Some claims are so wrong-headed that it is hard to know how to begin addressing them; the very act of addressing them makes you feel like you dignified them and this feels regrettable. Nonetheless, as those claims spread further and wider, it is necessary for God's people to be shown their wrong-ness, so that they might be guarded against them and the other false ideas being laundered into the church alongside them.
Recently one notorious (for his unrepentant anti-semitism and ethno-nationalism, amongst other things) Christian Nationalist posted the following on X (Twitter). I don't read his Tweet feed (except very occasionally to understand what might be "coming down the river"), but was sad to see the following repeated elsewhere by someone who should have known better. Here's what was said:
There are many reasons women shouldn’t be voting. The reasons are rooted in their nature:
1) They are more easily deceived.
2) They are not made to operate outside of male headship.
3) They are more likely to fall prey to weaponized empathy and victim-driven ideologies (CRT, Marxism, etc)
4) They are far more malleable than men
5) George Orwell was right: “It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” — 1984
6) They are made to be nurturers in the home, not public pugilists
There are a lot of things I could say about this, and the dynamics of people trying to use X to gain followers for themselves, and the sub-Christian and anti-Christian ways they go about this. But to avoid making this post excessively long, I'm just going to comment on the above claims.
In summary, what we have thus far is strong words thrown out without any care to explain their actual intended meaning. A bad start. Let's begin on the reasons themselves.
What's being discussed?
There are many reasons women shouldn’t be voting.
Firstly, in context, it appears that "voting" means "take part in democratic elections".
What kind of "should not" is being asserted? Is it an ethical obligation upon all women to not vote? i.e. Is female voting akin to adultery or child abuse, an act that is in its essential nature an offence before a holy God? The reasons given suggest that he's thinking more of "should not" in a more utilitarian sense of "it leads to worse outcomes". The arguments, however, are mixed; some are more pragmatic but others less so; and possibly he does mean "it's inherently morally wrong for a woman to cast a vote (and there are other negative consequences too)". When someone purporting to be a Christian teacher says that you "should not" do something, it ought to be made clear if we're talking about offering advice, or avoiding sin. Lack of clarity is pastorally unhelpful and ultimately irresponsible.
The reasons are rooted in their nature:
Note that this is given as applying to all the reasons which are then given. Every one of them is claimed to be a claim not simply about typical or common behaviours found either predominantly amongst women, or amongst women more commonly than men, or the like. The claim is made that the given reasons are actually essential to the nature of womankind. Wherever you find a female, you will (we're told) find the following things.
The writer hasn't troubled himself to clarify if he means female nature as originally made, or fallen female nature after the fall. Insofar as he means created female nature as it came from the hand of God on the sixth day, if he is talking about already-existing moral defects, then this is Gnostic heresy: femininity was mis-created by a malevolent demiurge. Salvation would include having the faults of our creation rectified.
So, if he means essential female nature but is not committing this error, he must mean something like "it is not fitting or seemly, in general keeping with femininity, to vote". If that is what he means, then this clarifies the words "should not" as meaning being in a very weak sense: not sin, but not fully fitting. Again, this lack of clarity is pastorally irresponsible. We'd again want to ask questions about what the "should not" here really means. "Should" women put out the rubbish bins (garbage cans, for our American friends!)? Should they change tyres on cars? Learn judo? "Should" men wear make-up, or have hair that goes below their shoulders, always (or not) follow the "Billy Graham" rule, or know how to knit clothes? What is the reasoning involved in affirming or denying any of these claims, exactly? If it does go beyond "it seems unseemly to me" (and I'm not saying that all such judgments must be invalid or fatally subjective), then it needs explaining, not just asserting.
If, on the other hand, we are talking about "female nature" after and affected by the fall, then how do the two very important theological considerations of common grace and of redemption affect the judgment being made? Are all women subject to all the worst ravages of 1) to 6) in their final extremity? Apparently not, because the reasons given are nuanced in terms of relative terms like "more easily", "more likely" and "the most", which is the language of tendency and distribution along a curve, rather than of inherent necessity. So, it seems that God's general restraint and blessing after the fall (common grace) and/or his special grace in regenerating through the Holy Spirit, can change the calculus, so that one woman may differ from another (!). But if that is so, then how is the conclusion that no woman, ever should vote derived from the reasons given?
We will come back to this question of what the writer believes about female nature towards the end. It will become clear that he sees female nature, in and of itself, as a problem. But first we need to do some "spade work" before we can show that this is the unavoidable conclusion.
One last thing before we look at the reasons themselves - why is voting so important that it gets special consideration here? Given reason 6, it appears to be something to do with the public square, public society. Voting, broadly speaking, is giving your view upon who should represent you in a parliament, or should represent you in leadership as the head of state. These two things aren't entirely the same thing; the former has more the flavour of representation through "giving a voice to your concerns", and the second representation through "being the embodiment of the nation, and setting its direction". Then there's also specific referenda, which could range from the weightiest national down to the most trivial local issues. I would guess that the writer thinks that women shouldn't have a say on any of these things; but why that is, isn't made clear any more than it is clear why voting is the particular part of participation in wider society that should be forbidden to women because of the given reasons.
So, the reasons themselves....
The claims
"1) They are more easily deceived."
The logic is apparently something like:
a) There are two sexes.
b) One sex is more easily deceived than the other.
c) If you are a member of the more easily deceived sex, you should not be allowed to vote.
That is the logic, but in what way it is logical, I cannot begin to guess. Why should only one of the two sexes be allowed to vote - why is sex the dividing line here, and not something else? What is the relationship between our gendered existence, and whether we should be allowed to contribute to choosing who represents us? Given reason 2), it is likely to be something to do with leadership / headship and gender roles. Somehow, female voting is prohibited because it is an act of illegitimate leadership of men - but is it really, and how so?
Whatever is meant, in any case, this reason in itself is no reason. "The average woman is more easily deceived, therefore no women at all should vote" makes no sense. The actual reasoning is not given. If woman A is not at all easily deceived, but woman B is easily deceived, then how does this establish that both woman A and woman B should be treated identically and both should be denied a vote? Is the claim that "every single woman is always more easily deceived (and specifically more easily deceived when deciding who to vote for) than any given man?" That claim is obviously completely false.
How did the writer learn this, anyway? How do we know that women (all women, everywhere, ever) are more easily deceived into voting the "wrong" way than men (which men?) are? Is it the writer's personal belief, or has he got sociological research that establishes it? Or does he think the Bible somewhere says so?
I would guess that the writer wants to appeal to 1 Timothy 2:14, which says "And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression." This is given in 1 Timothy as a reason why teaching of men and authority over men is not permitted to women in the church. I understand its meaning thus: redeemed sisters in Christ, by their submission to legitimate, godly male authority of church elders (that described in the next chapter) testify that they are not "daughters of Eve" in the sense of endorsing and copying her sin, but that they wish to live in their various roles (daughters, single women, wives, widows, etc.) as saved people, to please and honour God. (And yes, therefore it is a binding command for all churches in all times and places). The text, though, does not say "all women are easily deceived", it says "the woman (i.e. Eve) being deceived". Paul, throughout 1 Timothy, teaches that the church is the new creation, and is to be a light and example to the world of creation restored. But there is no suggestion that this testimony includes either the idea that "all women are more gullible than all men", much less that "therefore no woman should be able to vote for a representative in civil society". Such questions are nowhere on Paul's radar: he was not a Christian nationalist, and the politics of the present age were not interesting to him enough to rise to the level of ever being mentioned in any letter. And in 1 Timothy, he is addressing the subject of the organisation of the church, not interaction with civil society. It can, and I'd argue should, be argued that what Paul says has implications outside of the church; but to establish what those implications might be needs careful and nuanced exegesis that take in the whole of Scripture, not grand sweeping statements that move straight from one action of Eve to all women, anywhere and everywhere.
If those who are too easily deceived shouldn't vote, then this will include vast numbers of both men and women in all parts of society, not simply "all women". The history of parliaments and elections renders the idea that when only men voted, deceptions were avoided, ridiculous. To be sure, we all live in times of different deceptions today than the deceptions of our ancestors. But anyone who thinks that they weren't bathed in vast numbers of deceptions with ruinous consequences either for themselves or those that they acted upon, hasn't read history books.
The writer that I'm responding to has himself been deceived into endorsing both ethno-nationalism and absurd fallacies about generic female nature, and presenting them to others as "Christian". By his own logic, should he be allowed to vote?
2) They are not made to operate outside of male headship.
If purely for the sake of argument we granted this, then how does it support the conclusion "no woman should vote"? Both men and women are not made to operate outside of Christ's headship; therefore neither men nor women should vote. We were originally made under Adam's headship; therefore as long as he was alive, supposing a democracy developed, only Adam should have been allowed to vote in it. How does any of this follow? We should submit to church leadership; therefore only church leaders should express opinions; there should never be any votes for any reason. Again, how does that follow?
The logic presumably resembles "a woman should not operate anywhere outside of male headship; being asked for her preferred parliamentary candidate is operating outside of male headship; therefore she should not do it". This begs so many questions it's hard to know where to begin. What exactly is meant by "operate" here? What, particularly, about voting is an "operation" that is essentially a rejection of male headship, in a way that any other act that a woman performs is not? Any ideas? If it is being argued that voting is essentially some sort of exercise of authority over others, and over other men, then how is it so?
How are widows meant to "operate"? Do church leaders take on the roles of surrogate fathers? Where is that taught? Are unmarried daughters whose fathers have died morally obliged to not "operate" in society, since they have no male headship - and in what ways?
This all sounds very like the deviant doctrine that was more prominent 2-ish decades ago in some circles, that a woman must seek a "covering" for every decision she makes from a suitable man, down to the smallest details (though, blanket "coverings" could be given for trivial decisions). This adds to the word of God and creates burdens upon souls that God has nowhere placed.
Notice how radical the claim is - women are not "made" to operate outside of male headship. It is, again, against their nature - and this time apparently clearly against their creation itself, irrespective of the fall. A woman cannot express an opinion (at least at the ballot box) on who she wishes to represent her in a democracy, because this is somehow an overthrow of the order of creation. There are huge leaps being made here. In general, daughters are born into their parents home, and God tells them to honour their parents, and God gives the father a specific responsibility as head of the home. They should also honour the authority of church elders and civil rulers, in their spheres. But to get from there to forbidding everything that has no male "covering" requires careful and detailed exegesis and demonstration from Scripture, not just hand-waving.
"3) They are more likely to fall prey to weaponized empathy and victim-driven ideologies (CRT, Marxism, etc)"
This is merely objection 1), only in a more specific form. 1) claims that (all) women are more easily deceived; 3) claims that (all) women are more easily deceived by particularly by the name ideologies. (No documentation/research for this claim is offered).
This claim really is laughable. Karl Marx was Karl Marx, not Karolina Marx. And all the men who developed and put his ideology into practice were men, though of course there were other women working in the same field. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Hoxha, Pol Pot, Mao Zedung, etc. - these were men, and the vast majority of their collaborators were men. They originated, adapted, proclaimed, spread and enforced these doctrines across gigantic territories, as the driving forces. So, even if it were to be conceded (which it is not) that women are more likely to fall prey to these ideologies, you're still left with the inconvenient fact that men are still sufficiently prey to these ideologies that they can rule most of the map without needing women's help. In which case - what would the prohibition of the vote to women be expected to achieve? Women can't vote for these poisonous ideologies, which already succeeded without their votes anyway (inasmuch as anyone was being asked to vote for them in the first place)?
Why only left-wing ideologies? I remind you that the man promoting these ideas is a Christian Nationalist, an anti-semite and ethno-nationalist, who is widely and rightly "marked and avoided" because he consistently without apology re-tweets people are unashamed to say the quiet part out loud by endorsing Nazism and praising Hitler. Were women as well as men not complicit in the sins of 20th century fascism in the same way as 21st century gender ideology? Is there some quantitative difference between their level of involvement? What is the evidence for this claim? All the leading Nazis, including all those tried at Nuremberg, were men. If the involvement of more women in public life automatically means more empathy, then would that not have been welcome in 1930s Germany to prevent the catastrophe that ensued? Or are women now only capable of false empathy, and not of true? What sort of theology is underlying all this? Whatever it is, plainly, it is not necessary to give females votes in order for God-hating ideologies to cause world-wide ruin.
Weaponized empathy?
"Weaponized empathy", in Christian Nationalist circles, is increasingly presented as a claim that the sins of our present societies are essentially "too much public femininity". The idea is that females are more empathetic, and that because they're also (allegedly) more gullible, they're more prone to false, sinful perversions of empathy, and thus the more females you have in the "public space", the more you are inevitably going to have ruinous female-specific sins dominating in your society. The solution, therefore, is to push them back out of the public space. As I say, this claim is laughable and historically nonsensical; there is not the slightest argument that can be attempted that Marxism and Nazism are somehow respectively "female" and "male" sins, nor that the latter would somehow be preferable, or is nearer to the teachings of Christ, to the former. Similarly, Critical Race Theory has been promoted and developed widely by both men and women with equal enthusiasm. To be sure, left-wing group-identity racism and right-wing ethno-identity racism aren't the same doctrines, but they're both evil, both insults to the divine image. And for a Christian, there's no scope then to classify one as acceptable because it's supposedly masculine, whereas the other is unacceptable because it's allegedly feminine.
According to the Bible, virtues of gentleness, sympathy, caring for the helpless and needy, nurturing and helping the weak, are not specifically male or female-coded virtues. They are fruits of the Holy Spirit in and for all those who are converted, to be aimed for in ever greater extent in all, and all were found in their fullness and perfection in Christ, the perfect man (and perfect human). There are no uniquely "female" or "male" sins in this area. If it is argued that females might be more vulnerable to missing a particular virtue on one side, and males on the other side, this cannot be an argument for excluding one group from the public square more than for the other. Again, ethno-nationalism and critical race theory are both evil. The choice "shall we prefer our public sins to be of one sort, or the other sort?" is a false choice. The suggestion that "we must exclude females from public life because our public sins need to be 'male-coded' instead of 'female-coded': we must 'sin in the right direction'", is too ridiculous to take seriously. It suggests that something else is going on at a deeper level which is the real reason.
4) They are far more malleable than men
This claim is made lazily, being essentially identical to 1), that women are "more easily deceived".
Being "malleable" in itself could be a good or bad thing. It's a pity that Stalin wasn't more malleable, and that someone could have persuaded him to starve so many of his own people with his inflexible centralised plans. If (all?) women are more malleable than (all?) men, then this would seem to be an argument for female involvement in public life, since it would seem that men are (on the author's warped simplicities) missing something important unless women are present.
5) George Orwell was right: “It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy.” — 1984
Again, how this differs from 1) or 4) is not clear. Women are more gullible... more easily deceived... most likely to swallow slogans and conform. But if women are, by their very nature, followers, then just whom have they been following? If we have got into the mess of Marxism and CRT, then who led women there? It can't both be the case that women led us there, and also that women are by nature followers who just do what men tell them. These claims are self-contradictory. Which is it?
In society today, we have men who argue for Marxism, and men who argue against it. We have men who argue for CRT, and men who argue against CRT. If women are by nature followers, as is being argued, then why does that mean they necessarily follow lies instead of truth? (Whereas men do what, exactly? They follow truth instead of lies? Or they create lies instead of creating truth?). Or is it because women are uniquely susceptible to left-wing ruinous ideologies, because of alleged their innate (universal?) tendency to weaponized empathy, that there is a problem? Since men's empathy can't be so easily warped, therefore only men should vote because they can and do resist the lies that spoil nations? Again, all human history proclaims that this idea is a fable.
It is generally observed, and I agree, that young women are especially sensitive to non-conformity within their circles, more than men in general and on average tend to be. And because young women are desirable to men, there is a tendency for men to seek to please them, which some might think it's best to do by agreeing with them. But that is in no way a necessary male response; indeed, it would be a weak one, contrary to stereotypical masculine virtues. Is the writer confessing that actually, he and the men with him are so weak that once (young) women are allowed to express opinions, then they won't be able to resist going along with them? Where, exactly, is Christian virtue in any of this? Are we all just automatons, pushed around by uncontrollable sexual dynamics which can only be brought back into line by shutting up women in their homes where they can't by their irresistible charms influence such pathetically weak men in the wrong ideological directions?
Going along those lines (and when you read his other outputs), to try to understand the essence of his logic, it becomes clear that the writer does have a woman problem. There's a battle raging within him. Whether he wants to be or likes to be one, he has landed as a misogynist. He's struggling to co-exist with women, and the solution to his internal struggle is to suppress their existence, so that he's not exposed to them and their wiles. So he insults and belittles them as an entire class, to banish the entire class. They are biased towards evil, and if they're allowed into wider society too much, then they will corrupt men who want to please them and are unable to resist doing so. They must be kept away from him, because he has a problem with them as a class. The mask is difficult to keep on, and the only way to get a logical, coherent picture out of these points is to point this unpleasant reality of his thinking out. Women, for this writer, have a natural and stronger tendency towards evil which can't be mitigated, and which inevitably corrupts men (who are incapable of resisting), and therefore they must be suppressed. This is the only reading which logically harmonises all of his beliefs, unpleasant as it is.
6) They are made to be nurturers in the home, not public pugilists
I don't know if you're tired, but I'm tired. Once more, a lazy appeal to women's alleged nature is made, which is supposed somehow to read straight across without any explanation to the act of voting. It is mostly not even an argument, but just a statement of his conclusion.
What is the connection between voting for your representative, and being a public pugilist? We're not told. Supposing that you are a nurturer in the home, why does this mean that the state must not ask you for your say on who represents you? Why do we have to choose between one or the other - why the dichotomy? So many assertions, so few reasons.
Is a woman who is not a "nurturer in the home" failing to achieve her created purpose? Are all women who don't marry, despite what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7 about the superiority of serving Christ whilst unmarried, failures as women? Once a woman becomes a widow, or if she has no children, is she a failed (or simply redundant) woman? Does she need to be redeemed from her failure to nurture in the home, her having come short of her very purpose for existing? What horrible doctrine is this?
Conclusions: the root of this is heresy
Men and women as classes are created with complementary, but non-identical purposes. This is a clear teaching of Scripture, and is evident to any careful observer of the human race. However, to try to build a doctrine with parts such as "no woman ever should vote" or "without being a domestic nurturer, you are necessarily less of a woman" upon that foundation is to add new, soul-crushing chapters to God's word. Moreover, the fact that the only way to do this is to make gross, sweeping generalisations, turning unexplained tendencies into universal rules, and by saying things that betray a general uncomfortableness with the existence of women as a class (they are more prone to evil, and their evil influence cannot be resisted except by shutting them away, because this all-pervasive defect cannot be remedied in this life): this has nothing to do with the Christian faith. It sounds like some other religions I've read about in many times and places, ahem, but not Christianity. It is not what Jesus Christ or his apostles anywhere taught. The doctrine that women are, in their very nature as women, inferior creations to man whose nature corrupts men (who unfortunately cannot resist their spells), is not God's word; it is heresy. The Bible does not teach, but denies, that women are by their very nature as women more bigoted, more gullible, and more prone to perverting kindness into oppression, and that they must be generally suppressed in order to protect men from their irreparably malevolent influence. It is not taught in Genesis, in the gospels, the epistles, or anywhere else in Scripture.
We should be clear about this. "Christian Nationalists" who teach such doctrines about women steal the name of Christ to spread poisonous errors. Unpleasant as it is, we must refute them. We must not allow those who don't know Christ to believe that this is what Christianity and the gospel say about femininity. They do not.
No comments:
Post a Comment