Thursdays with Brittaini

I think your first asterisk should go after "...

2012-02-13T08:01:41.636-08:00

I think your first asterisk should go after "forever", not after "ago".

You don't need to respond to this comment. I post comments to make the universe a more fulfilling place for humanity, not to elicit responses.

P.P.S. — I looked up the video of the acceptance; ...

2012-02-13T06:29:14.708-08:00

P.P.S. — I looked up the video of the acceptance; here it is. Be forewarned that you may have to sit through a 30-second ad for the 2-minute clip.

Maybe they didn't come because they were boyco...

2012-02-13T04:40:14.343-08:00

Maybe they didn't come because they were boycotting Chris Brown, which would be awesome. But probably not.

P.S. — "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy&quo...

2012-02-13T03:34:35.205-08:00

P.S. — "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy" wasn't nominated for a Grammy this year because it came out in 2010; Wikipedia says it won Best Rap Album, Best Rap Song, etc. that year. "Watch the Throne was nominated for the same awards this year; I dunno if/what it won.

Some relevant backstory for Justin's statement...

2012-02-13T03:26:03.427-08:00

Some relevant backstory for Justin's statement is that the Grammy committee wanted him to perform in a "collaboration" with another artist in certain ways contrived basically to advertise the Grammys rather than to be art. I imagine he believes that the Grammy committee finally recognized him not because it has any new interest in legit musical talent and innovation but because it's finally economically convenient for them to do so. If he truly believes that the Grammys are detrimental to music, his cavalier attitude about the award may still be ungracious, but it isn't necessarily the calculated disaffection you're suggesting.

His saying that he doesn't do music for the awards doesn't necessarily imply that he thinks most other artists do; he might have meant what he said to apply merely to himself. Celebrity is complicated, especially for artists who have to make decisions about how to present themselves in a way that shows they are thankful for the recognition they receive but yet do not depend on it (I imagine writers at book-signings, for instance; what do you even say?).

Let it be known also that I didn't actually watch the ceremony, so I could be way off here. I get the vibe from Justin that he really would do whatever he felt like (e.g., his new exercise video) regardless of whether anyone else listens, but I agree with you that he might have better conveyed that feeling not with a snooty barb but rather a simple, heartfelt "Thank you to those who've enjoyed my music" backed with a warm smile.

you tell em

2012-02-12T22:00:17.859-08:00

you tell em

Oh my gosh. Your last birthday dinner was so freak...

2011-11-01T06:38:31.052-07:00

Oh my gosh. Your last birthday dinner was so freaking good. I hope your Madison friends appreciate.

You are cool. I like you.

Also, today is the day that I catch up on your blog instead of using my planning period to, you know, plan things. So thanks for that. It's more fun.

Ahhh I love this. You're funny.

2011-11-01T06:28:39.696-07:00

Ahhh I love this. You're funny.

Disclaimer: I am spending my life today giving rea...

2011-11-01T06:26:10.296-07:00

Disclaimer: I am spending my life today giving reading quizzes on Fahrenheit 451, and the following rambling and aggressive comment is mostly to stave off boredom, not because I am really all that angry at the concept of suspenders. Ok.

----------------------------------

Not saying I disagree about the fedoras, but why exactly are suspenders and cardigans ok but not fedoras? They are all trying to be edgy by showing up in an era that at one point had dismissed them as conventional fashion, and they are all so overworn that they are now the definition, rather than the antithesis, of cliche attire for the early twenty-something. More specifically, the early twenty-something who for some reason can't define his identity except through his clothing and needs to feel like he is somehow going to be something new in a world that has seen some 107,000,000,000 people thus far. Call me a pessimist, but I am pretty sure that most of the handful of those people who have had genuinely new ideas didn't spend much of their time thinking about how to brand themselves and their ideas with their clothing.

I'm not saying that no one has ever contributed to a change in the world through an expression of new values or ideas through fashion, because I think that the 1920s would beg to disagree with that, but I don't think that Coco Cahenel got her clothes at the Urban Outfitters of her day. I understand that maybe you could try put the people who made the Urbanesque look mainstream in that "new idea" category and those who follow it in the category of disciples of these geniuses, but... what exactly are they saying? That vintage can be modern and nerdy can be cool? That what's cool and what's not are social conventions that mean nothing? That anything... even, say, a fedora, has to be socially acceptable, because there is no reason for it not to be?

Or maybe Urbanites are just expressing that they view irony to be the highest of virtues, in which case I think that judging some retro fashions used in a vaguely new and meaningless way as cool and others as lame is a brilliant move. The apex of irony has to be having ironic standards of irony, right?

I think you're so wonderful. And I really want...

2011-09-20T11:32:51.167-07:00

I think you're so wonderful. And I really want to have eaten one of those cupcakes. I would've appreciated it to no end.

Also I want to see a picture of your desk and your...

2011-09-12T21:25:21.959-07:00

Also I want to see a picture of your desk and your reconfigured living space!

This is a good entry. I think you would be much h...

2011-09-12T21:25:04.768-07:00

This is a good entry. I think you would be much happier and perhaps more you if you stayed home at least two nights a week. Five nights out and about is still a lot though! I get weird when I don't have any downtime.

You make me laugh and I miss it. Also, today I w...

2011-09-06T13:37:37.239-07:00

You make me laugh and I miss it.

Also, today I went to Borders and got Nicole Krauss' new book, and my own copy of the Mormon Halloween Dance book (that is altogether too long to type out and I don't know what the acronym would be...NYRMSHD?), and Liars Club, and some other gems.

I'm (in a sense) glad it's not just me. I ...

2011-09-04T07:31:35.910-07:00

I'm (in a sense) glad it's not just me. I also feel like I am bad at real life and working and having discipline to do what I'm supposed to be doing. And being a real person on top of it.

See you soon. :)

I just reread this and it is still awesome. I love...

2011-08-30T06:54:02.448-07:00

I just reread this and it is still awesome. I love you.

But please don't marry a manslut atheist.

this was really good. even though i am anxiously a...

2011-08-14T21:45:27.908-07:00

this was really good. even though i am anxiously awaiting your response to donnie miller and WHY HAVE YOU NOT WRITTEN IT YET? also, i think one of my fav lines was "We all suck, and it's not like you get extra points for not putting your p in a girl's v." that was pretty brilliant. also thanks for the shout out. i will return the favor.

I remember being seriously disturbed by that scene...

2011-05-15T21:52:29.335-07:00

I remember being seriously disturbed by that scene in Ghost World. My high school physics teacher told me I'd like it. Am not ready to watch it again for a potential flicker of redemption.

That said, nice post.

love you.

2011-04-17T20:49:41.155-07:00

love you.

Thanks everyone for your comments! This is the mos...

2011-04-02T11:44:02.745-07:00

Thanks everyone for your comments! This is the most action this blog has seen in…ever.

Some continuing thoughts:

Markle – It is the hierarchy that bothers me, along with the theme of men being held accountable for sin more than women. The idea of accountability based on gender, as well as a gender-specific hierarchy, strikes me as a reduction of some persons and an elevation of other persons. I haven’t studied it, but that’s my gut. These issues are probably most of what I’m going to be working out with fear and trembling for the rest of my life.

Additionally, in the interest of full disclosure, I wrote this blog less in the interest of perpetuating a debate and more in the interest of testing my feminist wings, so to speak. David French gave me a great platform to flex my rhetoric and I took it.

Laura – glad you were entertained :) (I had to include a smiley face so you would know I wasn’t being sarcastic).

I don’t have much to say on points 1 and 2. I would agree that (as a whole) women may be more prominent in the church because men have been comparatively disinterested in church leadership. I don’t think, however, that this discrepancy means that we should disparage the work women have done in maintaining the church, or relegate them to background positions to create voids in leadership which men are then coerced into filling (by coerced I don’t necessarily mean forced, but I do think a large amount of undue flattery –at the expense of women - is used to try and get men to “man up” see also: Mark Driscoll on church planting – “if you get the young men, you get everything. If you don’t get the young men, you get nothing”).

Your third point is interesting. I don’t think I buy it, but I’m not sure exactly why yet. I would agree that the way we conduct ourselves in relationships – the way we love one another – should, ideally speaking, be so extraordinary in the way it reflects Christ as to be winning for the Gospel. And that this should be most reflected in our most deeply personal relationships – eg. between a husband and a wife. But at the same time, I’m not sure if that type of hierarchy is necessary for love to be extraordinary.

As to point four – I apologize sincerely if I implied that complementarian women are all – or even mostly - weak-willed idiots. That was not my intention - my rhetoric might get the best of me sometimes. I fully support your decision to pursue a complementarian relationship – I know that many complementarian relationships work and are fulfilling for both parties and honoring to Jesus.

But I also think that your decision is just that – a decision. What I take issue with is not the existence of complementarian relationships, but rather the idea that complementarian relationships are prescriptive, that there is one way and only one way to make a marriage work. Just like there’s not one way to be a man or a woman, I don’t think there’s one way to structure a marriage.

Much love, friends.

Which brings me to another point: "real men&q...

2011-04-02T08:07:58.043-07:00

Which brings me to another point: "real men" and "real women." Some of those damaging implied messages I was referencing come out in the paragraph about "female emotional porn." One of them is that men and women are all the same, so we can talk about monolithic Men and monolithic Women. French implies that all women are "emotionally available" or "always eager to talk," and that is just so untrue that I don't even need to explain it. (He also lumps in being "ready, willing, and able to shoulder the household workload," which has nothing to do with being a feminized man and everything to do with being a mature human.) French talks about how the feminized ideal is for men to be "Christlike" while imagining a Jesus always washing feet and never clearing out temples. But French seems to imply that for men to be real men, they should be "Christlike" while imagining a Jesus always clearing out temples and never washing feet. I know, I know, toward the end French gives a paragraph (thank goodness) about how there are "gentle moments amongst the harsh, with great tenderness and, yes, deep emotion mixed with necessary stoicism and steely determination." But still, French makes little room for individual variation in men, and there is so flippin' much intra-gender variation. It is perfectly okay for a guy to be naturally quite sensitive; it can be a gift (it can also be abused). It's perfectly okay for a guy to be highly adventurous; it can be a gift (it can also be abused). It's perfectly okay for a woman to naturally be supportive; it can be a gift (it can also be abused). It's perfectly okay for a woman to be a leader; it can be a gift (it can also be abused). Attempts to define masculinity and femininity by interests or characteristics--as though there's some pot full of strips of paper, and we pull out one and say "Courage. That'll be masculine. To be a man, you need to be courageous, and any woman who displays courage is not adequately feminine"--are attempts based on ultimately arbitrary things, and these definitions are always going to exclude people (one reason we need to understand that there are masculinities and femininities). At this point I'm just rambling inarticulately, so I'll stop.

Yes, I do think our culture has big problems with masculinity. But French and I would pinpoint it to extremely different loci. ...No, wait, I said I was going to stop.

John, I think most of this discussion is not actually about the article but rather bigger issues and trends. I think there's nothing unworthy about having dialogue about these things, and I also don't think you should understand it as debate. I, for one, am not approaching it like a debate/competition, and I'm really glad when I get to hear my friends talk about significant things.

As for Scriptural passages, I'll admit that I ...

2011-04-02T08:07:45.527-07:00

As for Scriptural passages, I'll admit that I haven't intently studied them, but just from reading your quotes (granted, out of context) I can readily understand how the "hierarchy" they involve might not be intended as a prescriptive, this-is-the-way-things-should-be statement as much as a descriptive, this-is-the-way-things-are statement. Yes, I know they throw the whole Christ-and-the-Church metaphor in there, which is an enduring reality. Yes, I know that "wives submit to your husbands" is prescriptive. I'm not attempting an argument for my (admittedly unstudied and certainly not fixed) opinion here, but I am suggesting the possibility. Call it mental gymnastics; I call it honoring Scripture by seeking its true intention and not wanting to say any less or any more than what is truly intended. (Again, not saying that this potential alternative interpretation is what is truly intended, just that it is a hypothesis that should be tested and ruled out before incorporating these Scriptures into a complementarian theology.)

Laura, you talk about "wanting to be the woman" in your relationship, letting the man lead. I'll admit my frustration with this statement because I know you can take it. I validate your interest in a leader-man as a legitimate choice, but I decry the implication that "to be [a] woman" in a relationship, you've got to be "the one who gracefully and freely submits to another sinner." There are women who have strong leadership skills, while there are men whose gifts are not in leading or taking action--it's not a moral failure on either's part. In relationships with these men, these women should not feel that they are upsetting God's glorified gender hierarchy by exercising their God-given skills in leadership; it doesn't mean she's higher on some hierarchy because she may be more decisive, have clearer and bolder vision, or is more prone to action than her husband. A husband who submits to his wife--um, there's always supposed to be mutual submission, but I mean in terms of his wife's leading qualities--affirms the gifts that she has been given. In the same way that this woman should still be allowed to feel like a woman, this man should not feel like less of a man if his particular gifts are not leadership (at this point, we will disagree if you understand leadership to be part of the fundamental fabric of God's design for men, and not women).

In relationships with these men, these women should not feel that they are upsetting God's glorified gender hierarchy by exercising their God-given skills in leadership; it doesn't mean she's higher on some hierarchy because she may be more decisive, have clearer and bolder vision, or is more prone to action than her husband. A husband who submits to his wife--um, there's always supposed to be mutual submission, but I mean in terms of his wife's leading qualities--affirms the gifts that she has been given. In the same way that this woman should still be allowed to feel like a woman, this man should not feel like less of a man if his particular gifts are not leadership (at this point, we will disagree if you understand leadership to be part of the fundamental fabric of God's design for men, and not women).

I don't have time or willpower to respond to e...

2011-04-02T08:07:11.915-07:00

I don't have time or willpower to respond to everything, so here are just a few thoughts.

John, I've gone back and read the article again with your comments about French's intent in mind and have found that I can read (most) of it in a way that is not glaringly offensive to my own feminist sentiments. However, I have to do an incredible amount of mental gymnastics in order to understand this piece as not denigrating to women; not demonizing of "femininity;" not naming women and feminists as the primary cause of men's lame-assness, the cause without which men would probably still be doing their "manly" duty. Now, I'm okay doing mental gymnastics during reading if I believe it leads me to the author's real intentions and points. But if I don't do that here, if I take the plain face-value meaning of French's stuff, then there are all kinds of damaging messages I hear (because as a feminist I'm sensitive to them), damaging messages that, even if French does not intend them, are likely being absorbed implicitly by some of French's readers. Several of those implicit messages--things French might not mean, but that his words kind of say--are issues that Brittaini was addressing in this post.

Hierarchy: First of all, I wonder if it just isn't helpful ever to use the word hierarchy when discussing complementarianism; might it be more effective if you stick to talking about divinely-intended roles? As a complementarian, you'll find it difficult to convince someone like me that you believe women are equals when you use the term 'hierarchy'; hierarchy implies inherent inequalities.

3. You understandably react against the concept of...

2011-04-01T22:54:04.575-07:00

3. You understandably react against the concept of hierarchy. John touched on this a little bit, but I want to add a couple things. Firstly, I believe that there is (and should be) a hierarchy in just about all human relationships, and I don't believe that this is reflective of an idea of superiority or favoritism, but of differing responsibilities. I think that there is scriptural evidence for the concept of hierarchy within the Trinity, but we would never argue that one member of the Trinity is superior to the others. They play different roles as equals to work for the same good. When this is applied to marriage, it gets harder, because, as noted above, men can be jerks. They can be wrong, and having authority can sometimes let them be bigger jerks who feel justified in their arrogance. Scripture isn't saying that men are in charge because they are better or smarter or pee standing up. I see scripture actually pointing to wives submitting as something so unwarranted by human reason that is is shocking enough to testify something important about the character of God. 1 Peter 3, which I am sure you are familiar with, says "Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. " Freely submitting to someone who is NOT better than you is so sacrificial and so unnatural that it speaks without words. A few verses earlier, this book also says "be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution." Not for the sake of how awesome your man is and how you can't live without him. For the sake of how awesome Christ is and how you can't live without him.

So you are right that you are "both the fuck-up" in a relationship. But that doesn't matter, because his authority is not a result of is sancification, but of his God-given responsibility to you.

4.Regardless of what you make of all that, just a note that I am very confident in my intelligence and my ability to function in the world, but I have come to the conclusion that I want to be the woman in a relationship, the one who gracefully and freely submits to another sinner, knowing that we are both covered by Christ's blood. I am a pretty strong and smart woman, and I find male passivity incredibly annoying and male leadership incredibly attractive. Doesn't mean I want to be a "daughter-wife" or lack confidence in my own abilities. Means I want to be an equal with a different job. Just an egocentric example. Complementarian women aren't all weak-willed idiots : )

5. All of your expectations of the illustrious X could be met in a complementarian male. Even #4. I would even say especially #4, because part of your being as a "fully realized, actual person" is a gender.

Anyway, since we are talking about both the article and the principles it flows from, this is a messy and incomplete response to both.

Much love, my friend.

Also, I wrote too much to fit in one comment.

Ahhh Brit, I know that I am going to enjoy somethi...

2011-04-01T22:52:44.343-07:00

Ahhh Brit, I know that I am going to enjoy something when the phrase "some bad shit has gone down" is followed immediately by "notably..."

Anyway, I agree with you that a lot of that article came across as simplistic and abrasive, which seems like it is contributing to the characterization of the complementarian man as "assault-weapon toting," emotionless, arrogant overgrown child who just wants to be in charge because he can't handle a relationship in which he has to treat his wife as an equal. I get that. This is one demographic that has to be really careful about how it presents itself, because it is easily misunderstood, and French is clearly targeting his writing for an audience that already agrees with him. This isn't the kind of thing that wins anyone over. But there is no way that is what he is trying to do here. He's not writing to convince you, he's writing to make John Markle smile. Which is why you are offended and he is not. As has been pointed out, it's a rant, not an argument.

Rambling. So. A couple points as long as we are talking about the actual issue at hand here, rather than debating the merit's of Mr. French's rhetoric:

1. Lots of men are too aggressive, too full of themselves, and too ready to make decisions without consulting with their wives, valuing their wives' unique wisdom and considering their wives interests as is they were their own. But I firmly believe that these men are in a minority in the church. I think that passivity is a much more widespread problem. You noted that it is women who have perhaps been most faithful in sustaining and building the church. I see this as a symptom of male passivity. We're supposed to be partners. Doesn't mean my husband should spend mass amounts of money on a gaming system without consulting with me, but it does mean he should take the lead and (with my advice and support) take action when our teenage son decides so stop going to church.

2. You mentioned basically wanting to be related to as an individual, not as generic "woman" in a relationship. I am with you entirely. But who I am is uniquely within the category of "woman" and that has to be a parameter of the relationship I build with a man. This doesn't mean I am a generic representative of femininity, but it does say something about what my role is. In my relationship with my parents, the fact that I am 30 years their junior and have my dad's height and my mom's eyes doesn't make me a generic "daughter" without an identity, but it does mean that being in the category "daughter" says some important things about my role, my rights, and my responsibilities. I see the same principle applying should I be in the category of "wife" in the future.

So, a couple responses. First, I believe it is in...

2011-04-01T11:26:27.725-07:00

So, a couple responses.

First, I believe it is inaccurate to claim that his argument blames women for men's current failures =="And all of these things are women's fault"==. Who he blames for men's current failure is men. With that in mind I think it would be easier to read the rest of his article in a way that is not offensive to you as a feminist.

Which brings me to my second point. Another inaccuracy is to lump your feminism with the one he is pointing the finger at. In the sentence leading up to one that you took issue with --what do feminists and evangelicals have in common-- he says "The "feminized man" represents the perfect storm of collaboration between radical feminism and a particularly sappy and sentimental Christianity that dominates many of our evangelical churches." He makes it clear that the feminism that is in view for the entirety of the article is radical feminism. The definition of your own view of feminism, while he and I would still take issue with, is not the one he is putting down in this article. Feminism is such a hard word because there are so many definitions that encompass it. Notice also that when he uses the term evangelical after that sentence it is not in reference to the Christian men as a whole, but a reference to "sappy and sentimental Christianity that dominates many of our churches."

To avoid going into every minor point, there is only one other big claim that I take issue with. You say that "This Jesus-Man, Church-Woman metaphor is one that was, probably, at one time incredibly beautiful and useful. Sometimes it might still be that. More often it's used in the way French uses it, as a way to elevate men and create a hierarchy within human relationships." The Bible, like it or not, is clear that their is a hierarchy in marriage. Ephesians 5:22-24 says "Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands." This is one verse of many that puts forward in clear terms that the man of the house is the head of the house. This in no way means that women are less valuable than men in God's eyes (or man's for that matter). While the hierarchy mentioned in the article bothers you (and I think it is the abuse of the hierarchy that bothers you, not the hierarchy itself), it is hard to refute if one holds the Bible as authoritative. If you take issue with that statement, do a scripture study on all of the times this topic is mentioned in the Bible and the theme of men being held accountable for sin more than women.

Finally, I think it is silly to treat this man's opinion article as something that is even worthy of this much debate. The only thing I was advancing by posting it was that men need to man up. If you do not think that our culture has a problem with men leading the way they should (regardless of feminist ideals) then there really is no debate to be had over the article since your disagreement stems from a much more basic premise.