Things I learned from feminism I wish I'd learned from Christianity

[DarkLight]

That said, there’s also something to be said for being selective about who one looks to for support.

goodreads.com/book/show/65325.Safe_People

(I haven’t actually read that book, but their book “Boundaries in Marriage” is very good, and I think the title of the book is superb–“Safe People: How to Find Relationships That Are Good for You and Avoid Those That Aren’t.” Even if the book itself is terrible, I really like their formulation of the problem.)

I know that being selective about confidants can be hard/impossible in the immediate aftermath of trauma (I have an auntie who was once spilling her guts to a hotel maid soon after auntie’s husband turned out to be cheating and moved two states away leaving auntie holding the bag and I once got a much-needed hug from a woman that was a total stranger at the hospital on a really bad day), but going forward after human-caused trauma, learning who to trust is probably the core survival skill.

Oh it’s definitely important.

But when finding safe people to trust means, by and large, stepping outside the church and relying on secular sources, then there’s something wrong with the church. We have a greater obligation in our own faith communities to make sure we are that safe person. And the more visible the results, the more of an issue it is if the faith community isn’t safe. (I know from personal experience that keeping PTSD completely under wraps just doesn’t work.)

 

[Xantippe]

DarkLight,

I have the advantage of knowing something about the likely academic milieu that you were in, and I think something to bear in mind is that the number of social idiots is much higher there than in the typical population of similar intelligence.

Also, being a devil’s advocate and questioning assumptions is valued there. Not making this up, but I have had actual conversations with my husband where I needed to demonstrate that houses need interior paint rather than just bare dry wall. (I feel like some of the conversations you report are the equivalent of that dry wall conversation.)

Within the field, questioning everything is excellent and bracing.

Outside the field, it not infrequently means acting like a social moron.

It’s just a very combative field.

I’ve personally had to explain to my husband that having to defend everything from the ground up is a) not a good use of my time b) produces unnecessary conflict and and c) is not fun for me and that he needs to switch off the devil’s advocate when he comes home and we are discussing something like household maintenance.

 

[Xantippe]

Oh it’s definitely important.

But when finding safe people to trust means, by and large, stepping outside the church and relying on secular sources, then there’s something wrong with the church. **We have a greater obligation in our own faith communities to make sure we are that safe person. ** And the more visible the results, the more of an issue it is if the faith community isn’t safe. (I know from personal experience that keeping PTSD completely under wraps just doesn’t work.)

Right.

 

[DarkLight]

DarkLight,

I have the advantage of knowing something about the likely academic milieu that you were in, and I think something to bear in mind is that the number of social idiots is much higher there than in the typical population of similar intelligence.

Also, being a devil’s advocate and questioning assumptions is valued there. Not making this up, but I have had actual conversations with my husband where I needed to demonstrate that houses need interior paint rather than just bare dry wall. (I feel like some of the conversations you report are the equivalent of that dry wall conversation.)

Within the field, questioning everything is excellent and bracing.

Outside the field, it not infrequently means acting like a social moron.

It’s just a very combative field.

I’ve personally had to explain to my husband that having to defend everything from the ground up is a) not a good use of my time b) produces unnecessary conflict and and c) is not fun for me and that he needs to switch off the devil’s advocate when he comes home and we are discussing something like household maintenance.

Ironically, the individuals in philosophy were pretty good. And I met many much kinder Christians in my graduate school - including my confirmation sponsor. All the things I’ve reported here were from a wider milieu; either from fellow churchgoers in various churches, or from individuals I shared my Christian undergraduate college with but who were not in philosophy.

 

[Estevao]

Yeah, that’s just about the worst thing possible–trying to get your stalker to set you up with somebody else.



But everybody does dumb stuff. (A couple nights ago, I was embarrassing my big kids by telling them about this time that I had a thing for a boy when I was 16 and was calling and calling and calling him and just “happening” to be where I knew he was going to be.) You cringe when you remember that stuff, but hopefully you learn–like not ever doing whatever stuff Suzie the Stalker has been doing.

You sound so much more confident!

Thanks, I got a good mutual friend to make things clear with my stalker. Things are good now I believe, we’re back to where we were when I told her off last time.

…And I think our last date was great…I’d say we’re going steady now. She suggested the next date without asking.

I also found a good book for a dollar used, unlike that other one I gave away to somebody who I think would appreciate it more. It’s called “Too Close Too Soon: Avoiding the Heartache of Premature Intimacy” by Jim Talley and Bobbie Reed.

 

[Xantippe]

Thanks, I got a good mutual friend to make things clear with my stalker. Things are good now I believe, we’re back to where we were when I told her off last time.

…And I think our last date was great…I’d say we’re going steady now. She suggested the next date without asking.

I also found a good book for a dollar used, unlike that other one I gave away to somebody who I think would appreciate it more. It’s called “Too Close Too Soon: Avoiding the Heartache of Premature Intimacy” by Jim Talley and Bobbie Reed.

Wow! That is very good.

Something I’ve been thinking about (and this idea is talked about in Salkeld’s and Perrault’s How Far Can We Go?) is–does this level of physical intimacy match the emotional and spiritual reality of the relationship? Does this level of physical intimacy truthfully express the relationship?

I know when I was a sweet young thing that I didn’t have that idea. Being from an Evangelical 1980s/1990s background, we had DON’T HAVE SEX and that was just about it. (I also missed out on a lot of bad ideas, though–like the no-touch, no-kiss courtship that became popular in the 1990s.) What I didn’t ever hear until much later was DON’T KISS PEOPLE YOU DON’T TRUST AND CARE DEEPLY ABOUT.

The Protestant purity people are correct that even moderate physical intimacy can be a sort of relationship accelerant–but that doesn’t mean that moderate premarital physical affection is wrong, just that it needs to be approached carefully and it needs to be appropriate to the relationship. (Example for the ladies: if you wouldn’t leave the guy alone with your phone or purse, then you probably shouldn’t be kissing him.)

 

[Expatreprocedit]

God’s not going to ask us whether we were on the right side of the culture wars. He’s going to ask us if we loved our neighbor as ourselves.

In order to love (as opposed to simply be nice to) our neighbors as ourselves, we have to have our values properly ordered, and that indeed impacts our stances on cultural issues. CS Lewis occasionally took stances on cultural issues.

 

[Themistocles]

In order to love (as opposed to simply be nice to) our neighbors as ourselves, we have to have our values properly ordered, and that indeed impacts our stances on cultural issues. CS Lewis occasionally took stances on cultural issues.

Agreed. From the catholic tradition we have the spiritual works of mercy which include instructing the ignorant and admonishing the sinner. Both require humility and charity.

The culture of death is prominent in what I see as the culture wars. You are deceiving yourself if you don’t thing that God cares where you stand on abortion, fornication or adultery. In the name a “love” these are promoted or dismissed as part of the culture war. Oppose these in the public square and you will be called a hater.

 

[Xantippe]

Agreed. From the catholic tradition we have the spiritual works of mercy which include instructing the ignorant and admonishing the sinner. Both require humility and charity.

The culture of death is prominent in what I see as the culture wars. You are deceiving yourself if you don’t thing that God cares where you stand on abortion, fornication or adultery. In the name a “love” these are promoted or dismissed as part of the culture war. Oppose these in the public square and you will be called a hater.

I think that what we DO is more important than what we SAY.

There is a lot of evidence for that in the Gospels.

See Matthew 21:

"28 “What do you think? A man had two sons; and he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 And he answered, ‘I will not’; but afterward he repented and went. 30 And he went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.”

See also Matthew 25:

“37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’”

We shouldn’t expect to get a lot of mileage out of simply having the right views. That’s very cheap.

I DarkLight mentioned that her abusive ex had lots of correct views.

I personally get really fed up when I count up all the multiply divorced guys and adulterers on “our” side.

 

[DarkLight]

Agreed. From the catholic tradition we have the spiritual works of mercy which include instructing the ignorant and admonishing the sinner. Both require humility and charity.

The culture of death is prominent in what I see as the culture wars. You are deceiving yourself if you don’t thing that God cares where you stand on abortion, fornication or adultery. In the name a “love” these are promoted or dismissed as part of the culture war. Oppose these in the public square and you will be called a hater.

But again, a lot of us have experienced exactly this - a lack of charity because our very real needs were on the “wrong” side of the culture war. I wouldn’t ask people to compromise actual moral principles. But there’s often a whole entire framework around that morality and how we talk about it and how we advocate for it and even how we think about it. And that framework isn’t a moral principle, and it’s much more prone to things like corruption from exterior political discourse. And all that sort of cultural framework can and should be compromised when it doesn’t serve the interest of actually getting what is right done. I would also put a much stronger emphasis on helping the person right in front of us over more general worries about “culture”.

I discussed this in relation to modesty earlier. I don’t think there’s anything wrong, for example, with saying that some men who don’t respect women are going to treat women as sex objects, even if that particular woman is modestly dressed. But I’ve encountered a lot of people who will vigorously contest that and tell women, if you get harassed or bothered or objectified, that means you must have been dressed immodestly. Or get upset because somehow they see that statement as supporting or justifying immodesty (it’s not, it’s just acknowledging modesty doesn’t exert a magic control over other people).

That’s a somewhat minor example, but the principle is there. It’s not charitable to tell a young lady dealing with harassment that she must have been immodest or that she should have covered up more - especially if one has never actually seen that particular individual in immodest dress. But I think that’s where people get caught up in the culture war - defending the principle of “modesty” is more important than dealing with what’s actually going on with a specific individual right in front of them. And we get needless divides where people act like either you’re never critical of modesty ever or you support being naked all the time. Or you either never say a single word about how modesty might be a good principle or you support women wearing burkas.

 

[Xantippe]

The other thing is–people wind up making excuses for adulterers and fornicators, just as long as they are on “our” side.

It’s not a good look.

 

[Themistocles]

I think that what we DO is more important than what we SAY.

There is a lot of evidence for that in the Gospels.

See Matthew 21:

"28 “What do you think? A man had two sons; and he went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 29 And he answered, ‘I will not’; but afterward he repented and went. 30 And he went to the second and said the same; and he answered, ‘I go, sir,’ but did not go. 31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.”

See also Matthew 25:

“37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38 And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? 39 And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’ 40 And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’”

We shouldn’t expect to get a lot of mileage out of simply having the right views. That’s very cheap.

I DarkLight mentioned that her abusive ex had lots of correct views.

I personally get really fed up when I count up all the multiply divorced guys and adulterers on “our” side.

There is plenty of evidence in the Gospel that what we say matters a great deal.

Matthew 10: 32-33
'So if anyone declares himself for me in the presence of human beings, I will declare myself for him in the presence of my Father in heaven.

But the one who disowns me in the presence of human beings, I will disown in the presence of my Father in heaven.

Mathew 20:36
Peter said to him, ‘Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.’ And all the disciples said the same.

What you have described, persons holding the correct view, sounds a lot line the hypocrites that Jesus called a brood of vipers, etc.

 

[DarkLight]

What you have described, persons holding the correct view, sounds a lot line the hypocrites that Jesus called a brood of vipers, etc.

I would draw a distinction between people who hold correct views and don’t follow them, and people who may hold correct views alongside others that are not correct - often seeing the latter views as flowing from the former.

An all-too-common example might be someone who’s very big on the sanctity of marriage and the idea of marriage being a life-long commitment, and the difference between men and women, who takes it to the point of telling an abused woman that she may not separate from her husband because it would be a violation of her marriage vows (even if she remains chaste). It’s technically consistent - so not really hypocrisy - but I think that’s a pretty clear violation of morality nonetheless.

I think in the U.S., this often takes the form of prizing people who are on “our side” of the political divide and avoiding things that might be seen as supporting the “other side”, to the point where the actual morality of the action loses consideration against its place in the “culture war”.

 

[Xantippe]

I would draw a distinction between people who hold correct views and don’t follow them, and people who may hold correct views alongside others that are not correct - often seeing the latter views as flowing from the former.

An all-too-common example might be someone who’s very big on the sanctity of marriage and the idea of marriage being a life-long commitment, and the difference between men and women, who takes it to the point of telling an abused woman that she may not separate from her husband because it would be a violation of her marriage vows (even if she remains chaste). It’s technically consistent - so not really hypocrisy - but I think that’s a pretty clear violation of morality nonetheless.

I think in the U.S., this often takes the form of prizing people who are on “our side” of the political divide and avoiding things that might be seen as supporting the “other side”, to the point where the actual morality of the action loses consideration against its place in the “culture war”.

Yes.

In Jewish thought, they talk about “building a fence around the law”.

I would say that there is a Christian or Catholic equivalent, where you get all kinds of extra beliefs and practices that aren’t actually consistent with orthodox Catholic belief. Take, for example, Catholics (including on CAF) who will tell a woman with horrific disabling gynecological issues that she isn’t allowed to follow her doctor’s advice to take the pill. (Never mind that that medical use of the pill is fairly explicitly mentioned in Humanae Vitae as being acceptable.)

I think there can be a real problem with this “building a fence around the law,” and that it behooves us to look at what the “law” actually is first.

Part of the problem is the belief that whatever is harder, less merciful or less practical must be more orthodox, whereas that ain’t so. In a way, it’s a sort of internalized anti-Catholicism.

 

[Xantippe]

There is plenty of evidence in the Gospel that what we say matters a great deal.

Matthew 10: 32-33
'So if anyone declares himself for me in the presence of human beings, I will declare myself for him in the presence of my Father in heaven.

But the one who disowns me in the presence of human beings, I will disown in the presence of my Father in heaven.

Mathew 20:36
Peter said to him, ‘Even if I have to die with you, I will never disown you.’ And all the disciples said the same.

What you have described, persons holding the correct view, sounds a lot line the hypocrites that Jesus called a brood of vipers, etc.

Yeah.

 

[Xantippe]

Here’s another one from Matthew 7 on words not being enough:

"21 “Not every one who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.”

 

[Estevao]

Wow! That is very good.

Something I’ve been thinking about (and this idea is talked about in Salkeld’s and Perrault’s How Far Can We Go?) is–does this level of physical intimacy match the emotional and spiritual reality of the relationship? Does this level of physical intimacy truthfully express the relationship?

I know when I was a sweet young thing that I didn’t have that idea. Being from an Evangelical 1980s/1990s background, we had DON’T HAVE SEX and that was just about it. (I also missed out on a lot of bad ideas, though–like the no-touch, no-kiss courtship that became popular in the 1990s.) What I didn’t ever hear until much later was DON’T KISS PEOPLE YOU DON’T TRUST AND CARE DEEPLY ABOUT.

The Protestant purity people are correct that even moderate physical intimacy can be a sort of relationship accelerant–but that doesn’t mean that moderate premarital physical affection is wrong, just that it needs to be approached carefully and it needs to be appropriate to the relationship. (Example for the ladies: if you wouldn’t leave the guy alone with your phone or purse, then you probably shouldn’t be kissing him.)

Those are good questions to ask and I will keep them in mind. I think this book may have influenced the one you mention: they both have graphs. I had that old book years ago but I think I gave it away. I don’t think my current one is the kind of evangelical book you talk about.

 

[Xantippe]

Those are good questions to ask and I will keep them in mind. I think this book may have influenced the one you mention: they both have graphs. I had that old book years ago but I think I gave it away. I don’t think my current one is the kind of evangelical book you talk about.

Good.

One thing I’ve heard is that that sort of Evangelical book is mainly for the teenage audience with loving and protective parents, a church youth group, and who are years away from realistically being able to get married.

An independent young adult who doesn’t have a tight Christian peer group or parental oversight but could easily get married in a year is in a very different position.

There are advantages and disadvantages to either scenario, but they’re definitely different. It totally makes sense to tell 14-year-olds (!) not to date (what are you going to do–hold hands for the next 8+ years?) but the same advice could be a disaster for a 24-year-old.

My husband and I got married within a single school year as early/mid-20 somethings. I don’t really recommend that speed to the kiddies (there were one or two surprises…), but the nice thing about being an independent young adult is that one can get married without years of dillydallying. We know an adorable 20-something Catholic couple that just got engaged and I’m estimating that they will be married within 15 months of first meeting.

 

[Sarcelle]

I would draw a distinction between people who hold correct views and don’t follow them, and people who may hold correct views alongside others that are not correct - often seeing the latter views as flowing from the former.

An all-too-common example might be someone who’s very big on the sanctity of marriage and the idea of marriage being a life-long commitment, and the difference between men and women, who takes it to the point of telling an abused woman that she may not separate from her husband because it would be a violation of her marriage vows (even if she remains chaste). It’s technically consistent - so not really hypocrisy - but I think that’s a pretty clear violation of morality nonetheless.

I think in the U.S., this often takes the form of prizing people who are on “our side” of the political divide and avoiding things that might be seen as supporting the “other side”, to the point where the actual morality of the action loses consideration against its place in the “culture war”.

Yes.

Telling an abused woman that she is violating her marriage vows because she wants to get away from the abuse is just plain stupid.

The marriage was already violated when the husband abused his wife.

Human stupidity never fails to shock me.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The other thing is–people wind up making excuses for adulterers and fornicators, just as long as they are on “our” side.

It’s not a good look.

If this is about American politics, the right-wing base is decent at calling out such behavior.