Mary Kassian, the Beta Boy Husband, and the gaslight SPECIAL!

Mary Kassian wrote an article about Alpha Woman and Beta Boy: She is pointing out once again how to avoid the mindset that is:  celebrated by those who have swallowed the feminist/egalitarian claim that male-female roles are interchangeable.




Mary Kassian article though tends to contradict the teaching itself, and is also short on facts.   To me is seems like a good example of gaslighting!


Her teaching speaks about women breadwinners turning their female role into a position of the Alpha power seeker, because of the unnatural balance of income generated.  So don’t make more money than your partner, because it shows your possible usurping of his headship.  Why?  Less income makes the Beta Boy!

(Where do they come up with this stuff??)

Now, she does say woman can have jobs, and make a decent living.  Yet, they have to be OH so careful.  Then uses examples off another article where even myself felt the women were rather short sighted, and self centered.  It seems to be a norm in her examples.  She doesn’t like to use everyday women to make her point, but searches out examples most never come into contact with.

Yes, she found a feminist to use as an example of how everyone else lives, believes, and does life outside the complementarian belief system.  Its just not realistic for most people, but she uses it anyway.

Mary Kassian’s article is called, “Alpha Woman and Beta Boys’.  Her beginning paragraph makes you think she is basing it off a Pew Research Poll based on Breadwinner Moms.  The study was based off the rising numbers of women’s incomes, and goes into many factors that are a reality in this world. 

Yet, its not based on any power grab that Mary tends to present as the true message, nor interchangeable roles.

According to Pew Poll nearly two-thirds of homes where women are the primary or sole breadwinners are homes headed by single moms, while the other one-third percent are homes where a woman earns more than her husband. Both of these groups have grown dramatically over time. 

So, actually the majority of the women in this study?  Don’t have a beta boy or husband, so it’s a little misleading.

The second article Mary Kassian was referencing was from a successful older woman, that has a retired husband.  I did a little reading about the author herself, and sounds like she was pretty independent for quite a while.  She also started her family late in life.

What the author found is even as the bread winner of the family she still finds herself responsible for most of the domestic work around the house as well.  Cooking the dinners, planning the Birthday parties, etc.  I, myself would also find that rather odd if my circumstance was the same.  I mean what does he do with his retirement time?

Now, remember we are speaking of a one third that would be considered having a partner, and we still may not even know their circumstances (disability for example).  The ladies the second article references seem to be professional women on the higher ranks of their profession.  Most of us – don’t fill that description.  So, again it not really relatable.

So using them as a ‘see what I mean ladies’ type of example is rather silly.  They aren’t the norm here after all.

Its quite a spin!

Income doesn’t make a person ‘Alpha’

The “Alpha’ personality is normally something people are born with, and its cultivated in life.  They naturally tend to take charge, are outgoing, and seek solutions without ‘blaming or whining’ about others not giving them the affirmation that certain people claim they need. 

Don’t get me wrong its always nice to hear affirmation, but they don’t ‘need’ it in order to be an Alpha Personality.   Their personality is normally that of confidence.  They tend to be risk takers, and are successful in life. 

Income in that sense may follow of course, but that doesn’t make them the Alpha.  The natural confidence is normally the key trait. 

That is NOT to say it doesn’t have its negative side, and people don’t push their confidence into power hungry positions.  Yet, it doesn’t automatically happen that way either. 

From what I have seen in life those ‘power hungry’ positions normally have enablers that hand over this power to them.  It can quickly turn into arrogance and conceit. 

This is one of the biggest issues non complementarian’s have with their belief system.  Yet, one comp’s will claim isn’t present if you ‘do it right’.  Forget human nature and all that. 

Could be why God doesn’t’ encourage his followers to seek this power to begin with.

Don’t make your husband the Beta

As much as the Complementarians don’t wish for others to view their lists of traits of gender roles in a negative light, and not entirely ‘biblical’?  Its not that hard to put the puzzle pieces together with their descriptions, and articles that they write such as this one.. 

To be perfectly honest?  Mary Kassian herself tends to have some ‘alpha’ traits herself, but I doubt she would view that part of her as non feminine.  Yet, it’s quite the opposite of what they claim to be feminine.  There is nothing wrong with her Alpha traits, because that is how God made her.  Its just kind odd if you compare that to what they present as the proper lady.

No doubt her diversion in response is that her husband is the breadwinner.  Yet, that doesn’t make any sense in light of the reality of many pastors within their group aren’t the bread winners. Also, it doesn’t address their stereotype of women that goes against her VERY nature (I mean that is what teach right?).  It also has nothing to do with Alpha Traits.
 
The opinion that Mary Kassian takes is that the ‘breadwinner’ status places her in the man’s role, and her husband then must be in the ‘Beta’ role (using the second article as the prime example).  Yes, pretty much the role reversal they whine so much about. She uses the professional women in the other article to prove her point.  Yet, realistically?  The point wasn’t made.  They are in the minority.  Also, bread winner women don’t all act like this – remember the Pastor wifes!

I believe a more realistic example is needed.  I have friends where the husband is in construction for example, and his work is seasonal.  She does customer service, and works all year round.  Now depending on the construction season?  She may or may not be the ‘bread winner’. I mean in his off season he does find work, but it can be hard to find at times.

What Mary never mentions is that MOST people are able to be realistic about these arrangements. 

What Mary Kassian hints at is: If she makes more money she will have a hard time dropping her ‘Alpha’ mode when she gets from work, and it makes things even harder in the bedroom.  He on the other hand is placed automatically in the ‘beta’ mode.  OR she wants him the beta mode, and he is only allowed to surface to Alpha mode in bed only!  Notice it doesn’t have ANYTHING to do with personalities types, but job incomes.  Income makes the ALPHA right?  In reality, NO.

Heck, I have seen beta males that were bread winners….never mind that doesn’t fit here!

Conflicting Messages about the Alpha

In our present day most mature couples view supporting the family as a JOINT effort, and they are both doing their parts to help the family unit as a whole.  The way this article is presented is that men should be almost threatened by the woman’s part if she happens to find a job that generates more income.  She is at risk of stepping over that imaginary line, and turning into the ladies in Mary’s second article!

No acknowledgement of any kind that this is a sense of insecurity that is very unhealthy for his sense of self….nope!  It’s a threat to his manhood!  Yeah, That's common sense and a healthy outlook right?!  Sigh.

This is NOT a healthy elevation of the husband, but playing games in life to make him FEEL his role.  Notice the ‘emotional’ component there.  It also doesn’t prove their ‘male-female roles are interchangeable’ fear either.

I think the part that really eats at me is the negative, and almost doomsday opposing views in response to this disagreement.   The Christian Post had an article about this issue, and showed opposing views even within the complementarian realm.

What does the bible say about men being the breadwinner

"The American man is struggling – I think we will have a monument for the modern 21^st Century man, and he will be on a couch, etched in stone, playing an X-Box," said Owen Strachan, vice president of The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and assistant professor of Christian Theology and Church History at Kentucky's Boyce College. In an interview with The Christian Post on Wednesday, he argued that "men are called by God to take responsibility for provision for their families."

Notice the women will be like the professionals that Mary Kassian pointed out in the second article, and the man will be like Owen Strachan describes above – The Xbox professional. 

Notice once again the ‘emotional component’ they use to WIN their argument.   Your suppose to ignore all the real life examples that tend to go against their stereotypes they have presented.  That’s not persuasive, but the use of rhetoric we see to often today in politics.

Now, the second pastor in the article on the Christian Post?  I may not agree with whole heartily, but you notice his definition of ‘headship’ isn’t so hard nosed and unrealistic.

"I think the man should be the head of the house, but a wise 21st century position would be consultative leadership," the pastor said. He referred to I Chronicles 12, when King David consulted with the heads of tribes after becoming king. "He consulted with them because they had functional authority because of their experience, their knowledge of warfare – he was wise enough to get help." Jackson argued that a wise man would "utilize a wife who may be a medical doctor with a multimillion earning potential."

Quoting Ephesians 5, Jackson argued that the order for wives to "submit to your husbands and to the Lord," is a military term, which means for a wife to align herself to the strategic goals of her husband. The husband, on the other hand, is told to love his wife as his own body. The pastor argued that this means "he's going to have to take into account her career, her passions, her desires, and put them on at least the same level as he would put his own career and personal aspirations."

This opinion of course sent Owen Strachman into a tizzy! (Tizzy Definition:  a state of nervous excitement or agitation.)  Owen feels that he doesn’t need to take her into account, but remind the world of their roles – and his account.

Most mature couples I know look at income generated as ‘our’ money, and there isn’t any power grab that Mary and Owen concentrate so much on.  They can say what they will, but their definitions of ‘roles’ in their presentations do reveal this.  Owen no doubt feels the power struggle is from Genesis, but has a hard time some realizing people find ways of moving past these ‘curses’ he uses to justify the roles.  To him?  It has to be there!

Yet, these types of articles and teachings that Mary Kassian and Owen Strachman tend to encourage this type of stinkin thinking!  It encourages the THREAT to power structure they claim they are against, and then hand you a boogey man reality in its place.  Their logic just doesn’t follow reality.  I mean you are suppose to go WITH the ‘curses’ of Genesis – not work against them!  Its only natural right?

Addendum To Add the Interchangeable Pastor Wives

Mary Kassian’s final note in her article about the Alpha Women and the Beta Boys was rather telling to me.  It seems she heard from Pastor’s and their Wives, and because of HER salary.  So Mary attempts at the end to change the tone:

Note:  I’ve heard from several complemententarian pastors who say their wives must work and do out-earn them. However, they also tell me that though this is the situation, they don’t feel it’s ideal. They wish they earned more, and wish that their wives didn’t have to bear the burden of being primary breadwinner.
It’s not “wrong” for a woman to out earn her husband. That wasn’t my point. My point is merely that such a circumstance can and often does put an unnatural strain on relationships, and that a woman in this situation needs to take care to make sure that her higher wage doesn’t cause her to usurp her husband’s headship in their home.

Hmm.  How sad.  Their churches don’t pay their pastor’s enough so their own families don’t have an ‘unnatural strain’ on their marriage.  Leaders within this belief system are to busy writing books, having seminars, and push teachings that their own pastor’s don’t even have the luxury of living.  Wow.

Somehow I think we all know that isn’t the reality for these couples.  He was called to do God’s work, and she is doing her part to support him in this call.  They live their life’s against the roles they preach, and if she believes in his work?  No doubt its not such a heavy burden for her in that sense – even though its ‘unnatural’. 

So, as their pastor’s live life is in this ever present ‘danger’? The families that attend their church live this as well.   That’s the reality of it from their viewpoint.  I will never understand WHY they feel this ‘think the worse’ about aspects of life like this are in anyway encouraging. 

Think about it!  She hints in her article that the greater salary from the wife creates the Alpha Woman whom is: celebrated by those who have swallowed the feminist/egalitarian claim that male-female roles are interchangeable.


Yet, ends her article with an example of those who do make greater salaries WHOM I would assume she states is NOT the Alpha Woman with her Beta Boy.  They are living the feminist/egalitarian male-female interchangeable roles in life…but really aren’t.  Why?  She takes great care in making sure her salary doesn’t usurp his authority. 

Okay Then.  Sounds like gas lighting to ME!

Mary’s article:  Alpha Women Beta Boys

C.S. Lewis describes that kind of alliance—a real partnership/a deep friendship—as he lamented the death of his beloved wife Joy.

“For a good wife contains so many persons in herself. What was [she] not to me? She was my daughter and my mother, my pupil and my teacher, my subject and my sovereign; and always, holding all these in solution, my trusty comrade, friend, shipmate, fellow-soldier. My mistress, but at the same time all that any man friend (and I have good ones) has ever been to me. Perhaps more.... Did you ever know, dear, how much you took away with you when you left?”

Fascinating Womanhood Review: feminine role vs. working wife

Now you get 'juice bars and skinny jeans’ at church. Seriously? That’s all you heard?

The church claims they hear the Millennial generation, but are they listening?  They haven’t been listening for generations now!  Sadly, they just think they are.

I’m NOT a millennial, but I would be guilty of the generation that gave birth to them.  Yet, I can understand their complaints.  Our generation raised complaints, and we were ignored and spoken down to as well. 

I realize some of the older generation – like mine – will throw out the stereotype about the generations ‘issues’.  WELL all generations had them, and some young people walk away from church….and come back when children are born. 

Once they leave again after that?  Chances are pretty good its not over all the labels or issues that the present generation is handed.  Its normally MUCH larger than that.  To me?  That’s where they miss the boat…

Things have been going downhill since the 1980’s – if not sooner.  I guess its our children’s chance to have a running start, and bang into that brick wall now. 

Acknowledge and Deal with the Changes in Culture

When you don’t listen to the millennial generation’s parents?  You can be pretty much secure in knowing their children will figure it out as well.  Problems don’t go away when you ignore them, but tend to get worse.

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.

In the present culture you have the internet, and in my generation you had the start of cable tv (when I was teen I believe).  Our worlds were starting to open up, and come to find all the messages you told us about being the ONLY one that felt that way?  Hmm.  I guess NOT so much!  That’s why we are questioning you….

Your words had power when we were isolated, but now that the world as opened up?  We find others that realize some of the things you say don’t make sense either. 

For me personally at times the church’s viewpoint was almost superstitious. You need to keep sheltered, because otherwise you will be contaminated.  That doesn’t say much for our strength in faith.

You have to act a certain way, dress a certain, worship a certain way…so as we see it the church created an environment at times that made people compelled to hide sin.  You can’t show that ‘contaminated’ side.   If you point that out?  We were told this church attitude isn’t there, and we are seeing things or making things up so we can sin.  It’s a smoke screen!

The Gospel Coalition, and Biblically Correct Crowd

I saw an incredibly inspiring video this week.  The speaker’s name as Dr. Benjamin Carson.

It spoke on the current culture of today, and goodness yes it could even be applied within the faith culture as well.

Yes, he brings up his opinions on the political atmosphere, but I agreed with him on the Political Correctness.  We see people police EVERYTHING to death, and attach motive when it doesn’t need to be there.

The silliest example I can come up with recently was when Brent Musburger commented that the quarterback’s girlfriend Katherine Webb was a beautiful woman.  Everyone was having a hissie fit over this comment, and honestly there wasn’t anything wrong with it.  It was a compliment, and there was no ‘dirty old man’ motive behind it.  He was being complementary.  Then ESPN was pressured to have him apologize for the compliment.  It’s stupid.  Now we can’t compliment people nicely anymore?  She is beautiful…and??  Katherine herself commented that no apology was needed, because it wasn’t a ‘sexist’ thing to say.

Today in the faith community we see similar types of attacks – just as you seen the secular realm.  If you are comp, egal, liberal thinking, conservative thinking, etc.    Watch the debates, and you will see the similar tactics you see in the news media and secular politics today.  I guess we have our own brand of ‘biblically correct’ now.  How nice.  Sigh.

They take one thought or sentence and get all bent out of shape over it, and completely dismiss the overall message.  OR lets say you wish to speak about a debit in a line of thinking.  Do they stop to think about the debit?  No, they tell their readers what they REALLY meant.  Yes, most of the time it has NOTHING to do with what the principal of discussion or point they were trying to make.  How Christian of us.

We can’t debate anymore, because we are too busy demonizing.  If you are on THIS side then you automatically believe X, Y and Z.    We as a culture have completely lost the respect factor for fellow human beings.  It’s more popular to tear them down so we can hate them instead.  It breaks my heart.  Now we see to much of it within the church….of all places.  Shame on US!

Dr. Carson states:

Now, it’s not my intention to offend anyone. I have discovered, however, in recent years that it’s very difficult to speak to a large group of people these days and not offend someone. [laughter]
And people walk away with their feelings on their shoulders waiting for you to say something, ah, did you hear that? The pc police are out in force at all times. I remember once I was talking about the difference between a human brain and a dog’s grain, and a man — and a dog’s brain, and a man got offended. You can’t talk about dogs like that. [laughter] People focus in on that, completely miss the point of what you’re saying. [laughter] And we’ve reached reach the point where people are afraid to actually talk about what they want to say because somebody might be offended. People are afraid to say Merry Christmas at Christmas time. Doesn’t matter whether the person you’re talking to is Jewish or, you know, whether they’re any religion. That’s a salutation, a greeting of goodwill. We’ve got to get over this sensitivity. You know, and it keeps people from saying what they really believe.

And you have to wonder if that maybe the point of all this ugliness. Keeping people from saying what they really believe. We can’t point out nonsense anymore, because you get attacked with motive attached automatically.  It’s the popular thing to do! 

Sadly, this game is damaging to the fabric of our world.  Our Politian's do it, the media does it, and sadly the church also has used this craft as well.  The church sadly just spiritualizes it to justify themselves.

Dr. Carson starts out with some scripture verses:

Proverbs 11:9 With his mouth the Godless destroys his neighbor, but through knowledge the righteous escapes.
Proverbs 11:12 A man who lacks judgement derides his neighbor, but a man of understanding holds his tongue
Proverbs 11:25 A generous man will prosper. He who refreshes others will himself, be refreshed.
2nd Chronicles 7:14 If my people who are called by my name will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and heal their land.

I had this video sitting on my computer for some days, and I didn’t know what I was going to do with it.  Then Mara From Bitter Waters to Sweet dropped a perfect example of what Dr. Carson was speaking about in the quote I mentioned above RIGHT in my lap!  The principal of the ‘biblically correct’ crowd that refuses to listen to what others have to say, but instead tells you they said something that wasn’t there at all.

Elizabeth Esther, among other bloggers started to speak about the ‘purity’ movement, and how some of its views can do more harm than good. 

On the surface the purity movement does have some decent ideals on the surface.  Here is a quote from their website:

The Father Daughter Purity Ball is a memorable ceremony for fathers to sign commitments to be responsible men of integrity in all areas of purity. The commitment also includes their vow to protect their daughters in their choices for purity. The daughters silently commit to live pure lives before God through the symbol of laying down a white rose at the cross. Because we cherish our daughters as regal princesses—for 1 Peter 3:4 says they are “precious in the sight of God”—we want to treat them as royalty.
One of the most memorable highlights of the ball is when the fathers stand in the middle of the ballroom and form a circle around their daughters standing all aglow in their lovely ball gowns. The fathers place their hands on their daughters, and together we pray for purity of mind, body, and soul for generations to come.

Now one item they do talk about is the role of father within their daughter's life.  They wish for them to feel treasured, because they feel if they do not they may stray to someone else’s arms and be hurt in the end.  There isn’t anything on the surface that is wrong with that premise!  A man of integrity is a treasure to anyone he encounters is my belief! 

What about the problematic parts that tend to hurt the fathers and the daughters?  It seems according to the Gospel Coalition you aren’t suppose to talk about that.  If you do you are questioning God’s plan for marriage, and you want a commitment free LOVE zone.  Problem is if you don’t talk about it YOU don’t SOLVE anything!

For example, when the girl fails when it comes to her virginity.  If we look at part of their mission statement above?  Her father doesn’t value her, or will no longer value her.  When you tend to overcompensate on one aspect, and you FAIL at that aspect….you start to question your worth.  The young girls at times are given the impression that their worth as a human has been lessoned in God’s eyes due to their sin.    If you listen to the documentary on this movement?  They are told this one failure will cause insurmountable damage to their husband and marriage.

Mr. Wilson – a founder of the movement – acknowledged ‘that 88 percent of girls who take a purity pledge would fail to keep the pledge until marriage, but placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of fathers who neglect to guide their daughters in decisions about relationships.’   So now you have girls that feel like damaged good, not valued by Daddy, and Daddy is to take on the entire responsibility because HE failed as well.  He not doubt will on some level, because the young man has to get his permission to court his daughter to begin with.

Isn’t there are more Christ like approach to this QUOTE failure – if and when it happens?  It’s okay to deal with what happened, and find a healthy way of moving on.  Christ will forgive us, and we shouldn’t  act like our world have just STOPPED and will be plagued from then on.  We can admit our guilt to God, but he doesn’t wish us to hold on to it as a badge of disgrace.  Consequences may follow of course, but we always need to remember his love, forgiveness and grace.  We can balance these things.  We can!

In the documentary, “The Virgin Daughters” a young lady named Jessica is very different. When she became 19 years old a young man asked her parents for permission to court her.  She intended to remain a virgin until marriage, and a result of not having any sex-education, she became pregnant .  Her story starts about the 18 minute mark in the documentary that I linked too.  The circumstance that she fell into – the guilt, shame, etc. was one aspect bloggers were wanted to start the discussion about.  You also need to talk about the guilt trip they are laying their Father’s as well!  Talking about this DOESN’T mean they endorse ‘sleeping around’ for goodness sakes.  Yet, for some reason the Gospel Coalition seems to say it does MEAN this.  So they had to ‘apply motive’.

So what does this all have to do with the Gospel Coalition? Well, check this title out for a discussion starter: Commitment-Free Critics and the 'Christian Virginity Cult'  Nice right?  They are loading their guns!

How I do know this?  Well they introduced Elizabeth by a description of: Former fundamentalist and current feminist. 
So we know right away they need to find something wrong with what she has said, and those that tend to agree with her opinion (Remember keyword FEMINIST here).  Although at the beginning they wanted to make you think they ‘somewhat’ agree with a feminist:

They all have a point. Too often in an over-sexualized culture, Christians engage in what Elizabeth Esther calls "reverse objectification." Purity policing leads to a strange objectivism—a surrender to the sexual message of the age. Christians risk ceding the argument that a woman is a purely sexual object when it comes to her visible physical nature. So in response, her body must be hidden or else made ugly to keep the spirit clean and pure. In the end, much unjust suffering comes down upon girls and the rest of society because of various abuses.

Then you realize they are coming from the Definition of feminist that Mary Kassian proclaims as truth!  How?  Look at their title of the first section of debate:  
‘Individualism Gone Wild’  Remember Mary Kassian’s website is called, Girls Gone Wise.  Her definitions of feminism is like a broken record that just keeps playing over and over and over again!  You take any aspect of life, and the feminist have GONE WILD with it, and of course they (Mary Kassian, or Gospel Coalition) have GONE ‘wise’ instead.  We have all heard the stereotypes about how feminism gets to define everyone, and whatever her definition of words/concepts are just IS!  Everything is individualist, and of course against what God had in mind.

Mary Kassian is the one that tends to remind us that feminist live the ‘sex in the city’ type of lifestyle, and if Elizabeth Esther and the others actually went down that road? They may have a point, but they didn’t! Just like in politics today, or the slanted media they decided to inform their readers what they were ‘really’ saying instead of what they actually DID say.   Just as a reminder – lets look again at one of Mary Kassian’s descriptions of the feminist:

We changed the rules of male-female relationships. We became loud, demanding, and aggressive. We boldly pushed back against traditional definitions of gender and sexuality. We claimed our freedoms. We traded in the “Leave it to Beaver” model of womanhood for the “Sex in the City” one. We bought into the feminist promise that woman would find happiness and fulfillment when she defined her own identity and decided for herself what life as a woman was all about. – Mary Kassian

Lets start with Gospel Coalition’s critique, and possible comprehension issues.

At the same time, all is not well with these virginity critiques. The underlying complaint seems to demand that we accept different decisions without critique or even regret. But sin—especially sexual sin—affects the entire community. Likewise, fornication (as with any other sin) interrupts communion between God and man and thus must be reconciled through Christ.
The sin of fornication is not minimized by "mutual consent." Contrary to popular belief, the Old Testament is not chauvinistically patriarchal, and the Scriptures are clear on sexual mores. The most honest skeptics intimate sexual standards based in an old book should be thrown out altogether. Couples "really committed" to each other, we hear, should be able to do as they please outside the bounds of traditional matrimony.
What a strange understanding of commitment! This new standard eliminates the risk of love. The traditional understanding of the marriage covenant requires trust, especially in the sexual realm. A couple is taking a plunge into the world of family life because they love each other. Couples who abstain until marriage tell one another, "I love you so much that I will surrender my body to you. I have denied the pleasures of a moment for a life tied to only yours in this dangerous world, from this point on."

Frankly, the definition of anyone they feel is a feminist seems to jade their comprehension of what was being said.  It’s almost as if they didn’t read the material AT ALL!  Shall we look at some of what was said by Elizabeth Esther?

Like other Christians, I talked about the “sacrifice” of abstinence. There were princess-themed books about saving our first kiss. Some of us wore purity rings and made pledges to our Daddies not to have sex until we’re married.
Ultimately, we implied that a woman’s inherent worth and dignity could be measured by whether or not a man has touched her.
I understand why we do this. Christians are alarmed by what we see as a sexually permissive society. America no longer seems to share our values. This scares us. The less sacred sex seems to the broader culture, the more sacred we insist on making it among fellow Christians.
The intention might be good but over-emphasizing the specialness of virginity has unintended, harmful consequences.
We start by making ridiculous promises to our daughters. We tell them that “sexual purity” is a guarantor of a more intimate married sex life. We tell them that if they “lose” their purity, they will never really get it back. Oh, yes. They can be forgiven. But. You know. They’re damaged goods.
Christians say that the world objectifies women through immodest dress and a permissive sexual ethic. However, by idolizing sexual purity and preoccupying ourselves with female modesty and an emphasis on hyper-purity, Christians actually engage in reverse objectivization.

Notice that Elizabeth Esther mentions that America no longer seems to share our values – and she is speaking about abstinence.  She acknowledges the ‘sexually permissive society’.  So how they get the ‘do as they please outside the bounds of traditional matrimony’?  Seems to be a VERY popular tactic in the  ‘we must attach a motive even if it isn’t there’ train of thinking.  OR – as I said before a serious ‘comprehension’ issue!  Take your choice!

They seem to accusing people that want to have this discussion that ‘losing your virginity’ is no big deal.  That’s NOT what they are saying.  They want to discuss how we handle it if people do.  BIG DIFFERENCE! 

Then the others I have read about state they bring this up so people don’t ‘feel bad’ about losing their virginity.  Yet, that was never addressed either.  Talking about what to do with those feelings, doesn’t mean not having them.  Hello!

The point was the term they acknowledged as: reverse objectification.  Sadly, it seems the Gospel Coalition has to much “Sex in the City” type of viewpoint towards her and others.  They have bent it so badly out of shape they honestly can’t seem to grasp what was being said.

People focus in on that, completely miss the point of what you’re saying.  - Dr. Benjamin Carson

For Heaven’s sake TAKE OFF the ‘Sex in the City’ glasses, and READ what was said!  There was no ‘commitment free’ comment there, and if there was?  No doubt you would have quoted it!  You didn’t though!  Why?  It wasn’t the point of the articles you linked too!

It’s bad enough that our Politian's and our media have to twist facts, quotes, and leave out the context of what is being said!   For an organization called, “The Gospel Coalition” to do the same?  Seriously?!  What happened to honesty, integrity?   Is this your example of ‘Godly Leadership’?  These beliefs are hurting the fathers, mothers, and children. 

If you watch the documentary they glorify relations to the point most virgin daughters are going to be surprised on the first night.   They don’t talk about the pain.  They don’t go down roads that need to discussed in other areas either within the marriage bed that happen.

They build up these poor fathers to be something quite honestly only CHRIST can be for them!  Father’s are important, but we need to find our value in Christ…no? 

If you listen to what they were saying?  They don’t get that part.  No doubt Christ is part of their life, but we seem to be placing loads to heavy on the fathers and children.  We can teach, guide, love etc. our children.  We can’t always hide the pain from life from them.  We may be successful in certain areas of pain, but life as a way of showing you other ones.  They seem to teach the men in their lifes will FIX that, and he just can’t do that.  It’s not possible, and they are setting up a train wreck.  Did you not notice that? 

My prospective on this, and the ones that are speaking out against this movement… and then we have the Gospel Coalition that is so tied up in their ‘sex it the city’ vision they can’t even acknowledge the issues!  It’s almost as if they go searching for that ‘sex in the city’ attitude, because it has to be there…I mean she is FEMINIST…RIGHT?!  How biblically correct of them.

No one said you shouldn’t save yourself for marriage.  They asked for discussion on how to handle things if you didn’t.   How would Jesus have us handle it?  What would he ask us to do with the guilt?  The shame? 

For generations, this model of marriage has proven remarkably resilient. In this context, love can be truly maddening—people do crazy things like have children together, stick together through debilitating diseases, and mutually endure declining health. On the other hand, what reason do the "really committed" have not to jump from one sex partner to the next? One could conclude that such "commitment" is merely strong emotion—a passion of the moment—that has little to do with true resolve.
Thankfully, healing is possible for couples who do not abstain. The gospel of Jesus Christ can overcome any sin! Still, pastors who counsel couples tell me the process of restoring trust is long and painful. Virginity does not make someone "better," but young Christians deny themselves the fullness of romantic love by fornication. They will only make things worse by lying to themselves about it.
For the longing singles among us, we have heard it said that love is patient. So go out there, date, and maybe get married. Just do not make allowance for the lustful flesh.

Guess what?  If you read the articles you linked to?  They were not asking people to LIE to themselves about it, but learn to move past it.  Big Difference. 

They were not tearing down the aspect of abstinence, or telling people to go for a commitment free relationship.  Hello!  Take off the sex it in the city glasses, and read what was SAID!  You might learn that even feminist’s don’t live the life Mary Kassian has been telling you about.  Shocking that it is – it can happen!

It’s okay to talk about this.  We MUST talk about this.  What they are scared of?  Talking about it doesn’t endorse it.  No doubt it started to happen after Adam and Eve…don’t you think its time to start?   I have to wonder if that isn’t the point of the silly commentary.  They feel people might think they are endorsing something that they can’t in good conscience.  Do they doubt their power of communication, or fear that others may put words or motives in their mouths?

What?  They don’t want the biblically correct crowd doing the same to them?

This article just SCREAMED we need to use our stereotypes about feminist’s, and wrap it around what was said so we can have the proper BIBLICAL aspect.  Did anyone else see the connection?  I saw it right away, and bugs me.

We’ve got to get over this sensitivity. You know, and it keeps people from saying what they really believe.  - Dr. Benjamin Carson


Other Articles of Interest

The Purity Conversation - My Two Cents
Sex, Marriage, and Evangelical Purity Culture

Differing Applications of Home and Church - So why is Mary Kassian upset when you write a book about it?

Mary Kassian wrote a review of Rachel Held Evans new book, and it seems she is taking things a bit too personally.  First I want to point out one GREAT comment she wrote, and show you how she sadly doesn’t apply it there after.

I pointed out that though complementarians agree on the principle of complementarity, we often differ as to its application in the home and the church. I emphasized that even those involved in CBMW have a divergence of opinion as to the specifics of how to apply the principles of manhood and womanhood. – Mary Kassian

So why OH why is she getting so upset about Rachel Evans mentioning  the different groups that call themselves complementarian?

Can she not see that maybe it was not her personally that the book represented entirely, but those that use applications differently?  I mean she already admitted even her and Nancy Leigh DeMoss don’t agree on all fronts.  Note:  there is nothing wrong with disagreement, but the way you disagree?  That is where the trouble begins.

She starts by playing games with quotes from the book itself:

A few sentences later, I had my first and best laugh of the whole book. “Evangelical complementarianism,” claims Rachel, “[is] a movement that began as a reaction to second-wave feminism and found some of its first expressions in the writings of Edith Schaeffer (The Hidden Art of Homemaking, 1971) and Elisabeth Elliot (Let Me Be a Woman, 1976).” Rachel goes on to explain that complementarianism rests on the “uncompromising conviction [that] the virtuous woman serves primarily from the home as a submissive wife, diligent homemaker, and loving mother.” (p. xix).

Seriously? “The Hidden Art of Homemaking???!!” I just about fell off my chair. That book was written seventeen years before the inception of CBMW and about twenty years before we adopted the term “complementarian.” I have never even heard of it. I highly doubt whether John Piper and Wayne Grudem—the founders of CBMW—have read it.

Just for a giggle here…The Feminine Mystique by Betty Freidman (1963).  Notice Mary loves to reference this 50 year old book ALL the TIME in her presentations.  What does that say?  Moving on…….

Now Mary Kassian just as Denny Burk both used sections of whole paragraphs out of context to make their point.  We can all admit they are both educated people, and that is why I assume they know what they are doing.  I don’t think they are counting on others to check the entirety of the quotes they write about.  If they did?  They may have a number of comments and questions.

I think they are counting on people NOT checking the sources…lets be honest here!

I don’t view either of them as dumb, so what else can I possibly assume?  Well people that tend to do this – take things out of context – maybe don’t have such a strong point after all.  That is what most people feel when others take on this tactic.

Mary took parts of the introduction in the Rachel Held Evan’s book.  Now, lets look at the statement in its entirety.

Over the next few years, I found myself drawn into more and more of these conversations, especially as my girlfriends and I began getting married and starting families of our own.  Many were influenced by evangelical complementarianism, a movement that began as a reaction to second-wave feminism and found some of its first expressions in the writings of Edith Schaeffer (The Hidden Art of Homemaking, 1971), and Elisabeth Elliot (Let Me Be A Woman, 1976). Hailed as the model wives and homemakers, these women are highly esteemed in the Reformed tradition, where the oft-repeated saying is, 'As many people were brought to the Lord through Mrs. Schaeffer's cinnamon buns as through Dr. Schaeffer's sermons."  But behind the winsome prose lies an uncompromising conviction:  the virtuous woman serves primarily from the home as a submissive wife, diligent homemaker, and loving mother. 

Now, CBMW may not have been started out of the expressions or writings of the author’s (that Mary never heard about) mentioned, but the ‘winsome prose’?  Ahh.  Yeah – its in THERE! I realize she wants to ignore that point.  Anyway…

What The Extremists Have In Common

From time to time we have all seen different types of Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc.  By that I mean some are more extreme than others.  Then of course you have different grades of extreme. 

We will show you what the average Joe Believes compared to US – the FAITHFUL!

I think most Christians would point out Westboro Church as one extreme for Christianity, and we don’t need to go into how evil they portray themselves as.  I truly think they have some major screws loose.

Then of course more recently we have had our experiences of seeing what extremists over in the middle east can do over what they CLAIM was an insult to their faith due to some stupid film.  I say stupid, because even if most people actually had seen the trailer (which I had not) – not FILM as they claim on Youtube?  I doubt very much they would have stayed to watch the entire thing.  Most people wouldn’t have got past the first 2 minutes without exiting the video.  It was that badly done, and they wouldn’t have bothered wasting brain cells on it.  That’s the reality of it. 

Both of these examples are extreme to the point of dangerous, and quite frankly claim they are protesting against something ‘awful and evil’.  If you look past the surface?  Westboro Church shows you a God that pretty much hates everyone, and anyone.  The militants in the middle east are playing out revenge, and using their own people under the guise of ‘lack of respect and honor’ towards their faith.

Most extreme groups like this use propaganda, and they point out some fringe group as their examples of ‘the average everyday joe’.   This of course is to be used to show how ‘evil’ most people are, and how ‘faithful’ they are in comparison. 

The extreme complementarians do this as well.   They use the most extreme models to ratchet up their ‘us against them’ game. 

Most can see how some groups are more successful at their lies and deceit than others.  I feel sorry badly for their victims, and pray for them as well.  I don’t think they realize they are being used.

The Extreme Feminist beliefs BACKFIRE!

Recently, Elizabeth Esther had an article that represents the extreme case you hear about towards feminism.  The old tired speech about how they only think of themselves, and hate children, etc.  She pointed out a poster child article of just that.  Disappearing Mothers was the title of the article, and quite frankly the author seems so out of touch with reality its not even funny. 

Mutuality or Bait and Switch?

The problem has been compounded by the fact that some complementarians seem to shy away from using the term mutuality. Perhaps they would rather avoid the word than attempt to extricate it from egalitarian connotations. That’s too bad, because both the egalitarian effort to redefine the word, and the complementarian hesitation to wholly embrace it, obscure a profound biblical truth: Complementarity fosters mutuality at a far deeper level than sameness does.

– Mary Kassian

Mary Kassian started a series called, Complementarity & Mutuality.


The comments were particularly interesting reading.  She was called out on the terms that they tend to use regularly to define the differences between complementarian and egalitarian beliefs.  The strange part to me?  She tends to redefine ‘belief’ systems with her own terminology.

The points that were made is that you can’t find these terms like ‘sameness’ or ‘role-interchangeability’ outside the complementarian realm.  These terms are not used within the Egalitarian circles, and makes it is confusing as to why they need to use them at all.

Mary Kassian basically said she couldn’t come up with better terminology, and how semantics are confusing.  (shrugs) I guess that means they made up something, because they can’t figure out how better to describe it.  It certainly takes much away from what some think she is trying to say.

I think most would find that explanation rather disingenuous.  

I mean all you have to truly do is google the term Christian Egalitarian, and come up with a better definition that uses plain English without extras. 

Let try that:

Christian egalitarianism holds that all people are equal before God and in Christ; have equal responsibility to use their gifts and obey their calling to the glory of God; and are called to roles and ministries without regard to class, gender, or race.

Makes a bit more sense than ‘sameness’ or ‘role-interchangeability’ doesn’t it?  Most would be able to understand the term ‘mutuality’ within the above definition as well – without her make up words.

Readers seem confused between complementarian versus hierarchy

If you look a bit closer?  Most of the questions to her were about hierarchy, and how that plays into life.  Mary Kassian is forever stating that complementarian belief systems is not the same as hierarchy as some are describing it.

So why are they are always making these debates about complementarian compared to egalitarian?   That doesn’t seem to be the debate at all.   At least to her readers that have questions!

People are confused about what complementarian stand truly IS!  How it is different from ‘traditionalism’ or ‘hierarchicalism’ as she quoted it.

If you notice the comments, questions, and explanations given most of the time on their information has more to do with what Mary Kassian terms as: ‘hierarchicalism wrapped in legalism’.  Last time I checked?  That has nothing to do with egalitarian beliefs.

Instead of getting defensive … stand up against these teachings that harm so many, and do so with more than a sentence or two stating that isn’t what you MEAN or how your beliefs work!

What it shows is that they have a HUGE hindrance in regards to their definition of what they believe.  Her articles on strawman’s or complementarian’s for dummies don’t seem to be doing her position any justice.  It seems she is to vague as to what it is – as opposed to what it isn’t.

Why do they keep presenting things as ‘complementarian versus egalitarian’ then?  I would guess that is something she would rather discuss, but it should tell them something when they can’t get past the ‘hierarchical’ portion of the discussion.   There seems to be a lot of confusion as to what the difference is.

Maybe they can could make up some more words to make it more clear?!    I wouldn’t recommend it, because their made up terminology thus far isn’t doing them any favors.

Polarization of Egalitarians

Recently on the website ‘girls gone wise’ Mary Kassian wrote an article called, ‘complementarianism for dummies’.  Once again they seem to claim that people do not understand their positions, and feel the need to put it in clearer terms.  Some of the items she speaks about that are incorrect to her came from her own words she spoke in the past.  For example, Mary states:

June Cleaver is a traditional, American, cultural TV stereotype. She is NOT the complementarian ideal. Period. (And exclamation mark!) Culture has changed. What complementarity looks like now is different than what it looked like sixty or seventy years ago. So throw out the cookie-cutter stereotype. It does not apply.

Mary Kassian used the stereotype of June Cleaver in her presentation of, “You have come a long way Baby!”  She used this stereotype to show how our culture has changed from wholesome, moral, Godly belief system to acceptance of a Murphy Brown type of stereotype.  It was her own presentation of this that brought about this ‘cookie cutter’ idea. 

In today’s society when you use such extreme models for how things ‘should be’ and how things ‘are’ outside your belief system?  You need to learn from your mistakes, and not try to demonize aspects in such an extreme manner.  People see it for what it is, and you need to accept the backlash.  You created it!  Some will see it for what it is – scare tactics – and others will wonder how extreme YOU are?

I realize she is attempting to ‘theme’ this article after the ‘for dummies’ series you see in bookstores, but I also have to wonder due to her past remarks if it also had a ugly twist to it.  She does seem to have a habit of talking down to her readers.  Mary Kassian also has a habit of using the most awful examples you can come up with, and tell her readers this is how ‘most’ believe or accept things.  This is just not realistic. 

Sadly, with her presentations she also encourages other women/men that are complementarian to react in a defensive manner, because she models this for them.  ‘We believe like this, and they believe like that’ type of thing doesn’t seem to be working for them.  No doubt Mary Kassian sees her rhetoric copied and used by others.  The part I don’t think she counted on is people basically turn it around, and use the opposite extreme towards her beliefs.

They have to ask themselves….how is this polarization working for them so far?

Slutwalk Myths Encouraged By CBMW

Its sad that Mary Kassian is yet again spreading ‘I believe’ opinions as fact that can be disproven.  I started to speak about this in my part article called, Adventures in Missing The Point.

 

On her site “Girls gone Wise” she has a reprint of the article about the slut walks that I wrote about in the past.  She then responded to a comment left on her article.

 

Mary Kassian says:
April 7, 2012 at 2:12 pm

Daniella, I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

Yes. Rape is rape.
Yes. It’s wrong to blame victims.
Yes. Rape has nothing to do with the way a woman dresses.

Where we differ is this: I believe a culture that promotes sexual promiscuity will have a higher incidence of rape than one that promotes sexual continence. Encouraging women to embrace sluttiness is neither empowering, nor does it help to prevent the problem of rape.

Her last two sentences are falsehoods, and its clear she doesn’t wish to know the ‘true’ facts. 

 

A Culture that Promotes Sexual Promiscuity will have a Higher Incidence of Rape – False

 

I guess that would seem like common sense to those that don’t wish to fact check first.

 

There have been numerous reports in the world about this ‘myth’, and sadly it doesn’t line up. 

 

If you google worse places for women on the globe?  The United States (or Canada since that is where she lives) isn’t topping the list.  The worse places listed have a very high percentage of rape compared to the United States as well.  Imagine that Mary?!  No doubt they aren’t very nice to men either.

 

So Mary Kassian’s ‘I believe’ statement is at best irresponsible.  Dressing up your beliefs as fact in this manner is showing her agenda far to much.

 

Her ‘I believe’ statement is ‘wrong’ because it does blame victims.  She states that rape has nothing to do with dress, and yet in the next breath states that your dress does encourage it. 

 

For an organization that speaks about ‘confusion’ far to much in a accusatory manner towards others?  She seriously needs to take a good look at her own statements.

 

Targeted violence against females, dismal healthcare and desperate poverty make Afghanistan the world's most dangerous country in which to be born a woman, with Congo a close second due to horrific levels of rape. Pakistan, India and Somalia ranked third, fourth and fifth, respectively, in the global survey of perceptions of threats ranging from domestic abuse and economic discrimination to female foeticide (the destruction of a fetus in the uterus), genital mutilation and acid attack. A survey compiled by the Thomson Reuters Foundation to mark the launch of TrustLaw Woman*, puts Afghanistan at the top of the list of the most dangerous places in the world for women. TrustLaw asked 213 gender experts from five contents to rank countries by overall perceptions of danger as well as by six categories of risk. The risks consisted of health threats, sexual violence, non-sexual violence, cultural or religious factors, lack of access to resources and trafficking.

The countries listed above are very patriarchal.   Promiscuity isn’t rampant, and so Mary Kassian’s theory doesn’t seem to work there.  There is nothing wrong with speaking of modesty, but preaching outright falsehood is completely different.  People will not take your opinions seriously anymore.  Mary is so jaded against feminism that she seems to apply things as she goes along.  Sadly, she doesn’t seem to care if they are true or not.

 

Encouraging Women to Embrace Sluttiness is Empowering – False

 

You have to wonder if Mary Kassian even read any material on the slutwalk.   Despite her claims the majority of participates in this protest were not dressed as she portrayed.   If you look closely to the pictures in most places people can coats on.  If the purpose was to encourage being slutty would they NOT wait until it was warm enough to do so?

 

As I have said before, I’m not thrilled with the name of the march.  I understand WHERE they took the name from (Mary doesn’t seem to).  I am able to look past that to grasp the purpose.  It doesn’t bother me that much that I have to be completely blinded to it.

 

Its sadly a bald faced lie to say that the protest had a purpose to show women that dressing like a slut was empowering.

 

Frankly, it’s a regurgitating theme in most of her Mary Kassian’s material.  If you check out enough of her books, articles, blogs material and sermons?  Its something she states time and time again to any characteristic she sees as against her beliefs towards feminism.

 

No doubt there are some women that feels this is empowering, but the majority don’t seem to ‘live it out’ in the extreme manner that Mary describes on a regular basis.

 

Her response was not only contradictory towards facts that have been proven, but ‘confusing’ in content.

 

Does she live under a rock?  Seriously.  Is misrepresenting people a show a ‘true woman’?

Trustlaw.org

Choice.org

Adventures in Missing The Point

Mary Kassian is twisting and turning the truth once again to make her point.  Does she really make it in a honestly and upfront way?  Not so much. 

In fact she completely misses the point, but pretends she knows was the point was.  You don’t have to like all of the presentation of a message in order to ‘grasp’ the concept of the message.  In Mary’s reality unless it is dished up in her flavor she seems to ignore it.  Here is the article. 

Rape is a crime of opportunity or at times even a means of shame (not to say there aren’t other reasons).  Adults and children get sexual assaulted all the time sadly. 

This story started innocently enough on a college campus when a police officer was asked to come and give a talk about rape prevention, risk management, etc.   These things will help you recognize ways to lesson your chances of being attacked, but will not guarantee it.

Dress is cultural myth that society uses to blame others for being raped.  Majority of these cases are NOT people that were dressed in the way that society seems to hint at.  This myth has been proven false, but this culture has a hard accepting it.  Repeating it and using dress encourages the continual use of the myth, instead of dealing with the proven issues.

The police officer in question decided to use this myth during his presentation – even after being taught and instructed not to.  He informed the crowd if they were stop dressing like sluts they wouldn’t get raped.  The after effect of his words started the march all over the globe to bring awareness to others. 

They used the word ‘slut’ because of the police officer using it.  I’m sure many did not like the presentation due to the wording, and the fact that some showed up dressing the part on purpose.  This march started organically as news spread of the officer’s insulting ignorance. 

Keep in mind when you read about sexual assaults on men or women in the news the clothing myth is not prevalent in the facts of the case. That should clue society in, but sadly it doesn’t seem to sink in for whatever reason.  Here is a RAINN article about different types of sexual assault.

Fannie the Feminist and other scary straw women of NON complementarians!

I had a good giggle today when I read Mary Kassian's article: “Dora the Doormat” and other Scary Straw Women of Complementarity

Why the giggle? I guess a person on twitter called her a 'uber' complementarian. I can't stay I blame her for fluffing off the label, but it did encourage her to throw out some silly stereotypes for an article.  She listed some for everyone to read to show how the straw women misrepresents truth.

As Ms. Kassian defined: A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position, knocks that position down, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. It’s a common, but faulty way to argue against an idea.

So how about we have some FUN today, and see if we can come up with some stereotypes of our own - in the other direction of course.

Ahem - lets start with everyone thinking about ominous music for the background before we begin!

Ready? Lets GO!

Lets meet our first stereotype:

'Fanny the Feminist'

....Virtually all the women portrayed in the media in the past decade. From children's cartoons to television series to movies, women are portrayed as having an in charge—don't need a guy—I'm powerful, traditional marriage and family and morals are outdated—I have the right to rule—how dare you tell me what to do—mentality.

In the past decade, we've been inundated with the message that when it comes to relationships, women can hook up, be in a casual or long-term relationship, live common-law, get married or not, get married and then get divorced, get pregnant or abort the babies, sleep around, live with a guy or a girl, have sex with a guy or a girl, and participate in a whole assortment of immoral and perverted behavior as long as they are friends. In other words, woman makes her own rules and sets her own standards, and as long as she is nice, it really doesn't matter what she does. Who are you to judge?

And WHO can never forget of the FAMOUS

Nancy the Narcissist

...As long as women are first loyal to themselves and second to their female buddies, they're on the right track. Single, married, lesbian, heterosexual, promiscuous, perverted—they can be vulgar, crude, and crass, but if they are for themselves and for other women and are caring and nice, then they're okay.

In the new worldview, men are whiny and needy and not too bright and totally unreliable. They're marginalized and de-masculinized, used, regarded, and discarded like Kleenex out of a box.

...Now days, the epitome of empowered womanhood is to live a self-serving, self-righteous, neurotic, narcissistic, superficial, and adulteress life. The main character in Sex in the City series wraps it up well when she counsels women that, “The most exciting, challenging, and significant relationship of all is the one you have with yourself.”

So in a few short decades in the span of my lifetime, the ideal of a happy, fulfilled woman has gone from one who serves and exalts her children, her husband, and her community to one who serves and exalts herself and has a very different type of commitment, very different type of idea towards men and women.

 We can NEVER leave out...

REBELLIOUS RUBY!

...authority role is what caused woman's heartache and heartbreak. It wasn't just an abstract concept of men having more power and authority than woman. It was woven throughout our entire society's family and social and political and religious structures. It was laced throughout our social etiquette and our customs, our rituals, our traditions and laws, our entire system of education and division of labor, and all of these things were responsible for keeping men in a dominant position and women in a submissive, subservient position. Patriarchy was seen as the ultimate cause of woman's discontent, and only the demise and the deconstruction of all patriarchal structures would lead to her freedom. Only when woman broke free from the traditional, male-defined, Judeo-Christian roles and rules would she find meaning and fulfillment, and thus, the trigger was pulled.

• Full self-determination—woman needed to decide who she was and needed to have the legal right to act independently of her husband.  
• Freedom from biology—that prompted feminists at that time to lobby for birth control, for legalized abortion, state daycare, reproductive technologies, such as test tube babies, anything that took the burden of bearing and caring for children off of a woman's shoulders and put it more on society as a whole. 
• Economic independence—pay equity, equal pay for work of equal value, changes to financial practices, total and equal integration, affirmative action.

 and ONE of my Favorites....

Consciousness-raising CASSIE

SPEAK bitterness to recall Bitterness!  SPEAK PAIN to recall pain - Mao Tse-tung

...if they gathered women together in small groups and got all those women talking about their hurts and grievances against men, then all the women in the group would begin to get upset with men, even those women who didn't have any hurts and grievances themselves, and then their anger could be directed into action. They could be empowered to rebel against the authority of the males in their homes and also in society as a whole and change the rules of the game, and this technique was called consciousness-raising.

...the most powerful, effective tool to lead women to a personal, “aha” moment of consciousness-raising—the moment that she accepts and she understands that all the problems in the world and all the problems of women are due to the rule of men and that she has the right to take things back into her own hands. 

The moral of the story?  DON'T be known as 

Henrietta the Heretic

The fundamental premise of feminism is that women need and can trust no other authority than our own personal truth, and that was a really quick fly-over of just where we've come from in the last 40, 50 years.


It was a philosophical quake that shook underground, and like a tsunami—the waves of the implications of that have come back over society in wave after wave after wave, and the carnage is unbelievable. The carnage in young women's lives, in older women's lives, the carnage is unbelievable. We are so broken. 

We have been taught that we ought not to bow and submit to any external power, but that's not the message of the Bible. God created us. He created us male and female, and that's not inconsequential. That means something. 

Now wasn't that fun?  Heck I didn't even have to WRITE most of it!  I just took statements from Mary Kassian herself!

On the article where she states her own brand of stereotypes?  Lets look at her conclusion and rebuke:

If you want to talk ideas, let’s talk ideas. Let’s talk hermeneutics. Let’s talk presuppositions. Let’s talk biblical exegesis. Let’s talk principles of interpretation and application. But stop misrepresenting the complementarian position. Stop using syllogistic fallacies, non sequiturs, disambiguations and fallacies of propositional logic. But most of all, please stop parading out those silly straw women!

Nice!  HEY!  can we start with the article I just quoted?

 Sorry...but that was to easy.

Hear me roar in numbers too big to ignore

I was writing about Mary Kassian presentation, "You've come a long way Baby!" from the '08 True Women's Conference.  Part Four I am going to breeze through quickly.

Part One , Part Two, Part Three

She used a good example of what Consciousness raising was.  That is where she left off the last time.

Consciousness-raising was actually a political technique used by the revolutionary army of Mao Tse-tung. His slogan was, “Speak bitterness to recall bitterness. Speak pain to recall pain.” To promote discord and instability in a village, his political revolutionaries would call the townswomen together and get them to talk about their hurts. “Come tell me about the hurts that you've experienced.”


So the women were encouraged to speak bitterness and pain, and the initial reluctance gave way to collective anger as woman after woman told stories of being raped by landlords, being sold as concubines, or physical abuse. As women vented their bitterness, they experienced a newfound strength and resolve that empowered them to corporate action.

For example, in one village, a peasant man was physically pummeled to a pulp and attacked by an entire group of women because he hadn't been treating his wife well. Together, the women found the strength to act and to confront their situation and the resolve to be active in forcing change, and that is how Mao Tse-tung got his revolution.

The man in the story about getting plummeled by a group of women made headlines.  Being raped by landlords, sold as concubines, or being physically abuse doesn't.   

Yes this makes the point of how things were very one-sided very well I thought.

The one-sided entitlements were also spoken about here with Consciousness-raising groups, and just like the army of Mao Tse-tung were aware of this circumstance (why else would he use it) it was also brought to light here.  Its very true it grew like wildfire just like the Faberge commercial.  "And she told two friends...and she told two friends...and so on and so on and so on".  Men, Women and Children started to talk about why things were so one sided, and what Mary Kassian doesn't seem to speak about is how everyone KNEW it as well.

The Second WAVE..for Mary Kassian

We will move on to Part Three of Mary Kassian's You've Come A Long Way Baby.

Part Two is HERE.  
Part One is HERE


She now gets into what some people consider the roots of the 2nd rave of Feminism.



The Revolution

She continues by speaking of Simone de Beauvoir. In 2009 her book The Second Sex was revised, and released as an anniversary issue. It was revised because there was huge chucks of the book that was mistranslated, and it was not true to what her points were.  Please note: I'm not sure that was available at the time this lecture was given.

In the chapter "Woman: Myth and Reality" of The Second Sex, Beauvoir argued that men had made women the "Other" in society by putting a false aura of "mystery" around them. She argued that men used this as an excuse not to understand women or their problems and not to help them, and that this stereotyping was always done in societies by the group higher in the hierarchy to the group lower in the hierarchy. She wrote that this also happened on the basis of other categories of identity, such as race, class, and religion. But she said that it was nowhere more true than with sex in which men stereotyped women and used it as an excuse to organize society into a patriarchy.

Kassian wants to describe this as:

She argued that in the relationship between men and women, women were the second class and men were the ruling class. They got all the perks. They had the power. They had the authority, and they got to say what the world looked like.

De Beauvoir argued that in order for women to live as full human beings, they needed to demand their rights, collectively rebel against men, and overthrow all of the societal structures that men had constructed to keep women in a state of servitude. Most specifically, de Beauvoir encouraged women to get out of the home and deconstruct the Judeo-Christian ideas about marriage and motherhood and morality.

I may not agree with de Beauvior on every count, but she does not encourage women to deconstruct the Judeo-Christian ideas about marriage, motherhood, and morality as the basic theme of her book. She may not have lived the lifestyle that Christians would consider proper, but again she isn't asking people to live as she did.

I look at this part: not to understand women or their problems and not to help them, and that this stereotyping was always done in societies by the group higher in the hierarchy to the group lower in the hierarchy.

That's history, and that is what has happened all over the world.  This happened to men and women, people of different colors, races, and faiths.  Is that the Judeo-Christian ideal?  If she thinks so we have a different idea of what the bible says.  The bible is very clear about what God feels about those that do not help those they know need help for example. 

Ms. Kassian states the underlying message of Feminism is:

We—women—need and can trust no other authority than our own, personal truth. We need and can trust no other authority than our own, personal truth. 

I understand we can take this one or two ways.   I'm sure Ms. Kassian is coming from the position of God is our true authority.  That's fine!  I agree!  I realize she also is coming from the Complementarian position, and they look to their husbands as the authority as well.

When they speak about trusting 'authority' in the context of what de Beauvior is trying to get across?  She was speaking about 'group higher in the hierarchy to the group lower in the hierarchy.'  We are talking about the 'ruling class' at the time.  That is an entirely different can of worms.

They didn't understand the lower group, nor could they relate to their issues.  The ruling class did make the rules for the society, and did so without the type of 'loving and benevolent' leadership that the Complementary position speaks about.   The ruling class did not care about their 'personal truth' of their lifes, nor did they care to learn about them.  If you look at it that way?  Those men and women of the lower group truly have no incentive to TRUST the higher group in the hierarchy.

Its not a slam - its history!

We have come a long way BABY!

I was viewing some items on youtube, and came across the video sessions of the Mary Kassian: True Woman '08 Conference, "You've Come A Long Way, Baby!". To me they sprinkled some truth, and then twisted to make it sound good. She mentions she grew up during the time she speaks about. I grew up then as well, and I noticed she doesn't bring up the 'not so great' portions of that era.




I am WOMAN hear me ROAR!

Mary Kassian stated she remembers singing the song, "I am Woman", and I will admit I remembering singing it myself. I guess to say it made me feel a bit empowered at the time would say I swallowed the entire women's movement hook, line and sinker right? I must have gone over to the radical, extreme feminist's view of viewing the world!

Ahem. Wrong!

I was a child back then, and when all this was going on? WELL let me give you a couple of giggles about that:


I wanted to play baseball on the leagues with the boys. I wanted it so bad I could TASTE it! I couldn't because girls don't play baseball. Well they were NOT allowed to play baseball on leagues anyway. You could cheer the boys on, and maybe sell candy! That made me MAD! YEP I wanted to ROAR!

I played in the neighborhood, and was better than some of those boys that were on the baseball teams. I was born GIRL, and that was the only reason I couldn't play baseball with the leagues. My folks were always asking me to TAKE off the baseball cap, and leave my mitt at home. I needed to be 'ladylike'. I hated that TERM!

HEAR ME ROAR AGAIN all to due to being labeled 'GIRL'!

Mom decided one summer she would talk me into short hair! As I look back at the time I knew it was more due to HAIR wars! I had long, thick hair back then. It took FOREVER to get a comb and brush through it, and that was due to activities I liked to participate in. YES baseball was one of them! I'm sure my short hair made my mother's life a bit less stressful!

During that summer after my paper route and chores were done I spent my time at the community POOL! At the time LONG hair caused all kinds of issues with pool maintenance.

Guess what I was thinking?

Remember these ugly things?

WOO HOO no more SWIM CAPS! Heck my hair was shorter than most of the BOYS! Come to find out it didn't matter.

I was GIRL, and GIRLS wore swim caps regardless!

I guess it was just GIRL's hair that caused the issues with the pools? NOPE it was LONG hair they said, but boys with hair down the middle of their back could swim with no caps!