
Thanks, I hadn’t.
Beaty is absolutely right. No personal conduct rules and solve the depth of the problem.
The depth of the problem is that each and every human being is totally depraved. Until such a time as all living humans are regenerated by the Holy Spirit and fully sanctified, we need personal conduct rules to externally restrain sin.
I am in complete favor of personal conduct rules in the workplace, the clearer the better. I worked for a straight arrow company which did not allow dating between people in the same line of command, and which had explicit rules prohibiting flirtation. People broke the rules, but then they ran the risk of detection and discipline. I found it an excellent work environment because it resulted in people focusing primarily on what they were there for–the work.
Of course personal conduct rules don’t solve the problem. That’s a really lousy argument against the rules, though.
Douglas, I have followed the Pence rule first as an OB/GYN physician and as an engineering professor. Even having a chaperon in the room with me at all times, I actually have still been questioned by a patient: I was doing a gynecologic procedure and needed an instrument. My tech hopped out of the room for less than 60 seconds to get it in the next room and then came back. She left with out my telling her to, and while she was gone the speculem was about to fall out because the older lady’s vagina was so loose. I… Read more »
I am glad it turned out well for you. Doctors are always at at risk for false accusations,whether of impropriety or negligence or something else altogether. I had one false accusation in my teaching career which I look back on as being pretty funny. A 16 year old football player, 6’2″ and a good 250 pounds, was keeping me after class on a Friday afternoon, arguing about his grade. I listened and explained several times, and finally told him I would recheck the work and get back to him. When he refused to leave, I gently put a hand on… Read more »
Good for dragon lady Mom! Problem is, who is going to do anything like that when the false accuser is, as the false accuser most often is, female? I mean even just the YOU are a FILTHY LIAR part? I’ll bet in the case Paul related the woman wasn’t told she was a filthy liar. Or an old fool.
women
always think men are after them
don’t give them a promotion- they will falsely accuse you
don’t include them in something- they will falsely accuse you
meh men deserve this, i hope more men go to Jail even if it is false.
Western men worship women and feminism like Gods- well derserved
Best post ever!
How do male proctologists perform prostate exams without question?
Thank secular culture for making even the doctor/patient relationship a politically charged sexual football!
Reputation is the only way clear of today’s professional insanity.
When hitting on girls is outlawed then only outlaws will hit on girls. There will be unforeseen consequences.
“When hitting on girls is outlawed then only outlaws will hit on girls.”
This is a meaningless tautology.
Mixing between the sexes has dramatically liberalized in the past 50 years. Any reaction worth its salt will strive for a status quo ante where there are social fences between the sexes that are dutifully maintained.
Of course law would be a blunt instrument for this sort of thing, but that was your hyperbole.
So, which is it, a tautology or hyperbole?
The construct is a tautology. Same as “if murder is outlawed, only outlaws will murder.”
The implied use of that tautology to describe what Doug is talking about (the Pence rule, social rules surrounding interaction between the sexes) is hyperbole. They aren’t mutually exclusive.
“If groping is outlawed, only outlaws will grope.”
Hey wait! Groping IS outlawed!
FRANKENnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn! ; – )
Untrigger yourself and think about what I actually wrote, applied more to Roy Moore than Mike Pence. The Pence Rule has its own problems that I might comment on when I’m not typing on a phone.
I’m not triggered. I just know you can do better.
I would be interested in your comments on the Pence/Graham, etc. rule.
Re the general harassment hysteria. If you aren’t very deliberate with the restrictions you place on mating you end up with an anarcho-tyranny problem. If you use shaming of men then you will shift sexual access to those men who are most immune to your shaming efforts. These may be cultural or racial outsiders or simply non-church boys or the men least tempermentally susceptible to your efforts (at the extreme, psychopaths). Defending with violence is an age old solution but you can only defend with violence that which you own. So you run the risk of limiting sexual access to… Read more »
Barnie,
Thanks for the response. I agree with most of it, and would like to add some thoughts but this software completely flakes out on me after the thread has 150 comments or so, and I don’t have the patience for it.
Good for Pence for adapting to the culture as it stands but I have the feeling that all these conservatives who applaud the Vice President being chaperoned are too feminist to publicly support chaperoning of women. The Pence rule isn’t so much a return to tradition as an inversion of tradition.
It was a tautology, but it made a meaningful point. If all romantic interactions are illegal, there will be no healthy, appropriate, legal interaction between the sexes. You don’t think that fact has implications beyond its tautological nature?
It is a tautology if read logically but not if read rhetorically. And it is a rhetorical statement. The outlaw in the second half of the quote isn’t an outlaw because it is now illegal, the outlaw represents an evil man who has no respect for propriety with women.
…fast forward thirty years. Suppose Roy Moore was at a nice restaurant with some cute intern…
He’d be A HUNDRED YEARS OLD. Literally. Hard for me to get a good mental picture of this particular thought experiment.
I think he meant fast forward thirty years from the time when Moore should have already been following the Pence rule (albeit anachronistically), not from now.
This conversation is honestly horrifying to me, as a Christian. First I read someone say something fairly anti Islamist. I know countless amazingly kind Muslim people, I don’t understand why “Christians” hate Muslims. I believe our job is to minister and not hate.
Also to all who are talking about why you shouldn’t hire a pretty woman. You (Christians) always talk about how lustful the world is. If you can’t work side by side with a woman, you are worse than the secular culture.
Where was the anti Islamist comment? I skimmed and didn’t see it. Maybe it is there, but I missed it.
Nobody said not to hire a pretty woman because they personally could not work side by side with her, however, Christians are always warning one another against lust (and other temptations), just like scripture does . It doesn’t make Christians worse than the secular world, it makes them honest and realistic while they live in this world.
Ron said- “To turn the knife in the side of feminists and Islamic nations.” You can search it at the top to find it. This is a fairly mild instance of all the anti muslim sentiment I have found in the comments of this blog and the Christian world as a whole. I also take issue with Christians being so anti feminist, it is ridiculous. And look at the conversation with ron, bdash, and bro. Steve, you just have to search hire to find it. It’s unbelievable. And I definitely appreciate keeping yourself from temptation, but if you can’t… Read more »
the entire book of Proverbs disagrees with you.
do you believe in the fallen nature of man?
it is not just about temptation- women lie all the time and women get tempted as well
as for anti feminism- if you can point me to how feminist and anti patriarchy the bible is I will gladly change my views
following God is all that matters
How does the entire book of proverbs disagree with me? And of course man is fallen, but I don’t think that means I can never be alone with a woman that isn’t my girlfriend. That’s a pretty absurd claim. The bible preaches self control not avoidance. And I’m not going to stop hanging out with my best friend for most of my life because suddenly I’m going to want to sleep with her, how absurd. And the Bible doesn’t say anything about oppressing women, or men being more important or anything of the kind, so I’m disinclined to do… Read more »
The bible asks women to be helpmeets to their husbands , not independent.
Proverbs is WISDOM
IF you want to ignore it , that is your choice….
your best friend is a girl?
men are not more important- never said that
I guess my views on seminaries were correct
at best they are SATAN training sites
The woman at the well wasn’t a prostitute!