One of my favorite old links is broken

 There used to be a blog called "That Mom" that I loved.

And she used to have a blog post called "The Suffragettes and a Woman's Right to Chose" that I would often link when dealing with frothing at the mouth misogynists who blame feminism for abortion and the decline of modern civilization as we know it. And it claimed that Susan B. Anthony was pro-life but that she railed against a culture that put women in the position where abortion seemed the best option.

I am heart broken over the loss of this article so I decided to search for anything else that might explain this.

My search is not over. But I did find this article called "Marriage and Maternity" in "The Revolution" a weekly newspaper run by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. And it is this article that my friend at That Mom was quoting.

I am going to leave it here, mostly for myself, but also for any curious passerby-ers who come along. I wish to read it more fully when I have more time. While things have changed a great deal between the time the article was written (July 1969) and now, there are still things to be gleaned from this article for today.

The Revolution, July 8 1969

The reason I'm going back to this is because of a conversation that I had with a pro-life friend who wanted to make our conversation about, "it's always wrong to kill a baby" and that this was a separate issue from the rape culture we live in. 

I on the other hand agree with the author of "Marriage and Maternity" that "Much as I deplore the horrible crime of child-murder, earnestly as I desire its suppression, I cannot believe with the writer of the above mentioned article, that such a law would have the desired effect. It seems to be only mowing off the top of the noxious weed, while the root remains. "

So, since my friends wonderful article's link is broken, I'm left to do my own research. Such is life.

Throw Back Thursday

 I did a short series back in 2012 called "Sex, Drugs, and Mark Driscoll". It was a four part series pointing out that Mark Driscoll got away with a lot of stuff because he was, what I referred to as, a Rock Star Preacher.

The reason I'm re-posting this today is because I think it is relevant to the conversation about men blaming women while giving men a pass.

Anyway, here it is reprinted. If you would like to read it in it's original form, go here "Sex, Drugs, and Mark Driscoll, pt 3". It would be worth it to read the comments under it including a late comment (over a year later) correcting some misinformation that I had concerning the story.

*****

Sex, Drugs, and Mark Driscoll, pt 3

Rock and roll, by nature, is misogynistic. Anyone is free to disagree with me on this one but it is my overview observation of many years.

The rock and roll mentality or attitude has creeped in among Christians and is also misogynistic. I'll start by telling a true story.

I used to frequent another blog and the blog owner, we'll call him Fred (not his real name) was a Christian, religious-right kind of guy. He had just read Steven Tyler's biography. (Steven Tyler fans, just relax. My story is more about the blog reaction than Tyler himself.)

Steve Tyler, for those who don't know (which is about three of you, right? The rest have seen him on American Idol), is a Rock Star. He was/is part of the band, Aerosmith.

Apparently, according Fred, Tyler had a 14 year old girlfriend. He took over guardianship from her parents. This girl ended up pregnant and her parents determined that she was too young to carry, birth, and care for this baby so they took her in, against Tyler's wishes, and she had an abortion. This really upset Tyler and bothers him to this day.

Fred used this story to wax on concerning how horrible abortions were, and how horrible it is for fathers who have no rights concerning abortion, which, invariably led to how horrible feminists were and on a lesser level, how horrible modern American women were.

Fred and his male commenters felt so sorry for Tyler and the terrible pain he went through as a father with no rights over the child he sired. They blamed feminism, abortion, and Fred also blamed girls for being smitten with celebrity figures and her parents for not training her better.

Now, people, understand. I'm just as pro-life as your average conservative Christian (I no longer associate with the Religious Right. They are just plain crazy. But I am conservative in many ways.)

Anyway, I'm just as pro-life as the next conservative you might meet on the street. But I'm not stupid. That fourteen year old girl did not get pregnant because she or feminists are evil or because her parents did a thing of two wrong in parenting her.

That girl got pregnant because of the "Rock Star" mentality. If 30 something Joe Schmo down the street had started wooing the fourteen year old, you can bet the parents would have laid down the law. Why? Because there was nothing in it for them. It was the parents that were smitten by Tyler's Rock Star status. Otherwise why would they have ever signed over guardianship to him?

And what the heck was Tyler doing with a fourteen year old girlfriend, anyway? My guess is that she was a model and that's how they met. But that's my guess. Anyway, Fact: Tyler getting a fourteen year old pregnant was statutory rape. If Joe Schmo had done it, he most likely would have gone to jail and would be on the sex offenders list to this day. But not Steven Tyler. Why? Because he's a Rock Star, and Rock Stars can get away with things your average Joe cannot.

This leads me to a question.

Why were the men on that blog so unconcerned with the fact that Tyler had a 14 year old girlfriend yet were ready to tear down feminism and make comments concerning gullible girls and poor parenting? Why did it not bother them that Tyler could get away with something they, most likely, could not?

Well, I have one guess. I think it's because the male fantasy of being a Rock Star is alive and well in the world and the church. Those men on that blog might have said in passing that it was wrong for Tyler to have such a young girlfriend. In truth, the hideousness of the wrong of statutory rape was completely lost on them. All they could see was a man, a celebrity, facing losing his child because of unfair laws concerning the rights of father of the unborn. They couldn't see that Tyler was using his Rock Star status to get away with breaking the law and that the parents were using their daughter and Tyler's Rock Star status to make gains of their own.

Bringing this back to Driscoll, he also has gotten away with stuff the average Joe could not. This has not been a good thing for Driscoll or the people around him. Rock Stars getting away with stuff is not good for them. Tyler suffered greatly due to the consequences of his action. He lost a child over it and from what I gather, he still mourns over it. And as we are seeing, many people around Driscoll have also suffered greatly and many have mourned over Driscoll and the time they spent in his church.

It's time for the male fantasy of being a Rock Star Preacher to be recognized for what it is. Destructive, unchristian, and unbiblical.

*****

The misinformation was about the age of the young lady in question. She was actually 16 at the time.

Here is a link to her story:

Light of the World - the Steven Tyler and Julia Holcomb Story

Also, I noted that in part 4 of my series that several ladies and I pointed out that Steven Tyler was guilty in his own way. We said something like:  "where we agreed that we didn't like the fact that an abortion was involved, the abortion was not the beginning of the problem, it was the final, violent solution chosen by a girl's family to deal with the wrongs and excesses of a man living out the Rock Star dream."

The men of the blog, including the owner, actually listened to us and realized that this story was not a good one to use to bemoan the lack of father's rights. Looking back at this story today, it is just another illustration of men jumping to the conclusion that, whatever happened, it had to be the woman's fault. Oh, and feminism was probably involved somehow.

Well Played, Cosper

 Episode 8 of The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill podcast finally dropped on Friday. Demon Hunting looked into the weird world of Mark Driscoll's Narcissistic Personality Disorder brand of deliverance ministry.

As a side note, Cosper announced in this episode that these Podcasts will begin to come out every two weeks rather than every week. One reason given was that people who initially didn't want to be interviewed for this have been changing their minds, so they are coming forward and wanting their voices to be included in this massive undertaking.

Over all, I suppose that this is good. However, I see this as a potentially detrimental turn in one area.

Apparently there are those who are mad at Cosper for giving feminists and egalitarians too much voice in the fifth episode of the podcast. You know that podcast that I mentioned in my Mars Hill and Consumerism (NPD) post called The Things We Do to Women.

In "The Things We Do to Women" Cosper includes the voices of feminists and actually went as far as addressing the Rape Culture at Mars Hill. He didn't hit it hard. In fact, there are many of us who felt he let Driscoll and Mars Hill off easy rather than giving this issue the full attention that it deserves.

But as is common among Evangelical men, there was an outcry and one star reviews about Cosper giving voice to those filthy feminists. (gasp!!! entities far worse than pedophile pastors and repeat sex offenders that riddle the SBC.)

So in this episode, Episode Eight, Demon Hunting, Cosper again addresses the blatant misogyny of Driscoll and the Mars Hill community. But this time, he brings a Complementarian in to point it out so that the screeching Patriarchy couldn't just poo poo what was being said. The Comp dude was concerned with and opposed to the woman-demeaning culture that Mark had created, including the misogyny perpetuated in his teachings on deliverance.

This can be both good and bad. I do feel that Cosper did well to bring in that pro-woman Complementarian voice. This is why the title of this post includes "well played" in it. However, now I am worried that the egalitarian voice and the voices of trauma informed counselors might be set aside for the rest of the podcast series.

Make no mistake, what Mark taught men and women about sex and the purpose of women was spiritual and sexual abuse. And his warped teachings did, in fact, lead to a rape culture. Women were traumatized. And while it was going on, Evangelical men did not care. This fact should not be minimized or glossed over. And I hope Cosper keeps this in mind and doesn't just throw women under the "keep the peace with the patriarchy" bus.

Ship Wreck Really Loves Voddie

Two months ago, a comment was left on the 2012 post, Voddie Baucham Is Sexist, by Ship Wreck. Ship Wreck sounds like a little Reformer who is fit to be tied. This Reformer is angry with me concerning my assessment of Voddie. I find the comment hilarious. Ship Wreck makes the most outlandish assumptions possible.

Ship Wreck assumes that I "as a female" am single with no intention of getting married or having kids.
That's funny. Because I've been married for over 30 years and have had four children, all grown now.

Ship Wreck assumes that I have had at least one abortion and have slept with at least ten men.
Wow, Ship Wreck. Way off. I've only ever slept with one man. Didn't sleep with him until after we were married. And I've had zero abortions.

Ship Wreck assumes that I am on birth control, like that is evil or something.
Sorry, Ship Wreck. Don't need birth control. Ever heard of menopause?

Ship Wreck assumes that my parents are divorced and I was never disciplined.
Well, Shippy. I gotta tell ya. I lost my father two years ago. If he were still alive, he and my mother would be celebrating their 60 year anniversary in August. Also, my dad was one of those fathers that told me that spanking me was going to hurt him more than me. I fully believed him because I was very much a daddy's girl. I miss him a great deal. There is nothing you can say that will diminish him in my eyes or in the eyes of God whom he served. The board of directors for the home for pregnant girls seeking to avoid abortions (that he once served on) would agree.

Ship Wreck assumes that I'm addicted to something. If coffee counts, then Shippy is correct on at least this one.

Ship Wreck assumes that I suffer from anxiety, depression, or ADD.
Well, as far as I know, I don't. But in my job, I do work with young people suffering these things. I work closely with them to help them overcome so they can grow up to live fulfilling lives. I prefer to work with people to help them overcome such obstacles. Shippy wants to accuse people of having these maladies and uses such accusation as bludgeoning weapons against people that disagree with Voddie. Nice, Shippy. Perhaps now you might understand why I have no respect for your comment and little respect for you. However, I'm not going to lower myself to your way-less-than-Christlike level because Jesus does love you no matter how misguided you are in trying to serve Him.

Then Ship Wreck instructs me to read the book of Ephesians in one sitting, which I have done before. I probably will again, sometime. But it isn't coming up right away in my scheduled Bible reading time. Right now I am in John, Romans, Psalms, and Isaiah. There is a lot of Bible to read and a lot of context to get. Context is key.

Speaking of Ephesians, I have, on more that one occasion, instructed women to read this book. But I have told them to go ahead and skip the part where Paul addresses the Aristotle Household Code. Not because that part is wrong. It is right as rain. Paul does an amazing job turning that old code on it's head using the grace and love of God. But Paul's response to Aristotle's Household Code has been misunderstood, misinterpreted, and used as a bludgeoning tool against women by abusive husbands and pastors for hundreds of years causing bitterness and severe PTSD.

As mentioned in the previous post, I am heart-sick over all the bitterness caused by the errant teachings of men like Voddie. I've said it before. I will say it again. Voddie is sexist and interprets the Bible in a way that raises men and fathers up as idols and oppresses women and mothers down to doormats making both ineffective and unable to produce spiritual fruit.

Ship Wreck is in agreement with Voddie. Ship Wreck is wrong on all assumptions concerning me (except about coffee). Ship Wreck and Voddie have a broken and bitter understanding of scripture that leads to shipwrecked faith. May God lead them out of the darkness that has defiled and devastated countless lives.

Just putting this here for now.

I haven't read this yet.
Can We Be Christian Feminist?
I plan on reading it. Hopefully soon.
It was suggested by a reader (thanks, btw) and I want to give it a proper read.

The question the title asks is no big deal to me.
I do believe we can be Christian Feminists but I never say it too loudly. Not because I'm ashamed or anything. It's just that the "F" word has been so vilified and has become such a lightning rod and conversation stopper that it is just about pointless to ever use it.

Here is another link. This is one that I can endorse because I have read it and have linked it many times both here and other places.

The Suffragettes and a Woman's Right to Choose

Feminism is not evil.
But you wouldn't know it by listening to the foaming-at-the-mouth witch hunters raging in church pulpits and on the internet.

History Lesson for Vaugh Ohlman...

... and other over-the-top ignorant men who want to rewrite history to make women look evil, childish, and foolish and make men look as pure as the wind driven snow.

Get a clue, Vaugh, oh bitter man extraordinaire. I understand that you are hurt, angry, and bitter at the actions of a certain female in your life. I understand that you believe that your words are needed to set the world straight and make it a better place for men like yourself, safe from the evils of women you cannot control. The problem is that the world your propose is hell on earth for women. We've been there (a very, very long time), done that (a very, very long time) and we aren't going back.

Here is a pro-life, homeschool mom's history lesson on:

the suffragettes and a woman's right to choose

It was a wonderful read the first time I read it and still stands as a beacon of truth against the darkness of blinded haters and ragers like Vaugh Olhman

(Note: I AM pro-life. I'm also pro mother, pro father, pro woman, pro man, pro child, pro family, and pro Bible. What I am opposed to is oppression, the kind of heavy-handed oppression that Vaugh thinks will save the world and fatherhood as we know it from the extra special evil he believes feminism to be. He believes it to be extra special evil because it takes away a bit of control over another person's life that he falsely believes belongs to him. I could say so much more here but these parentheses are already on maximum overload.)

What Is Feminism? What Are Its Waves?

As noted many places besides here, Feminism has become the dirty F-word of the Evangelical world. It has become the scapegoat of all that is wrong with modern society. And there are men and women who are in active witch hunts for that Jezebel, Feminism in order to discredit it and destroy its hold on our culture.

These witch hunters don't get it.
Feminism is not the main thing that is ripping apart American families. Feminism, like everything else, is not all black or all white. It will neither destroy nor save the world. It has good points. It also has bad points. But the point is not to try to destroy it or promote every part of it.
The point is to understand it, recognize where you agree with it and where you disagree with it rather than to just mindlessly declare it evil like Hitler going after the Jews.

Okay, rant over.
Now you can go to the link that talks intelligently about Feminism, it's different waves and what they mean.

The F-Word: Why Feminism Is Not the Enemy

Spotlight on Kristen's Forgotten Women Series

The moment I knew that my long time (in internet years) friend Kristen was starting a blog, I made sure to put the link to it in my blog role. Kristen is knowledgeable, compassionate, and fair in her words and treatment of everyone, including those who oppose her and her understanding.

Since she has started her blog, she has quietly written about many things of interest and pertinent to the issues of gender and the church. Of particular blessing is her series on "Forgotten Women in Church History".

Today, I want to spotlight one of her posts in that series on a woman who lived in Mexico from 1651-1695. Sor [Sister] Juana Ines de la Cruz is credited with writing "the first feminist manifesto" and with being "The New World's first great woman."

Please take time to read Kristen's post on: Sor [Sister] Juana Ines de la Cruz

A Stark Example of Creating False Structures

Here is an example of preachers creating false structures and prescribing false solutions. In this particular case it is a mother/daughter dynamic. And as we often see in these situations, the mom is ill advised, then blamed when the bad advice makes the situations worse.

The preacher, whatever his intentions, is a false comforter, like Job's comforters.
This man, if he is like many other Evangelicals and/or Fundamentalist, blames Feminism. But Feminism plays no part in this. He is the one who is destroying the home.

http://baptisttaliban.blogspot.com/2011/03/demolition-of-home-part-ii.html

Creating False Structures

We have talked about Job here before.

http://frombitterwaterstosweet.blogspot.com/2009/01/word-or-two-from-job-on-bitterness.html

But I want to point out something else we can learn from his story.

Not only did he give full vent to his bitterness, the Bible said that he did not sin with his mouth, which Steve Scott points out so well in his post here:

http://fromthepew.blogspot.com/2011/02/job-did-not-sin.html

But even though Job gave full vent to his bitterness he didn't sin with his mouth. And his comforters did sin with their mouths to such an extent that at the end of the story, Job had to offer up sacrifices for his friends.

Please note that Job's friends were very well meaning and sat with him in silence for seven days and seven nights before they opened their mouths. They really wanted to get to the bottom of this mystery. They wanted to find a reason for the horrible things that Job went through. And they decided that since God was just, no matter what, that the fault must be with Job.

At least Job's wife knew that Job was not at fault. She lived with him and saw his righteousness. She never blamed him. She told him to curse God and die. And in this, she probably did sin with her mouth. But strangely, when all is said and done, God never told Job to offer sacrifices for her sins.

So why offer sacrifices for the sins of Job's comforters? What did they do? All they were trying to do was make sense out of a situation that made absolutely no sense to any human being. Yet, in all their explaining of the way things work, or how they thought things worked, and how they thought it could be solved, they sinned with their mouths.

They created a false structure, a false reason, a false cause-and-effect situation that had nothing to do with what was really going on. And then they came up with solutions or formulas that they were sure would work if only Job would follow their advice.

In their minds, surely Job had sinned. He must have sinned. And then, to add insult to injury, they told him he was proud for not admitting his sin. Their simple solution was that if he would just repent, the evil that plagued his house and his body would end. And they kept after it and after it and after it scolding Job for justifying himself rather than ever taking into account that perhaps Job actually did not sin and bring this upon himself.

I see this creating of false structures and cause-and-effect situations going on in the church today. Marriages are failing in the church at the same rate as they are in the world. And well meaning men, comforters are calling on Christians to follow their formulas and programs and solutions in order to save the marriages. They claim that it is feminism that is destroying all marriages, including Christian ones.

What they refuse to face is that their formulas have been around for a long time, back in the seventies and perhaps even before then. And these formulas have morphed into terrible monsters in the form of Vision Forum and the Quiverfull movement. They have instructed women to submit and keep sweet and have been false comforter of these women telling them that if they would just repent from their self-will and obstinate behavior, their marriages would be saved. And they have formed rigid molds for the daughters to follow that destroys their souls and creates learned helplessness.

Their formulas have failed and have become worse destroyers of Christian marriages than the third wave feminist could have ever dreamed of. The third wave feminist can sit back and watch and laugh as Christians destroy their own marriages with false structures and formulas.

When will people wise up and see the formulas for what they are, false comforters and false solutions to misunderstood problems? Going back to the fifties, to Little House on the Prairie, to the Golden Age of the South, to the Victorian Age will not solve today's problems. Trying to do so only creates new problems. We cannot go back. We must go forward and face today's problems with a fresh vision, a fresh understanding from God of what is really wrong and how it can really be solved.