"As we were leaving, Chris said to me, "God, Katie! Why do you have to be such a vice?" It summed up the message of the sermon pretty well.... "
My two cents: I disagree. I do not believe the principle message of the sermon was to reinforce traditional gender role or to promote an image of women as being temptresses, vices, or sluts. Nor was it to say that women should be in the kitchen or at home raising the kids. That is not to say that there weren't gender roles promoted in the sermon (after all, it is a conservative, evangelical movement - but no more so than other non-mega churches out there, in my opinion). The message was skewed by the fact that it was for Father's Day and thus, directed to fathers. And in that sermon, fidelity was preached for men: to stay loyal to your wife and true love and not to succumb to the temptations of lust. Hell, if anything, the sermon was blaming men for being weak-willed. Nothing was said about women being temptresses out there with the goal of seducing and corrupting good-hearted Christian men. What was said was to avoid temptation (which was a bit much when he said to avoid cable TV for fear of sex - but then again, I'm not a member of this church for a reason). The ministers did not say anything that could not be applied to women as well. To stay loyal and avoid temptation? Pretty universal - even if they emphasized different topics for men and women. So yes, the topic targeted men specifically and a Mother's Day sermon would've focused around nurturing and care giving. But is that so grossly unjust considering the unique position and role that women have in an infant/child's development - or that rates of extramarital affairs are significantly higher among married men than married women? If you want to talk about why such differences exist, then that's an entirely different conversation. Or, in another issue targeted toward men, that the vast majority of people that watch porn are men (like this actually has to get justified by a statistic)? Personally, I don't think so, but then again, I have a penis, which is already a strike against me.
Also, there was a ride at Six Flags called 'Chang.' It had a yellow track.
\m/
Steve
The YPMBluegrass Contributors
Chris, Katie, Rebecca, and Steve pose in front of a portrait of Henry Clay at Louisville's Filson Club on May 29.
My Blog List
-
-
Sweet desperation10 years ago
-
Accommodations for...THE GAME!14 years ago
-
What Depressing Stuff15 years ago
-
-
Hooray!15 years ago
-
To market, to market16 years ago
-
Final blog entry from China16 years ago
-
in New Haven, the shopping carts rule the streets16 years ago
-
July of Jenn?16 years ago
-
-
15 comments:
the only way to settle this is a jello wrestling fight. i'll prepare the kiddie pool.
wait a minute. i would like to say that i did not come out swinging on this one, and so your defense of the sermon isn't required now, and wasn't really required in the car either.
i agree: there is such a thing as family values that I agree with and I get behind. Granted, they were preaching the version of family values that I believe has been appropriated unfairly from the nation as a whole, but how can i argue with fidelity? I can't, and wouldn't even think to try.
My point was that the underlying frame of reference for the sermon, as well as for the church as a whole, emphasizes traditional gender roles, and at least at points, in a way that I think even you need to stand up to.
And just as a note, many of the best feminists have dicks too.
steve was just responding to your post with his perspective on the sermon, which he has every right and privilege to do. let's take chill pills, all of us.
First of all, I am not angry about it, I'm just clarifying my position.
Second, who suggested that he didn't have that right? I hope that I always encourage the debate, whether I agree or not.
And as a final note, I believe, as I believe you do, that fighting stereotypes about gender identity is a fight worth engaging in. So, taking a page from the sermon we heard on Sunday, anger isn't wrong as long as it's well directed. So remarking on and debating about the ideas of gender that society has, especially from such a powerful pulpit, is entirely worth discussing.
Actually I have about 17 dicks right now. Also,
1. In Chris' world, Steve is allowed to comment on Katie's post, but Katie is not allowed to comment on Steve's post.
2. God forbid people actually have a discussion about an important topic.
3. Katie's clearly just being pissy because she's PMSing. Aww Katie why don't you go bake us some cookies so you feel better?
3. Only after you bring me a beer, woman!
that's not what I said. Katie and anyone else has every right to post on anything they want, and I never said or implied that she didn't. i just want the conversation to be civil. this isn't an argument; it's a discussion. there's a distinct difference between the two.
and i would say that this is a discussion. i suppose you can read what i said as angry, but in large part, that seems to be your choice in reading it that way. and at this point, i am a little pissed about what i see as your patronizing tone.
i also find it hilarious that you are right down the hall, maybe 15 yards from me, and we are discussing/fighting/whatever through blog comments.
If your comment pertains to the underlying frame of reference of gender roles, then that's fine. But with a comment of women being a vice as summing up the sermon as a whole, how was I to know that? Nonetheless, there is no defense on the sermon - just my own take on the matter. After all, that is why we decided to go SCC in the first place.
Except for Chris. He went for the closeted gays.
Also, for the record: I am not Chris' keeper. I may be many things to Chris. But not his keeper. That's Becca.
this all would have been simpler if we'd just gotten out the jello pit in the first place. i'll trust you all to take care of it since i'm not there to moderate. maybe Rebecca can take charge. you know how she loves nude jello wrestling. also bats.
Re: women as vice
While a lot of the sermon was chastising men to stay chaste and faithful to their wives (good) i felt that there was the theme of women as temptress underneath it, only reinforced by what dads ought to tell their daughters. The references we got were to the sexual morality of women, at least as much as to the sexual morality of men. And last I looked, that was not part of the "being a good father" motif.
Re: Chris' keeper
Thank god for small mercies.
Point taken. However, I think your connection between women as temptresses and what dads should tell their daughters is stretching it (which does not mean I endorse anything). Also, I do believe there is a very relevant connection to being a good father - that being sons will know everything you do and emulate you (a point very much emphasized by the ministers), something that is a very real occurrence in society when there is a generational inheritance of misguided beliefs about women and their treatment of them.
I would just like to point out that I am not Chris's keeper. He never listens to me. Mostly because he's too busy staring at my boobs because I'm an evil temptress.
I find it amusing that, while everyone else posts using their name, Chris posts as if he were the whole group. We wouldn't even know it was him if one of you guys hadn't called him out (of the closet, if you will).
also, you can't blame us, breasts are really fucking tempting. Shame on you women for having them. But no, no! Don't put them away, I was looking at them...
Post a Comment