Sunday, January 8, 2012

The story about every woman; as told by Man

The blog God and You  has recently become of idle interest to me. It follows a group which indulges their readers with soft-core agreement about Gods love. Mostly harmless, they never really seem to push the lines of controversy. Today however, Sean - author of the article I am about to criticise 'the story about every woman', has brought to my attention how seriously dangerous the ideas are that websites like these propagate.

In short, Sean's article is a thinly veiled act of misogyny designed to justify why it is that women should submit to Man for the good of their souls. He seems to confirm every negative attitude towards women that is perpetrated by the patriarchal religions who are so prevalent in our society today. What is just as unfortunate is his eagerness to prescribe men with similarly restrictive qualities.

Sean puts women up on a pedestal, gives them a self contained 'tower' that is the property of the devil and then asserts that women must not be self contained and that it is the job of Men to show them Gods love. Sean seems to say that without Man a woman is without God. Without either, she is without identity. How is it that so many religious women can allow this opinion?

He affirms that "The Devil will ALWAYS want the woman."  and predictably resolves this by bestowing Man with divine right. "The nature of God passed on to us is of His fierceness and competitiveness. We are dangerous men, ready for battle against the Evil One." Is it really the purpose of women to be led about by our noses as the battle between the Devil and God are waged? Of particular interest to me is how it appears to him men are not led away by the Devil in the same way as women are. Instead Man would side with the Devil in objectifying women.

He makes no reference to the 'Devils' work in objectifying men. Doesn't he believe that men can be sexually, emotionally, mentally victimised by society and authority in the same way as women? By prescribing men with these 'divine' qualities he is sending an equally dangerous message to his male readers. Letting them think that this fairytale world is precisely the way things are. Suppressing their options to think differently.

That to think the mould for masculinity is one size fits all is the same sort of awful belief that femininity comes only from passive submission to men and God.

I probably shouldn't have bothered thinking that this article would provide anything progressive. Its effect was to re-affirm that behind the soppy wishful thinking of Christianity is a repulsive fairy story where the hierarchy would shamelessly use men, women, sexuality and sexual roles as tools against each other. Encouraging compliance to the regime of 'God'.


  1. Thanks for the post. I'm a Christian and also find the perspective in the 'every woman' blog dangerous. When the books that the blog is referencing ('wild at heart' and 'captivating') came out there was a lot of heated disagreement amongst Christians.
    My criticism, however, is a little opposite to your own in that it seems the viewpoint is more an attempt to fit christian teaching more conveniently into a modern western fairytale!
    "Wouldn't it be easier to get my non-christian friends along to church if the gospel sounded more like our favourite disney movie?"
    The 'one size fits all' model is incredibly dangerous but is unfortunately running rampant in many western churches because it more neatly fits the western consumer culture - God forbid our faith perspective actually require us to challenge our social practice or injustices!

  2. Thank you for the comment!

    I do agree with your criticism probably a little more strongly than you might realise. Dressing a wolf up in sheeps clothing comes to mind.

    Unfortunatly in most institutions, challenging the established position isnt ever really accepted. Precisely why atheists get a bad rap and why homosexual marriage is seen as such a 'threat'.

    I do appreciate your very balanced view and I always like to hear from people with opinions which differ from mine. To what 'extent' are you Christian?

  3. What one says, not based on scriptures , is why one should know scripture.

  4. While I appreciate you comment, I must admit its fairly cryptic. What do you mean*