Doug Wilson Continues Attention-Seeking Rants Against Rachel Held Evans, Feminists

I blame Libby Anne for sharing this link and making me write despite my sore wrist!

Doug Wilson just can’t shut up about Rachel Held Evans, which is curious for two reasons: she’s already stopped bothering about him, and there are scores of other bloggers who are pissed off about his misogyny, and several of them have penises. Take, for instance, Unreasonable Faith’s Fifty Shades of Lipstick on a Pig, or all these people, or Fred Clark (Slacktivist)’s The men of the ‘Gospel Coalition’ really hate women.

I suspect that Wilson keeps doing this for the publicity (it’s always good, right?). He obviously hasn’t thought about that very much. Because the more he stirs trouble in the spiritual abuse survivor community, and in the Christian feminist community, and in the Community of Decent Human Beings on the Internet, the more his name will be linked in search engines with words like “hateful, racist misogynist.” And that’s what all his new potential converts will see when they Google to figure out who he is.

Unless, of course, he rigs the engines with money somehow.

Here’s yet another screed:

I love it when the guys get up a robust game of pick-up basketball. I hate it when some feminist sues the gym for the right to join in, because she is tired of all these lame traditionalist categories, and then, without any self-awareness at all, limps off the court five minutes into the game favoring her left leg because she got bumped on the right elbow, and spends the rest of the year writing letters to various authorities about how “hurt,” “offended,” and “deeply concerned” she is about how “dismissive” everybody was being about her perspective on this unfortunate affair.

Seriously, what would this guy do for a living without the feminist movement? He should be paying us all royalties for the privilege of making a living setting up and burning down straw feminists.

I love it when someone engages me in a meaningful debate about religion. I hate it when some misogynist windbag starts spouting off as if he can dominate the debate by shouting “I don’t like you, okay? I just hate your stupid face! You’re such a girl!”

I have no business setting up amiable dialogue within the boundaries of Christian faith with some discussion partners who deny or subvert first principles in the way that Rachel Held Evans does. And I have every responsibility to pursue discussion with Anthony Bradley, despite his sin against me. Given what he teaches and what I teach, we ought to be in fellowship. But given what Rachel Held Evans teaches, I have a duty to not be in fellowship. If somebody arranged a discussion event with me and with her (which someone unsuccessfully tried to do), I would be happy to go, and moreover I would be pleasant throughout the entire event. But me being pleasant, however remarkable that might be, will not turn a mango into a pear, and will not turn feminism into Christianity.  

Incidentally, this does not mean that I cannot learn from out-and-out pagans — I most certainly can, and I do it all the time. But when I am reading their books, for example, I never forget where I am, who I am, and where my loyalties are.

And this is the last thing — loyalties are shaped by understanding the story. This concerns those Christians I mentioned earlier who are in the middle, pulled this way and that. Such Christians who are instinctively protective of the wrong side in such controversies are obviously Christians, but they are (equally obviously) badly equipped for reading stories. The fundamental skill in identifying the antithesis in history (which is astory, remember) is the skill of distinguishing the protagonist from the antagonist. If you come out ofBeowulf feeling sorry for Grendel, if you think Mr. Wickham was misunderstood, if you wince at the hubris when Aragon rides up to the gates of Mordor, if you come out of 1 Samuel thinking King Saul had a reasonable point, then you might think that this particular fight within the evangelical and Reformed world is a bad thing and a discredit to the gospel.

Who wants to break it to Doug that Sauron isn’t real?

Seriously, the fundamental skill of understanding history (not identifying its imaginary bogeyman) is realizing that all stories have context. All stories are written by people with particular perspectives. That’s why feminist history, subaltern history (the history of underprivileged groups whose voices are seldom heard), LGBTQ and black history are so powerful. Because they reveal the wealthy white male narrator in simplistic stories that have made up history for centuries. They reveal how the “antagonists” (the arrogant, the destructive, the foolhardy) in history are often the ones writing it. How they have systematically controlled the memory of the human race to preserve their present power. How we get a clearer picture of the world when we listen to the people living in all possible circumstances, not just the ones that get filed away in the Library of Congress.

Hey, Christian feminists – take note, this guy is telling you that feminism is incompatible with Christianity. I’m calling on all of you to tell him how wrong he is. Because while misogyny like his drove me away from Christian churches, you still hold the authority vested in the Scriptures you and he both believe in. And he’s basically just carved out a hole in the Bible and is using it to stroke himself.

Now, back to this whole “healing, not blogging” thing.

  • Pingback: Worthwhile Reads: Doug Wilson’s Rants

  • from two to one

    Strong, strong words that are so very necessary, Sierra. I will considering writing as response as I am one of those Christian feminists who does not desire to make feminism into Christianity or the other way around, although they could both learn a thing or two from the respective sides.

    On a more important note, please go rest!!

  • Caris Adel

    Wow. I can’t believe he’s still going at it. The scary thing is, people listen to him. And, that this – “But given what Rachel Held Evans teaches, I have a duty to not be in fellowship.” – can be applied to so many other issues besides feminism and equality. And other christian leaders take that up and use it to exclude and dehumanize so many other people. Dangerous, dangerous stuff.

  • Amethyst

    I’m a Christian feminist, and I think this is the best possible response to the esteemed Mr. Wilson:

    (Warning: Some crude imagery and direct quoting of YouTube comments)

    • Petticoat Philosopher

      LOVE!!! Also, holy crap, is that last guy Mickey Smith from “Doctor Who?” EVEN MORE WIN!

  • Tere

    I read Doug’s article too. The irony is that Doug himself is the Pharisee that Jesus tells us to “whack”! (quote from Wilson: “Jesus gave us His example on how to whack Pharisees.”)

  • Petticoat Philosopher

    Awww, Maybe Dougie just has a crush on her…

    Also, “Mr. Wickham?” Go to hell, Doug Wilson! If Jane Austen ever met you, she would probably have spat in your face! Or just turned you into a ridiculous comic villain in one of her books, like Mr. Collins from the same novel you mentioned, who was also a pompous, self-important clergyman who espoused many of the same misogynist views that the Christian Patriarchy movement is so fond of. Hmmm…

  • gustovcarl

    I don’t have an opinion on the religious aspect, but has Doug Wilson noticed that women play basketball now? Any woman who wants to play pick-up b-ball with a bunch of guys is probably pretty good. Maybe even better than the men. Maybe that’s what he’s afraid of.

    • Taryn Fox

      People like him have to make up stories like that, in order to ignore the real stories of people like Evans.

  • Bix

    I think Doug Wilson should spend some time watching women’s sports during the Olympics.

  • Ryan J. Knight

    He lacks the ability to discern between the feminists he is railing against – feminazis, and women who simply wish to be treated with the same love and respect that is supposed to be afforded to all of God’s children – regardless of gender.

    • Petticoat Philosopher

      “Feminazis?” Really? Maybe it’s just me, but I think a good rule of thumb is to not use terms coined or popularized by Rush Limbaugh. All feminists are are women who, as you say, just want to be treated with respect. That doesn’t mean that every single feminist in the world is a pleasant or reasonable person (because we’re, you know, people) but that’s all we are. The disgusting term “feminazi” refers to a creature that does not exist except in the fevered, paranoid imaginations of guys like Doug Wilson, who like to make up scenarios that are straight out of some ultra-conservative’s ham-fisted, badly written dystopian future novel (like gyms being sued over random male customers playing basketball together without women), and then attribute them to her.

      Because, yeah Doug, everyone knows that it’s nearly impossible to run a gym these days without being buried under lawsuits and bad publicity from all the feminists who are outraged over not being invited to play basketball by strangers. The fight for equal pay, the erosion of reproductive rights, the attacks on women’s healthcare–all these things just pale in comparison to the right to play basketball with random bros at the gym. Sisterhood!

      • Ryan J. Knight

        Whilst I deplore any and all things Limbaugh, in my feminist circle the term is used to denote a militant individual who is difficult if not impossible to reason with, but perpetuates ideologies that become fuel for the fundamentalist fire (i.e. men are brutes/inferior, women are superior, etc…). Basically, an extremist, and someone whose actions undermine the fight for equal pay, reproductive rights, and so forth. Not to mention attempts to undermine the claims of fevered and paranoid individuals like Doug Wilson. I am sorry if I offended anyone, but the term is widely used by other women who are also feminists themselves, and just because RL coined it does not mean it is his exclusively. I am a rhetorician, so once the phrase was released into the consciousness of the general public, it became part of American lay speech, and a member of the growing list of jargon and slang. Now, feminists are using it too.

    • Petticoat Philosopher

      Maybe some feminists use it–I can’t say for sure that they don’t. But I sure don’t know them. And between my feminist mom, feminist friends, feminist co-workers at the feminist non-profit I used to work for, feminist professors, and feminist contacts from the on line community, I know a hell of a lot of feminists. And I’ve never met one that doesn’t see the word “feminazi” as an irredeemable term that they wish would die a horrible death. The problem with it as once you have defined it as a feminist who is “militant” and unreasonable, it can be used against any feminist because those terms are subjective. And liberally applied to women who have strong opinions and are actually assertive. Not “nice” enough about fighting for equal pay? Feminazi! Actually openly ANGRY about having your reproductive rights taken away? Feminazi! To plenty of people, any woman who speaks up about her right to be treated like a person and does so in a way that isn’t sufficiently “feminine” (ie. sweet, approval-seeking and utterly non-threatening) is a feminazi. Believe me, Limbaugh wasn’t making any distinctions when he coined the term and neither were his followers.

      Also, these feminists who apparently think men are “inferior brutes” and women are superior? Don’t know them either. I’ve maybe MET a few women that could POSSIBLY fit that description and by that I mean I could count them on my fingers and still have some left over. And I went to one of the most lefty “feminist” colleges in the country. I’ve seen wide range. Most of the “men are brutes” stuff comes from avowed anti-feminists, in my observation. Somebody always seems to know somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who ran into one once, one of these loudmouthed, militant, female supremacists, but the same can be said about Sasquatch. And frankly, I take the tales about both of them about equally seriously.

      And anyway, this handful of mythical women is not doing anything to “undermine the fight.” “Good” feminists aren’t having a hard time and having to deal with lowlife like Doug Wilson because “feminazis” keep on throwing wrenches into the works. They’re having a hard time because, to a lot of people, there is no such thing as a “good” feminist. We don’t need to go around yelling about how women are superior and men are inferior. People already ASSUME that’s what we think before we even open our mouths. In large part because some people seem awfully committed to perpetuating the idea that women who believe this “ideology” are not a vanishingly small part of the feminist movement.

      So when you perpetuate that idea, you’re hurting us all. Please stop. And maybe consider retiring the silencing weapon that is the term “feminazi” from your arsenal.