Kirk (the okay one)

Easy call.

If you see this, repost with your positive model of masculinity.

I know, I know—again the shriveled bough
Will burgeon sweetly in the gentle rain,
And these hard lands be quivering with grain—
I tell you only: it is Winter now.

From “Transition” by Dorothy Parker

I feel like “put oil in your wok and fry your tots” should be a line in an 80s movie, but I can’t decide whether it’s an insult yelled to a bully by a nerd, or something the cool buddy kids say to get hyped up for a challenge. Like:

Kid 1: put oil in your wok
Kid 2: and
Together: FRY YOUR TOTS

Incredible restraint to stop at one slice.

Tearing down the east wing without a clear plan for what comes next is such a great metaphor for everything this administration does..

So far, in less than one year, Donald Trump has issued over TEN TIMES as many pardons as he did in his entire four-year first term. That’s a lot of criminals released onto our streets.

I would love that, but we’ll never get 2/3 of the Senate to vote to convict.

I think so. The only plausible thing the Republicans can do to swing voters back is just send them big checks.

I'm now seeing that I should have proofread this thing, but the Bible says that editing is a woman's job, and my wife is asleep, so you're stuck with all the mistakes. Take it up with God.

*withhold
ARGH

and you can see that in the very passages that Fulnecky uses to support her reactionary ideas.

[End of thread.]

To be clear, you can dredge up other passages to kinda-sorta support a retrograde idea of gender roles. These are ancient texts from patriarchal cultures, and that necessarily bleeds into the writing. But I'd argue the larger message of scripture is the equal status of all humans...

the immediate implication is, once more, the essential sameness of women and men, both sexual beings, both with the same rights and obligations toward their partners.

Fulnecky can't even manage to allude to a scripture that doesn't undermine her points.

Husbands and wives are treated as equal partners here, both desirous of sex and both having a valid claim on the erotic affections of their partner. While it's easy to formulate a modern critique of this concept, it is remarkable that in the very passage that says your bodies belong to God,

The implication of "your body is not your own" is "married people should have healthy sex lives" and he treats men and women as equals here. Women should not without their bodies from their husbands (not for very long, anyway), and men should not without their bodies from theirs wives.

Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.” 2 But because of cases of sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife what is due her and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; likewise, the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except perhaps by agreement for a set time, to devote yourselves to prayer,[a] and then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 This I say by way of concession, not of command. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has a particular gift from God, one having one kind and another a different kind.

Paul uses that idea to warn the Corinthian men away from hiring prostitutes. But look where he takes that thought immediately afterward in chapter 7 (and remember, these chapter divisions are much later additions--he's continuing the same line of reasoning!)

19 Or do you not know that your body is a temple[g] of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own? 20 For you were bought with a price; therefore glorify God in your body.

She says "The Bible says that our lives are not our own but that our lives and bodies belong to the Lord for His glory." This one actually is a scriptural teaching, more or less.

Here's 1 Corinthians 6:19-20

(Set aside the fact that it is obviously false to assert that people are not pressured to confirm to traditional norms of masculinity and femininity. Where did she get this tortured reading of scripture, if not from pastors pressuring their church members to confirm to these cultural roles?)

I do not think men and women are pressured to be more masculine or feminine. I strongly disagree with the idea from the article that encouraging acceptance of diverse gender expressions could improve students’ confidence. Society pushing the lie that there are multiple genders and everyone should be whatever they want to be is demonic and severely harms American youth. I do not want kids to be teased or bullied in school. However, pushing the lie that everyone has their own truth and everyone can do whatever they want and be whoever they want is not biblical whatsoever. The Bible says that our lives are not our own but that our lives and bodies belong to the Lord for His glory. I live my life based on this truth and firmly believe that there would be less gender issues and insecurities in children if they were raised knowing that they do not belong to themselves, but they belong to the Lord.

Here's her penultimate paragraph.

In Genesis, God says that it is not good for man to be alone, so He created a helper for man (which is a woman). Many people assume the word “helper” in this context to be condescending and offensive to women. However, the original word in Hebrew is “ezer kenegdo” and that directly translates to “helper equal to”. Additionally, God describes Himself in the Bible using “ezer kenegdo”, or “helper”, and He describes His Holy Spirit as our Helper as well. This shows the importance God places on the role of the helper (women’s roles). God does not view women as less significant than men.

Fulnecky is basically right about the Hebrew "ezer kenegdo," but because she's wrong about everything else, she misunderstands it to mean "women are equal to men even though they are different" when it is really yet another biblical indication of the essential sameness of women and men.

Do you know who said "How often have I desired to gather your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings!" Jesus, in Matthew 23:37. Not Mary, or the other Mary, or the other other Mary--Jesus, the Son of God.

You just can't make a Bible-based case that caring is girl thing.

Do you know who the Bible says should have such caring virtues as love, patience, gentleness, kindness, and self-control? Everyone! Those are the fruit of the Spirit listed in Galatians 5:22.

Similarly, she can't cite the Bible for her claim in the next paragraph that "The reason so many girls want to feel womanly and care for others in a motherly way...is because God created and chose them to reflect His beauty and His compassion in that way." There's no passage that says that.

In her opening paragraph she says two very wrong things: that the image of God is split between men and women, and that it is our differences that really matter. The Bible says the opposite. She has a kind of insipid evangelical folk theology that exists in her mind, but not in the text.

So when Fulnecky says "God made male and female and made us differently from each other on purpose and for a purpose" she's somehow managed to get exactly the opposite message of Genesis 1 & 2, which is that God made us very alike, for a purpose (companionship.)

(There are no consistent fundamentalists.)

or in swamps because God separated land and sea. There are lots of created binaries in Genesis, and none of them are intended to exclude the existence of transitions from one thing to the other or combinations of the two. A consistent fundy would need to treat fens and bogs as unbiblical notions.)

(As a side note, although lots of evangelicals present "man and woman" an an exclusive binary that doesn't leave room for anyone who doesn't fit neatly into those categories, that makes exactly as much sense as refusing to believe in twilight because God made day and night...

Adam is not--contrary to much evangelical preaching--excited that there is a person in the garden now who is different from him in exciting and intriguing ways. He is excited that there is another human with him now who is like him in all the important ways!