Because Christianity is bigger than Biblical manhood or Biblical womanhood (Blog of Retha Faurie)

Focus on the Family recently suggested something that seems, at first glance, to flatter women. I did not feel flattered at all. They suggested women are the number one way to change men for the better:

… the most fundamental social problem every community must solve is the unattached male. If his sexual, physical, and emotional energies are not governed and directed in a pro-social, domesticated manner, he will become the village’s most malignant cancer. Wives and children, in that order, are the only successful remedy ever found. – Glenn T. Stanton

This is highly problematic, to say the least.

From the theological perspective :

Have Focus On The Family never heard of Jesus and being born again? Surely Jesus is better at changing humans – even the alleged “malignant cancer” called unattached males – from the inside than any woman is? How could a Christian™ organization say that women, not Jesus, is the only remedy for men’s bad tendencies?

Stanton also says:

“The Savior of the world chose to come to us through a wife and mother.”

Firstly, Jesus came through a woman/ girl who was unmarried and not a mother yet when she got pregnant with the Savior. Secondly, is Stanton suggesting that a maleBarbarian_info Savior without a mother to “domesticate” him would have used his “sexual, physical, and emotional energies” in a destructive manner? Otherwise, how does this sentence relate to the topic?

From the male perspective:

Don’t men find this message highly offensive? To be, allegedly, some kind of animal that can only be domesticated (Stanton’s word, not mine) by a good woman is literally dehumanizing.

From the female perspective:

The message that women can/ should change men is one of the most dangerous messages ever given to women. Women who showed their so-called “femininity” to selfish men have been abused, abandoned and neglected both inside and outside of marriages. This article implies:

Women, your potential dating pool is a bunch of savages. Any of these savages have the potential to kill you emotionally and perhaps even physically. Act feminine and team up with one of them, that is the one way you have to (perhaps) change one barbarian into a productive human. Feminism tells you to not be feminine, and then it is your fault if the men around you stay barbarians.1


My opinion: The barbarians will most likely hurt me before I get close enough to turn one into a productive human. That is, if he ever does become a productive human and does not simply hurt/ kill me. No! If men actually are a malignant cancer on society, the best thing I can do is stay away from them. (Please note that yours truly is not calling men savages or barbarians. Men are called savages/ barbarians/ a malignant cancer here for the sake of argument, to discuss the topic that Glenn introduced.)

Glenn, do you ever give any thought to all the ways in which women suffer because they are told that the only/ main way to find meaning in life is to take responsibility for loving some savage until he improves?

When you Focus On The Family, Glenn, do you ever Focus On the well-being of the adult female member of The Family? Or are women just human sacrifices to the barbarians called men, so that barbarians may perhaps become civilized while abusing them?

From the complementarian perspective:

Stanton claims:

Worthy men adjust their behavior when a woman enters the room. They become better creatures. Civilization arises and endures because women have expectations of themselves and of those around them.”

Why then, would anyone expect women to one-sidedly submit to men? That, assuming Stanton is right, is civilization taking a back seat to those who cannot behave themselves.

Would God say that the civilized people should not teach or have authority over the barbarians? This article itself suggest women should “govern and direct” men’s “sexual, physical, and emotional energies.”

 

From the logical perspective:

Is the cause and effect not, maybe, the other way round? This article claims:


[T]he most powerful and important influence women have had on our nation’s founding, growth, and success is this: They make men behave. All their other important contributions are secondary.


How about this theory, instead? : In a society where women did not have equal opportunity to study, lead, and work in a wide variety of fields, women’s biggest contributions was in the only area where they were, to some degree, allowed to influence those in power.

It also claims:


Husbands and fathers become better, safer, more responsible and productive citizens, unrivaled by their peers in any other relational status.


Or how about this theory? : Among bunches of males, the responsible ones could be more likely to find wives. If you then compare single men to married ones, the married ones will be more responsible. As for comparing divorced men to married ones, women could be divorcing because their guys are not the “
better, safer, more responsible and productive citizens” that they wanted. Meanwhile, the “better, safer, more responsible and productive citizens” stay married.

 

Is this perhaps a better suggestion?

Even if women have the claimed effect, it seems to be wiser to encourage men towards agape, love-others-as-yourself love for women, and children, and other men. A love that do not see anyone as less than. A love that values all people as much as the self, that want to contribute to their well-being. That kind of love would not do it for only one man at a time after society already influenced him in savage directions, but would create a more civil society.

I think our problem is a society that encourages men to be violent, not that women should be whatever-definition-Glenn-T.-Stanton-has-for-feminine so they can motivate men out of being a malignant cancer. If appreciating a woman’s opinion is life-changing, let men and boys, single and married, respect women and their opinions in every sphere of society – including in politics, in church, in the home, at work and in social settings.

__________________________________
Note:

1Woman… creates, shapes, and sustains human civilization. The first step in weakening her power is to convince her that she must overcome her femininity. This, ironically, is precisely what the most vocal strains of feminism have advocated. – Glenn T. Stanton

Advertisements

Comments on: "No, Focus on the Family, I do not want to civilize a barbarian" (16)

  1. It seems there is no limit to the depravity of some teachings that originate from America. In every other culture I hear it taught clear, ‘Woman, stay away from reckless men, do not try to be a savior’..

    Such a double standard.. If a woman then loves a man to her own hurt, she is told that she did not have ‘discernment’, she didn’t ‘respect herself enough’ etc etc… It was her fault she could not tame the beast.
    If she has wisdom to stay away from the brute, she can be accused of being too picky…!!

    Liked by 1 person

  2. One of your better articles. 🙂 There is so much that can be said. Men claim they are the saviors, yet he claims women need to save them first. It is so crazy odd that some men go to such extremes to control women.

    If not for Jesus, how much more of a bizarre mess the world would be in.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Funny, I remember people always saying growing up that ‘you can’t change a man’. I think that was wiser teaching.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Your thoughts were exactly mine when I clicked on your link and read his drivel. My mind was forming exactly the same points to reply but the comments are now closed. HA!! I wonder why? Too many people who were made angry by his blog post which is disrespectful of not only all genders, I say this since I have believe gender is fluid, for one thing, but also of gay men as well. My son and husband are both deeply kind, sensitive, and loving people all on their own, (my son is 19 and deals with Asperger’s, so, yes, he still needs parenting from both of us) my being a woman or not or my mother in law, did not make them that way. Her good parenting and now our strong marriage and our mutual good parenting, built, of course, on our very deep faith, are the foundation of our family being decent humans, our daughter too.

    Like

    • Thank you.

      Another topic: I assume, if you say gender is fluid, that you (like me) distinguish between sex (biological reality) and gender? Because biological sexual realities are not fluid and even operations and hormones can only go so far in affecting it.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I can only give you my heart’s content here. My cousin’s daughter until this Christmas was ready to marry a transgender guy she was in a relationship with for a few years. My cousin is the youngest of five kids. Her three older brothers and their sons are as stereotypically male as you can imagine, including an mechanic and ex Marine and Navy. They accepted this young man as a guy. That boy was miserable as a girl. I don’t until why it makes any difference at all to anyone other than the person themselves going through the physical transition and their doctor what their hormone levels end up as or the state of their genitalia. Some people obviously don’t choose the surgery or can’t afford it. It is surgery to your body, after all. And there are plenty of people who feel one direction sometimes and sometimes another. I am 50 years old. I have four autoimmune diseases. My daughter is a lesbian and my son is bisexual. He is also autistic. One thing being this sick for 18 years now has taught me is that life is way too short to get stuck on stuff that doesn’t really matter in the end. As my friend from college said last year, “Folks is folks, Jen.” And that’s what Jesus wants us to live too. Folks is folks. Love each other, as I have loved you.

        Like

  5. I suffered from this viewpoint as a young woman. My youth group taught me men were barbarians; women were to civilize them. Many years later, this became a big problem: My husband could not be civilized. He was a deeply disturbed man before he married me and he is still deeply disturbed, long after our divorce.

    This strange twisted “rescuer” viewpoint destroyed my ability to date. I assumed all men needed to be fixed, when in reality there were many men far more moral and decent than I was.

    Today I’m grateful for those men in my life (my age) who modeled excellent behavior and utter trustworthiness. (They were all raised in non-Christian home and weren’t infected by this bizarre fundamentalist worldview.)

    I often believe church youth leaders carry a lot of the blame for the low marriage rate and high divorce rate in Evangelical circles.

    Like

  6. If a man was truly “worthy” then NO adjustment would be necessary when a woman entered the room. What he basically said was that men are liars and frauds and a man good at deceiving will ‘adjust/pretend’ to be different when around women. This was so insulting to men. So very insulting. Men do NOT lack self control unless they were unworthy to begin with. And it is never the woman’s responsibility to change a man. Neither is it a man’s responsibility to change a woman. We will all be judged by our own actions. We are responsible for only OUR OWN actions.

    Like

  7. Wow. One of the most insulting things I’ve read about singleness. I wonder what Bible this guy reads, because his is obviously missing the books of the New Testament written by Paul, who never married, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel in the Old Testament who were all single and all the books in the Old Testament where the author’s marital status is not given. Oh, and not to mention all the verses that talk about a relationship with Christ being the only way to live an upstanding life.

    Meanwhile, on Friday night Dad and his bachelor brother, my Uncle L, will be going to see their married brother who has been in a nursing home two years due to a stroke and is currently not doing well. They will also drive to another nursing home in another county where they will visit the almost 102 year old mother of an old friend of theirs.

    Uncle L is in his 60’s and has yet to be a “malignant cancer” despite never being married. He supports orphanages and ministries in Slavic countries and visits shut ins that he knows. When Uncle L visits someone, he usually brings a gift-food, flowers,a plant, a knick-knack or something else. He has worked in payroll for the same company for decades, and has used his tax code knowledge to help me and my family with our taxes. I’m not sure if he still does it, but I know that in the past he has cooked and bought door prizes for his employer’s company picnics. And those are only his activities that I know of.

    Uncle L has lived since the 1970’s in a small house in neighborhood that has gone downhill. He’s also been a active member of his church since the 1970’s, and sang in almost every concert of a Christmas program that has been discontinued.

    Looking around my house, I see things Uncle L has given me-the rug by my front door, a painting on one wall, a hanging on another wall. In my kitchen I use implements he has given me. He sends me cards on holidays, and at my younger brother’s wedding a year ago made me cry when he gave me a handkerchief that had belonged to my grandmother and told me “I wanted to make you feel special today”. He did!! Younger brother LOVED the wedding gift Uncle L gave him & his wife-a priceless letter, items that had belonged to our grandparents, a picture frame with family pictures and space for more, and I believe a curio that Uncle L picked up somewhere when he was well enough to travel the globe.

    Uncle L and I also have a male cousin who has never married. I’ve only met said cousin a handful of times and do not know him well, but I know that before he got sick he worked hard at good jobs, traveled, read, listened to music, and has done nothing deviant that I know of.

    Retha, you are so right that only Christ can help someone live a Godly life. Thank you for speaking out against that heresy that marriage is the only way for someone to lead an upstanding life.

    Like

  8. […] No, Focus on the Family, I do not want to civilize a barbarian “I think our problem is a society that encourages men to be violent, not that women should be whatever-definition-Glenn-T.-Stanton-has-for-feminine so they can motivate men out of being a malignant cancer. If appreciating a woman’s opinion is life-changing, let men and boys, single and married, respect women and their opinions in every sphere of society – including in politics, in church, in the home, at work and in social settings.” […]

    Like

  9. […] (Link): No, Focus on the Family, I do not want to civilize a barbarian via Biblical Personhood blog […]

    Like

  10. Got to your article from weareezer–wonderful thoughts!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: