News

Do men need respect from women, or can they perform their male roles without it?

12 Comments

From reading previous posts on Matt Walsh’s popular blog where he writes about male-female relationships. I got the impression that he was writing too much about how to blame men, and not enough about the policies and practices that provide incentives for men to underperform, e.g. – mostly female teachers, unfair divorce laws, stimulus spending geared towards women, etc. So imagine my surprise when I came across this article about men and their need for respect.

First, look at this excerpt. This is what I would have written to criticize Matt Walsh, but he writes it himself:

I’ve discussed at length how men should treat women. I’ve written about the lessons I plan to teach my son; lessons about how he should love, honor, respect, serve, and protect the women in his life. Indeed, men need to respect women, and we, as men, are far from perfect in that regard.

Those posts — the ones where I call on us men to improve the way we treat women — tend to be very popular. They’re popular when I write them or when anyone writes them. Proclaim that women, mothers, and wives should be respected, and a chorus will shout ‘amen.’ Every day on Facebook brings us another viral post excoriating men and supporting women. I’ve written a few of them myself.

But I’ve noticed that the corollary – a message about the respect women must give men, a message challenging wives and encouraging husbands – isn’t quite so palatable for many people. Disrespect for men has become standard practice. That scene I witnessed was sad but unremarkable; we’ve all watched that kind of thing play out a thousand times over. Men are disrespected by their wives – they’re disrespected publicly, they’re disrespected privately, they’re disrespected and then told that they have no right to be upset about it because they aren’t worthy of respect in the first place.

Let me tell you, as a blogger who chooses to primarily focus on holding women accountable in relationships, I know that it is much less popular than placing demands on men. Believe me, I have the hate mail to prove it. It is automatic, even with some Christian women, that any attempt to suggest a moral obligation that women have to men or children is met with denial, deflection or rationalization. “But what about men’s responsibilities to women?”

So Matt is concerned that men are hearing too many negative messages, and not getting enough respect from their wives.

He writes:

These cultural messages aren’t harmful because they hurt my manly feelings; they’re harmful because of what they do to young girls. Society tells our daughters that men are boorish dolts who need to be herded like goats and lectured like school boys. Then they grow up and enter into marriage wholly unprepared and unwilling to accept the Biblical notion that “wives should submit to their husbands” because “the husband is the head of the wife.” [Ephesians 5]

It is a fatal problem, because the one thing that is consistently withheld from men and husbands — respect — is the one thing we need the most.

Yes, need. We need respect, and that need is so deeply ingrained that a marriage cannot possibly survive if the man is deprived of it.

Often, people will say that a husband should only be respected if he “earns” it. This attitude is precisely the problem. A wife ought to respect her husband because he is her husband, just as he ought to love and honor her because she is his wife. Your husband might “deserve” it when you mock him, berate him, belittle him, and nag him, but you don’t marry someone in order to give them what they deserve. In marriage, you give them what you’ve promised them, even when they aren’t holding up their end of the bargain.

OK really, one last quote from Matt:

Respect is our language. If it isn’t said with respect, we can’t hear it. This is why nagging is ineffective and self defeating. This is why statements made in sarcastic tones, or with rolling eyes, will never be received well. We have a filter in our brains, and a statement made in disrespect will be filtered out like the poison it is.

Men are notoriously reluctant to share feelings or display vulnerability. Many times, we keep those inner thoughts locked away — our feelings guarded and hidden — because we know we are not respected. A man will never be vulnerable to someone who doesn’t respect him. Never.

A man isn’t satisfied or content if he isn’t respected. If he can’t find respect where he is, he will seek it somewhere else. This can have disastrous implications for a relationship, but it applies in other areas of life as well. A man is much more likely to stay in a low paying job, a physically demanding job, a dangerous job, or a tedious job, than a job where he isn’t respected.

I’m only emphasizing this because I think it might actually be news to some people. Society does not permit men to be vocal about their need for respect, so the need is often ignored.

What I’ve found in speaking to women about this is that all the married and divorced women know about this need that men have. And by and large, they agree with it, too. But that is much rarer among single women, which is why men need to be ready to explain their needs and feelings, and give women opportunities to practice giving men respect, especially when men are trying to practice their male roles.

Let’s take a quick look at the Bible, because that’s always a good thing to do when you want the truth about these things.

Ephesians 5:22-33:

22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body.

24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her,

26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.

28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself;

29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church,

30 because we are members of His body.

31 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church.

33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

Some women get scared by that, but they shouldn’t be, because you get to pick your husband, so just pick someone whose leadership you actually respect.

And now for my opinion about this topic.

To start, remember that men are supposed to be good at the following roles:

  • protecting (men spot threats to people, truth and goodness and attack we those threats)
  • providing (men get STEM degrees, and we save money so we can share with others)
  • moral leader (men read books to know how to make a secular case for pro-life and pro-marriage)
  • spiritual leader (men read books to know how to use secular evidence to defend their faith)

If a woman sees a man – any man – working away at these tasks, that’s the time to practice respecting him.

Here are some practical ideas on how to show a man respect, grouped in two sections.

Respect specific to the man’s core beliefs and life plan

  • Find out what goals he is trying to achieve
  • Find out what steps he has taken already
  • Find out what steps he plans to take
  • Find out what obstacles are in his way
  • Tell your friends and family about what he is doing
  • Independently read books, watch lectures, etc. to learn about the problem area
  • Independently solve problems related to his goal in your own life, and tell him about it
  • Monitor his progress and supply encouragement and rewards appropriately
  • Take care of peripheral tasks so he can concentrate on his main focus
  • Attend a training event or conference related to the problem he is trying to solve
  • Arrange a training event or conference related to the problem he is trying to solve at the church or university
  • Invite friends over, and try to show them something related to what he cares about to get a discussion started

Respect for men in general

  • Let him solve problems, especially through his male talents: providing, protecting, leading
  • When you are in public, talk about what he is trying to achieve
  • When you are in public, talk about what you are doing to help him to other people
  • Learn to do the “wind-down” activities that he likes, and do it with him
  • Try to do co-operative activities with him
  • Explain how you feel about something that you need him to do, before and after he does it
  • Explain the mechanics of tasks you do that are difficult (he will buy you something to make it easier)
  • Try to learn about things that men like so you can talk to them about those things (e.g. – politics, theology, etc.)
  • Give him time to achieve things at work if he needs to do that
  • Be frugal with money (men feel really disrespected if their money is wasted)
  • Try to read stories about ordinary men, police, soldiers being brave, so you understand why men sometimes use force (and guns) in order to defeat evil and protect others

If you’re married now, then you can just tailor this list by talking to your husband. It might be hard because men typically 1) can’t express their feelings, and 2) can’t recommend solutions.  Some of that problem can be fixed by being very careful not to do or say anything that will make the man think that he will be hurt by you if he confesses his feelings and needs. That is a nightmare for a man. Ask whether your husband feels respected, and ask for specific things you can do to make him feel respected. I always recommend that the first step be to investigate what he does that you don’t do, and find out the mechanics of it. Finding out opens opportunities to help.

If you are single now, and don’t even know any good men, you can still respect good men by making decisions now to study things that are helpful to good men. Instead of studying radicalized subject areas in school like social work and English, study a useful STEM field, like nursing or engineering or chemistry or economics, etc. Having to deal with difficult, math-oriented subjects is very good for anyone’s character, because it prepares you for the real difficulty of life, so you can be disciplined, detail-oriented and outward-focused. Non-STEM fields don’t pay much because they are not hard. Studying something hard in school helps a woman to become accustomed to having to work hard, and helps her to critical of politicians who promise goodies to people on the backs of private-sector workers.

In addition, women ought to prefer to get a private sector job in a STEM field or business field, if possible. Or better yet run her own business in a STEM field. That will help her to really be understanding and sympathetic to what men are facing in the workplace. If a woman understands the difficulty of what a man does by having done it herself, it makes a man feel respected.

News

Can gay marriage proponents tolerate religious liberty?

2 Comments

An article by Ryan T. Anderson explains the problem in National Review.

Excerpt:

For years now, a central argument of those in favor of same-sex marriage has been that all Americans should be free to live and love how they choose. But does that freedom require the government to coerce those who disagree into celebrating same-sex relationships?

A growing number of incidents show that the redefinition of marriage and state policies on sexual orientation have created a climate of intolerance and intimidation for citizens who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman and that sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage. Now comes government coercion and discrimination. Laws that create special privileges based on sexual orientation and gender identity are being used to trump fundamental civil liberties such as freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

Let’s see specific examples:

In addition to the well-known examples of Christian adoption and foster-care agencies that have been forced to stop providing those services because they object to placing children in same-sex households, the examples below show how government has penalized citizens trying to run their businesses in accordance with their beliefs.

[…]The case of Elaine Huguenin and her husband, Jon, is perhaps the best-known example of violations of religious liberty at the state level… the Huguenins run Elane Photography, a small business in Albuquerque, N.M. In 2006, the couple declined a request to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony…

[…]Elane Photography didn’t refuse to take pictures of gay and lesbian individuals, but it did refuse to photograph a ceremony that ran counter to the owners’ belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman (a belief that New Mexico law endorses). Other photographers in the Albuquerque area were more than happy to photograph the event.

But in 2008, the New Mexico Human Rights Commission ruled that the Huguenins, by declining to use their artistic and expressive skills to communicate what what occurred at the ceremony, had discriminated based on sexual orientation. The commission ordered them to pay $6,637.94 in attorneys’ fees. The ruling cited New Mexico’s human-rights law, which prohibits discrimination in “public accommodations” (that is, “any establishment that provides or offers its services . . . or goods to the public”) based on race, religion, and sexual orientation — among other protected classes.

And another:

In early 2013, two women, Rachel Cryer and Laurel Bowman, asked the Oregon bakery Sweet Cakes by Melissa to bake a wedding cake for their same-sex commitment ceremony. Although bakery owners Melissa and Aaron Klein consistently had served all customers on a regular basis, they asserted that this request would have required them to facilitate and celebrate a same-sex relationship — which would violate their religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. (Oregon law defines marriage in the same way.)

Soon afterward, Cryer and Bowman filed a complaint under the Oregon Equality Act of 2007, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. During an investigation by Oregon’s Bureau of Labor and Industries, bureau official Brad Avakian commented: “The goal is to rehabilitate. For those who do violate the law, we want them to learn from that experience and have a good, successful business in Oregon.”

In January, the agency issued a ruling that held that the Kleins violated Oregon’s sexual-orientation law when they declined to bake the cake.

Melissa and Aaron Klein faced increasing ridicule for their unwillingness to violate their beliefs. Sweet Cakes by Melissa came under threats, vicious protests, and boycotts. The Kleins, who have five children, reportedly received hundreds of phone calls and letters, including death threats to the family. Fearing for their safety, the Kleins decided to close the doors of their small business in September 2013 and operate from an in-home bakery. In the meantime, the family still has to deal with the Labor Commission’s conclusion that they violated Oregon’s law. The case is likely to proceed to an administrative law judge.

And another:

A similar situation occurred when a judge in Colorado — a state that in 2006 constitutionally defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman — decided that Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, violated the law when he declined to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding reception.

In 2012, a same-sex couple received a marriage license in Massachusetts and asked Phillips to bake a cake for a reception back home in Denver. On the basis of his faith, Phillips declined to create a wedding cake: “I don’t feel like I should participate in their wedding, and when I do a cake, I feel like I am participating in the ceremony or the event or the celebration that the cake is for.” The couple obtained a wedding cake, one with rainbow-colored filling, from another local bakery.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop with the state, alleging violations of Colorado’s public-accommodation law. Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer ruled against the bakery on December 6, 2013, concluding that Phillips violated the law by refusing service to the two men “because of their sexual orientation.”

Phillips objected to this characterization and responded that that he would happily sell the couple his baked goods for any number of occasions, but baking a wedding cake would force him to express something that he does not believe, violating his freedom to run his business in step with his faith.

And another:

On March 1, 2013, longtime customers Roger Ingersoll and Curt Freed met with Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts shop owner Barronelle Stutzman to request that she arrange the flowers for their same-sex wedding ceremony. Washington State had redefined marriage the previous year. Stutzman respondedthat she could not accept the job because of her “relationship with Jesus Christ” and her belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

Acting on a complaint filed by the two men, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson filed suit against Stutzman, contending that she had violated the state’s sexual-orientation law. Ferguson seeks a $2,000 fine and a court order forcing Barronelle to violate her conscience by using her artistic talents to celebrate a same-sex relationship.

The situation is so bad, that Arizona has had to pass a law to protect the religious liberty of people who don’t want to celebrate gay marriage, a law which is universally opposed by our leftist mainstream media.

So how did we come to this? Well, I think when the debate over gay rights started, many Christians were happy to let gay people live how they wanted to and love who they wanted to and have ceremonies in churches that would have them. But now we are seeing that the gay agenda is much more about redefining marriage for everyone, and compelling assent to the new definition of marriage by force. What is striking to me is how easy secularists find it to strip religious people of their rights using the power of government when it suits them. And to go after their children in the public schools, too, at taxpayer expense. Even these state-run persecutions of Christians in “Human Rights Commissions” is at taxpayer expense. Christians are paying secularists in the government to punish them for being faithful Christians.

Let’s just weigh the damage in these cases. On the one hand, you have gay couples who are told no, feel bad, and then find another business to do what they want. On the other hand, you have the government dragging Christians into court, excoriating them, fining them thousands of dollars, making them apologize and them forcing them to violate their consciences or close their businesses. Who is being intolerant here? Who is forcing their view on others and forcing them to act against their core beliefs?

You would think that we would have learned the lessons of the 20th century – not to discriminate against people because of their religion, not to use the power of the state to force people to act against their consciences. But sadly, we have not learned that lesson. The very people who cry “tolerance” are the ones doing it, too.

Polemics

Has Christianity held back the progress of science? What about Galileo?

9 Comments

First, here’s an article from the peer-reviewed journal Nature, probably the best peer-reviewed journal on science in the world.

The article is written by James Hannam. He has a PhD in the History and Philosophy of Science from the University of Cambridge and is the author of The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution (published in the UK as God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science).

Excerpt:

Few topics are as open to misunderstanding as the relationship between faith and reason. The ongoing clash of creationism with evolution obscures the fact that Christianity has actually had a far more positive role to play in the history of science than commonly believed. Indeed, many of the alleged examples of religion holding back scientific progress turn out to be bogus. For instance, the Church has never taught that the Earth is flat and, in the Middle Ages, no one thought so anyway. Popes haven’t tried to ban zero, human dissection or lightening rods, let alone excommunicate Halley’s Comet. No one, I am pleased to say, was ever burnt at the stake for scientific ideas. Yet, all these stories are still regularly trotted out as examples of clerical intransigence in the face of scientific progress.

Admittedly, Galileo was put on trial for claiming it is a fact that the Earth goes around the sun, rather than just a hypothesis as the Catholic Church demanded. Still, historians have found that even his trial was as much a case of papal egotism as scientific conservatism. It hardly deserves to overshadow all the support that the Church has given to scientific investigation over the centuries.

That support took several forms. One was simply financial. Until the French Revolution, the Catholic Church was the leading sponsor of scientific research. Starting in the Middle Ages, it paid for priests, monks and friars to study at the universities. The church even insisted that science and mathematics should be a compulsory part of the syllabus. And after some debate, it accepted that Greek and Arabic natural philosophy were essential tools for defending the faith. By the seventeenth century, the Jesuit order had become the leading scientific organisation in Europe, publishing thousands of papers and spreading new discoveries around the world. The cathedrals themselves were designed to double up as astronomical observatories to allow ever more accurate determination of the calendar. And of course, modern genetics was founded by a future abbot growing peas in the monastic garden.

But religious support for science took deeper forms as well. It was only during the nineteenth century that science began to have any practical applications. Technology had ploughed its own furrow up until the 1830s when the German chemical industry started to employ their first PhDs. Before then, the only reason to study science was curiosity or religious piety. Christians believed that God created the universe and ordained the laws of nature. To study the natural world was to admire the work of God. This could be a religious duty and inspire science when there were few other reasons to bother with it. It was faith that led Copernicus to reject the ugly Ptolemaic universe; that drove Johannes Kepler to discover the constitution of the solar system; and that convinced James Clerk Maxwell he could reduce electromagnetism to a set of equations so elegant they take the breathe away.

Given that the Church has not been an enemy to science, it is less surprising to find that the era which was most dominated by Christian faith, the Middle Ages, was a time of innovation and progress. Inventions like the mechanical clock, glasses, printing and accountancy all burst onto the scene in the late medieval period. In the field of physics, scholars have now found medieval theories about accelerated motion, the rotation of the earth and inertia embedded in the works of Copernicus and Galileo. Even the so-called “dark ages” from 500AD to 1000AD were actually a time of advance after the trough that followed the fall of Rome. Agricultural productivity soared with the use of heavy ploughs, horse collars, crop rotation and watermills, leading to a rapid increase in population.

I hope this will set the record straight – Judeo-Christian monotheism created the enterprise of experimental science.

Positive arguments for Christian theism