I considered not linking to the column that the following excerpt appears in. It is one of the most vile columns I have ever read, and I'm still feeling a mixture of anger and sadness as I consider it. I honestly have no desire to drive any traffic to the article, but linked it simply for reference.
Judith Warner of the New York Times writes:
"And there is even greater danger to the fact that this particular aspect of the nationwide “abstinence movement” has not been broadly denounced as the form of emotional violence against girls that it indisputably is."
What is Ms. Warner writing about? It's something that she says after writing about her internal connection between a daddy-daughter dance and the barbaric acts of an Austrian man who imprisoned and repeatedly raped his daughter (and then saying "I don't mean to imply that there's any equivalency..." though she most certainly wants to imply a connection).
She's talking about fathers taking a vow “before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity.”
INDISPUTABLE emotional violence against girls? This?
I'm honestly speechless.
Linked: Here
5 comments:
I believe Ms. Warner and her ilk are no less than those who in 2 Peter 2 are those who “despise authority” and are destined for destruction (of course, that is all of us aside from God’s saving grace).
But I believe it’s very important to identify the hatred of authority as a large cultural problem. Ms. Warner hates patriarchy.
Also, I want to connect this with my crusading against most of postmodern thought. Postmoderns have a strong tendency to see all authority/power structures as the arbitrary (usually self-serving and unjust) imposition of the group in power. Warner’s article is rife with this type of postmodern logic.
Scripture, on the other hand, upholds authority as a primary means by which God organizes and guides us.
Anyway, I agree this column is really upsetting. And I really want to draw the connection between it and postmodern thought, because I think this is where PM thought generally tends to drift, which is why I'm very resistant to its influence in the Church.
Kenny - what's wrong with having a healthy distrust of authority? Authority, after all, is human and therefore prone to error. Someone has to be in the back calling "bullshit" whenever they screw up, otherwise those errors would snowball...
Dave - I think Ms. Warner's point is that the young women should be making that choice for themselves, not having their fathers make it for them. The "emotional violence" bit is overwrought, certainly, as is the connection between the "purity dance" and the freak Austrian rapist asshat. But what bugs Ms. Warner is that some men, as she sees it, apparently think it's okay to control the decisions made by their daughters even after their daughters have struck out on their own - which is certainly objectionable. That's a point I agree with.
(Of course, ask me again in 17 years how I feel about this...)
Now on a personal level I'm not sure I agree with her that these men are trying to "control" their daughters - rather, they're probably just trying to advise their children as to what is virtuous, and there's nothing sinister about that.
One last note on my view on the abstinence movement - it doesn't prepare people for what actually happens. Certainly as Christians you know that many of these young women will succumb to lust before being married. Their "abstinence" education will not prepare them for protecting themselves if they do, leading to a higher rate of STDs and unwanted pregnancy...
Jeff,
I’d distinguish between a healthy distrust of authority and what Warner expresses. Warner’s distrust of authority is so cynical that she thinks that there are but a few steps between a father raping his daughter and fathers who encourage their daughters to abstain from sex until marriage.
At a more big picture theological level, the story of Adam and Eve largely is about how humans will not submit to God’s authority. God says, ‘you can eat anything in the Garden except the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,’ and of course we all know what happens next.
So, to paint in very broad strokes I would say that hatred of authority is basically about human unwillingness to submit to God.
I think there's a difference between a healthy distrust of authority, and a simple hatred of any sort of authority.
The point that you mention about the abstinence movement, Jeff, is one that I'm particularly sensitive to - not for any personal involvement in it, but because I think it's a salient example of how the church and culture interact.
I believe that homosexual sex is a sin, as is premarital sex. Unsafe sex, particularly of the homosexual (for physical reasons) and premarital (because it's less likely to be monogamous) varieties has an increased risk of spreading disease. How then should I respond?
Do I risk condoning immoral behavior, or do I risk leaving uneducated people who engage in said immoral behavior open to the risks it entails? Do I give a possible drug-addict money because he says he is hungry, or do I withhold it for fear of enabling him?
I think your interpretation of her views makes some sense. I suppose I saw in it something else - not so much the tightly ratcheted control she sees, but an affirmative desire to take up the mantle they as fathers are given, as opposed to abdicating and taking a passive, uninvolved role.
I also saw in it something spiritual. I suspect that when the church is involved in the direct promotion of purity, Ms. Warner (an assumption, of course) and people in general feel convicted - they feel (or believe they are being made to feel) in the wrong for not having taken that path. But given the alternatives of self-examination ("Did I take the right path?"), or to simply attack the church ("You have no right to judge me!"), the latter is a common response. If you don't like the implications of the message for you, shoot the messenger.
That's where I see the anger at a group that has nothing at all to do with her coming from. Personal guess, but it makes sense to me.
There were a couple of things that struck me with this article:
One being that the author seemed to despise that a daughter would have a healthy relationship with her father. There was a sense that a dad having input on his daughter's life takes her ability to make conscious decisions away from her.
The other also had to do with a female's decision on abstinence (and the obvious lack of mentioning any male abstinence). She made it seem as though these young women are being forced into purity - through mental and emotional means. I agreed with her that a female, as well as a male, should be able to do what they will with their bodies, and this may very well include abstinence. BUT, regardless of the choice that one makes, they should also be aware, and accept, the consequences (or lack thereof) that may occur.
Post a Comment