John Piper’s influence is, he says, ‘irrespective of competency’

John Piper shall, henceforth, be referred to as John “Irrespective of Competency” Piper.

Piper despises competency, dismissing it as folly:

Suppose, I said, a couple of you students, Jason and Sarah, were walking to McDonald’s after dark. And suppose a man with a knife jumped out of the bushes and threatened you. And suppose Jason knows that Sarah has a black belt in karate and could probably disarm the assailant better than he could. Should he step back and tell her to do it? No. He should step in front of her and be ready to lay down his life to protect her, irrespective of competency. It is written on his soul. That is what manhood does.

And collectively that is what society does — unless the men have all been emasculated by the suicidal songs of egalitarian folly.

No. There is no such thing as an enduring society that operates “irrespective of competency.”

Any society that tried to function “irrespective of competency” would quickly fail due to, you know, incompetency.

How does someone like Piper say such clownish things and yet become so influential in so many evangelical churches? Why is such buffoonery accepted as a credible lecture on the meaning of “manhood”?

Apparently those churches abide by Piper’s rules and chase after leaders “irrespective of competency.”

At least Piper has finally admitted why he fears women’s leadership in the church — because if the church began choosing its leaders based on competency instead of arbitrary hierarchies that operate “irrespective of competency,” then he’d be out of a job.

“Irrespective of competency.” He said that, voluntarily. He admitted that out loud. Oy.

 

Stay in touch with the Slacktivist on Facebook:

No, 'SJW' is not used to deflate pompous Comstockian moralists. That's not how it's used at all.
Talking to Republican friends at the Trumpian crossroads
White evangelicals' 'new chapter' on race (cont'd.)
Trust me, I've tried all the other religions. All of them.
  • http://twitter.com/MarySueTwiteth Mary Sue

    Also goes to show John Piper knows nothing about martial arts, you’re always taught to first avoid or disengage from a situation before resorting to martial arts skills — so even though I am a female and I have a green belt in aikido (which is solely focused on defense), my first reaction is to run away.

    There’s just one dude with a knife! RUN LIKE HELL!

  • Magic_Cracker

    Ditto: My teacher taught us that IF you are forced to defend yourself, use maximum force to the most vulnerable part, i.e., kick out the knee*, and run like hell.

    *A kick to the groin may have little or no effect on someone high on drug or rage, but if you break someone’s knee**, whether or not they’re feelin’ no pain, they won’t have the structural support to pursue you.
    **Yes, we were trained to BREAK*** joints and bones. No love taps when your life is on the line.
    ***Do not try at home. Seek out a competent teacher.

  • http://twitter.com/mikailborg Michael O’Brien

    So, when John Piper says he’d rather die than allow a woman to take care of a job she’s better at, he means that quite literally. Got it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Charity-Brighton/100002974813787 Charity Brighton

    I doubt he really means it. Has he ever served in the military, or as a police officer or a firefighter or any other situation where he might expect to find himself in danger even occasionally? It’s easy to construct these hypotheticals (“Oh, if it were me I’d do X”) when you’re not in this situation. 

  • MaryKaye

    I just cannot express how angry this passage makes me. Protecting the man’s ego–which is all that John’s intervention is doing–is not only more important than the woman’s ego, but more important than either person’s *survival*.

    I got, to my deep surprise, into a fight on the street a few weeks ago–a very short fight:  I slammed into a man who had just knocked down a woman and was standing over her, and he backed off.  The hell with masculinity, the hell with ego, the hell with John Piper:  sometimes you have to do something and you do it because you can.  (And the society that teaches that the man has to generally teaches that the woman *can’t*.  Otherwise, you know, Sarah’s probably faster than John, with the training and all.  Can’t have that.)

    I don’t know why he backed off.  I am in fact a martial artist and I may have looked threatening.  Or he may have been looking behind me at several people who might well have backed me up.  Or being slammed may just have made him realize he didn’t really want to be doing what he was doing–which is what the woman said, more or less, when I helped her up. 

    If it had been me and my husband, not just me–it would have happened exactly the same.  I am the more impetuous one.  But it would have been nice having him backing me up, for sure.

    I truly cannot express how angry this passage makes me.  It’s like he thinks it’s a fucking *game*, this guy with a knife jumping out.

  • Hellboy

     “I just cannot express how angry this passage makes me. Protecting the
    man’s ego–which is all that John’s intervention is doing–is not only
    more important than the woman’s ego, but more important than either
    person’s *survival*.”

    Very true. Another things that disturbs me about this is that he appears to value the “laying down of one’s life” more than ensuring the well-being of either party. It’s like he subscribes to the versions of “selflessness” and “altruism” that exists only in the teachings of dangerous cults or the strawmen of Ayn Rand novels.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     

    he appears to value the “laying down of one’s life” more than ensuring the well-being of either party

    I share your disturbance, but feel obliged to point out that the idea that “heroic acts” are necessarily more praiseworthy than “non-heroic acts” regardless of consequences is pretty ubiquitous.

  • Jim Roberts

    You’re right, however the hope would be that someone whose spent their life reading Scripture would know that the person who wants to be first in God’s eyes is the servant of all, the one who does not grow weary in well-doing and who does it as unto the Lord and not unto men, for those praised for doing well in men’s eyes have already received their payment in full.

  • EllieMurasaki

    the person who wants to be first in God’s eyes

    I suspect the very fact of having that desire makes it impossible for it to be fulfilled by first-shall-be-last-and-last-first God.

  • EllieMurasaki

    If the non-heroic act keeps one alive and the heroic act gets one dead without keeping anyone else alive (who’d presumably be dead if one had gone for the non-heroic act), then praising the heroic act is dumb.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    If the non-heroic act keeps one alive and the heroic act gets one dead without keeping anyone else alive (who’d presumably be dead if one had gone for the non-heroic act), then praising the heroic act is dumb.

    I would say that the dumbness of praising an act depends primarily on whether future acts in the same class (given the likely categorization strategies used by whoever is observing the praise) have a positive expected effect, not on whether the act itself had a positive effect, since the primary effect of praise is to reinforce the act and therefore make it more likely in the future.

    But, yes, if heroic acts typically leave the world worse off, praising them is dumb.

  • Becca Stareyes

    Because it will really help Sara to have to deal with a bystander getting in the way and probably injured or used as a hostage.  So Piper’s apparent view of manhood is to put the male ego above success with minimal harm, and ability to not hinder someone they care about.  
    Sounds about right.  I think I’ll stick to competence and success if it’s all the same to him.  

  • other lori

    I’m not sure either of them should be fighting the would-be attacker, as noted above. He’s a dude with a knife; just get out of there.

    I mean, on the one hand, I can sort of see what he could be saying if he weren’t such a bad person: if the situation were as described except, instead of a couple, it were a parent and child, I get it. One of my kids could maybe grow up to be a martial arts expert, but I think that, as a parent, if we were in a situation where we were forced to deal with an attacker, I do think I’d offer myself, even if my child were a fully-competent adult who maybe could take the person down. 

    The problem is that Piper seems to think that self-sacrificial love is something only men are called to, when I don’t think there’s anything in the teachings of Jesus or the New Testament to back that. Laying down your life for another is held up as an illustrative example of agape love, but it isn’t presented as gender-specific. From a Christian perspective, I think you’d have to argue that both Sarah and Jason should be willing to give their lives to protect the other, if they love each other. The idea that Jason is called to self-sacrificing love and Sarah, presumably, is just supposed to stand there doing nothing is absurd. 

    So I guess I don’t think the problem is really with Jason jumping in front of Sarah to protect her, because I do think that’s love’s instinct. The problem is that we’re supposed to imagine he’s doing that because that’s his role as a man, and not because that’s what love asks of all of us.

  • Becca Stareyes

    Fair enough, other lori — in my mental image it was more about who took the rear as the two of them run and call the cops.  And, yeah, if Jason (who I called John, showing I’m bad with names) did it without thinking, then yeah: people do irrational things when people they care about are in danger, because we humans aren’t very good at acting logically under pressure.

    But Jason shouldn’t be obligated to do so out of ‘manhood’ any more than Sara should be obligated to not do so out of ‘womanhood’.  Especially in a situation where any ‘self-sacrifice’ is based on reactions (trained or untrained) rather than even the consideration of ‘not Jason/Sara!’.  (I fully expect I’d freeze up, regardless of how much I cared about the person I’m with, for instance.  Should I be able to act, I will be pleasantly surprised.) 

  • http://www.adamshome.blogspot.com Erin Adams

    Yes!  I am a women and I am willing to give up my life for my loves, and I am not a competent fighter.  

  • other lori

    John Piper is a terrible human being. A while back I got his book Think for free from Christian Audio, and I recently listened to some of it in a fit of masochism. The thing that struck me most was how important it is to him that the vast majority of people–including the vast majority of those who identify as Christians–be destined for eternal torment. It brings him enormous pleasure to imagine that most people will be consciously tormented for all eternity. He doesn’t think it’s regrettable or sad; he thinks it’s awesome and glorious. He is a sick man. On some level I feel kind of sorry for him, because it sounds, from other things of his I’ve seen, that he was raised by horribly racist fundamentalists, and I suppose I can give him some credit for at least not being horribly racist (he was pretty much the only popular conservative Christian who had a response to the Trayvon Martin shooting that didn’t make me want to scream). 

    I found it interesting how much ire he had toward relativism as the enemy of Christianity. I’m pretty sure he’d say that the emergent church is more wrong than the New Atheists. There’s really nothing about the New Atheist idea of God that he’d disagree with, after all; God is indeed a genocidal megalomaniac who revels in the eternal conscious torment of most of humanity. A far bigger danger, for him, is that people might think God is too loving. So he goes and slays the windmills of the emergent church, as if millions of people are being turned from good orthodox Calvinism each year because Tony Jones is just that influential, ignoring the fact that the idea of God he presents is the one being picked up and turned against religion by the larger world. We’re a culture of positivists, not postmodernists, but Piper just can’t seem to accept that.

  • Water_Bear

    Not to derail, I largely agree with you, but “New Atheists” (I prefer Militant Atheist personally) don’t actually believe in a deity, tyrannical or no. After all, then we would be Misotheists. That “cosmic bully” stuff is just a talking point to draw attention to the less socially acceptable parts of people’s holybooks to maybe get a little self-examination going.

  • Chloe Lewis

    In actual masculine-egos-first relationships, I find, the competent woman is expected to do the work while making squeaky noises indicating that she’s terribly dependent on the man. So tiring.
     

  • Lori

    When I and other feminists say that misogyny hurts everyone this is what we’re talking about.  How much do you have to hate men to say that it’s “written on their souls” to be fucking morons? How much to you have to hate men to do everything in your power to train them to value false ego over their lives, not to mention the lives of people they care about? A lot, that’s how much.

    Piper is the male supremacist and I’m the man-hating feminazi and yet I have a much higher regard for men than he does. I think many of them know better than this. I think many of those who don’t currently know better are fully capably of knowing better if people like Piper would stop training them from birth to be suicidally stupid. Idiocy is not written on the male soul.

    I’ve said this about other Christian leaders and I’ll say it again about Piper—-he better hope that he’s wrong about the existence of God and I’m right. Because if the God Piper claims to worship actually exists I’m thinking Piper is headed for hell on a bobsled for showing such callous lack of love for His creation.

  • Carstonio

    Piper apparently imagines himself as Siegfried rescuing Brynhild from the flames and being rewarded with several nights of wild gratitude sex. 

  • reynard61

    “Piper apparently imagines himself as Siegfried rescuing Brynhild from the flames and being rewarded with several nights of wild gratitude sex.”

    The Piper had better re-read his Ring (and the Teutonic and Scandinavian mythology that Wagner took it from) because, IIRC, that never happens. In fact, it just gets worse.

    (Warning: TV Tropes link)

  • Carstonio

    Good point. I was actually quoting Sigurd, who I understood to be an early version of Siegfried. Do you have a better fantasy construct for Piper?

  • reynard61

    No, because I think that Piper’s fantasy is just that: A fantasy. Piper might imagine himself to be on a par with the mythological Warrior-Heros of old, but I think that any modern non-RTC woman would see him as a pathetic, egotistical lout — and rightly so!

  • The_L1985

     That, and wasn’t Brynhild Siegfried’s mother?

  • Carstonio

     From Edith Hamilton’s book Mythology:

    The story of Siegfried is so familiar that that of his Norse prototype,
    Sigurd, can be briefly told. Brynhild, a Valkyrie, has disobeyed Odin
    and is punished by being put to sleep until some man shall wake her. She
    begs that he who comes to her shall be one whose heart knows no fear,
    and Odin surrounds her couch with flaming fire which only a hero would
    brave. Sigurd, the son of Sigmund, does the deed. He forces his horse
    through the flames and wakens Brynhild, who gives herself to him
    joyfully because he has proved his valor in reaching her. Some days
    later he leaves her in the same fire-ringed place.

    The “several nights of wild gratitude sex” was my comic exaggeration of the idea of women being prizes to be won and protected.

  • http://www.facebook.com/j.alex.harman John Alexander Harman

    No, that would be Sieglinde, through her adulterous and incestuous liaison with her long-lost brother, Siegmund.  They were probably the main inspiration for Turin Turambar and Nienor/Niniel, for those more familiar with Tolkien’s constructed mythology than the Norse/Teutonic ones (although Turin and Niniel at least didn’t know they were siblings when they became lovers, nor was either of them married to someone else).

  • vsm

    Actually, by his own admission Tolkien patterned the story on the possibly related Finnish myth of Kullervo. The similiarities include neither the brother or sister knowing they’re related, there being no child, the sister drowning herself and the brother killing himself after talking with his sword.

  • http://www.jasonknox.weebly.com jasonknox

    John Piper is giving a hypothetical situation, of course the two should run if they are able. He is making a circumstance with artificial restraints to give us a thought experiment and make a point.  He didn’t create an allegory in which every element in the story has an equivalent. When Jesus tells the story about the guy who bugs his neighbor at night so much that eventually the neighbor helps him out just to shut him up.  Jesus isn’t trying to make a point about God being like the short tempered neighbor, he’s making a point about the guy and how we should pray. Don’t misread Jesus and write a blog saying “Jesus believes that God is cranky and only helps you to not be annoyed.”
    To assume that Piper would have the woman stand there and do nothing while her hero fights the knife guy says more about you than it does about John Piper. That’s not the point of the thought experiment. His point is that for the man to stand idly by is cowardice. Are we really going to argue with that? For the woman to act a helpmate means, particularly if she is a trained martial artist, fighting the guy as well. Piper wouldn’t say that if she was alone that it would be improper for her to fight and he isn’t saying that it would be improper to have her join in. He doesn’t think that a female trained martial shouldn’t be allowed to defend herself. Don’t dissect his example as an allegory – that is an unfair way to misrepresent him. If I offer to hold a door for a woman or carry a heavy box for her it doesn’t mean that I assume that she is incapable of doing that and it doesn’t mean that I believe she shouldn’t be allowed to do that. When I ask, “Would you like me to carry that for you?” please don’t hear “My ego would be hurt if you don’t submit to me.”In writing this John Piper was seeking to condemn male cowardice and argue that men ought to be willing to lay down their lives for women. He is not saying less than that and he is not saying more than that. Don’t hear what he is not saying. 

  • frazer

    So then why is egalitarianism “folly” and “suicidal”? In the example Piper gives, his preferred solution–that the untrained guy jump in front of the trained woman to deal with the bad guy–is what is suicidal.

  • http://www.jasonknox.weebly.com jasonknox

    frazer,
    Piper isn’t saying “be suicidal and foolish” –  he is saying don’t be a coward. There is a difference.  Piper isn’t forbidding the woman to act – he is forbidding the man to not act. I imagine that in Piper’s “preferred solution” the man doesn’t die either, but the man does refuse to allow the woman to die in his place. Is that so controversial? 

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

     Piper isn’t forbidding the woman to act – he is forbidding the man to not act.

    Actually, he is telling the man to forbid the woman from acting:
    Should he step back and tell her to do it? No. >He should step in front of her and be ready to lay down his life to protect her

  • The_L1985

     Are you reading the same passage we’re reading?  Because Jason can’t possibly step in front of Sarah in that scenario without getting in her way and thus preventing her from acting.  Bear in mind that this is part of an article about Why Women Should Never, Ever Fight.

    Personally, I prefer the solution that minimizes the chance of either innocent party being harmed, and in this case, that means Jason, as an untrained bystander, should stand back and let the person with the black belt handle things.

    Next, you’ll tell me that it’s wrong that sometimes I, a woman, hold the door for people of either sex.  Because I was taught that it is polite for people to hold the door for people.  Sometimes I hold the door for others; sometimes the door is held for me.  But I’m not nearly stupid enough to sit there and insist that the nearest male must open the door for me when I’ve got a perfectly good pair of hands.

    Piper’s argument is that any course of action that leads to a woman fighting is wrong.  The Jason/Sarah scenario appears in the context of an article that says that women shouldn’t engage in combat, even if they’re properly trained for it.  Piper honestly believes that even if the only people trained for combat were female, only untrained men should ever, ever, EVER be allowed to fight.  Because people with vaginas are not allowed to do anything physical, ever, clearly.

  • The_L1985

     Are you reading the same passage we’re reading?  Because Jason can’t possibly step in front of Sarah in that scenario without getting in her way and thus preventing her from acting.  Bear in mind that this is part of an article about Why Women Should Never, Ever Fight.

    Personally, I prefer the solution that minimizes the chance of either innocent party being harmed, and in this case, that means Jason, as an untrained bystander, should stand back and let the person with the black belt handle things.

    Next, you’ll tell me that it’s wrong that sometimes I, a woman, hold the door for people of either sex.  Because I was taught that it is polite for people to hold the door for people.  Sometimes I hold the door for others; sometimes the door is held for me.  But I’m not nearly stupid enough to sit there and insist that the nearest male must open the door for me when I’ve got a perfectly good pair of hands.

    Piper’s argument is that any course of action that leads to a woman fighting is wrong.  The Jason/Sarah scenario appears in the context of an article that says that women shouldn’t engage in combat, even if they’re properly trained for it.  Piper honestly believes that even if the only people trained for combat were female, only untrained men should ever, ever, EVER be allowed to fight.  Because people with vaginas are not allowed to do anything physical, ever, clearly.

  • Akallabeth

    In that he’s assigning roles in an emergency based on gender rather than any relevant attribute, yes, it is controversial (by which I mean “stupid”). 

  • Lori

    he is forbidding the man to not act.  

    First of all Piper has no authority to forbid anyone to do anything.

    Second, forbidding someone not to act when acting would be stupid, vain and suicidal is the wrong thing to do. To the extent that people follow Piper’s instructions they are doing the wrong thing.

     

    Is that so controversial?    

    It’s not controversial, it’s dumb.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

    > Piper isn’t saying “be suicidal and foolish”

    He also describes the alternatives to his model of society — for example, an alternative in which the better-trained member of the pair fights the assailant while the lesser-trained member acts as her “helpmeet”, and their gender doesn’t matter — as one in which “the men have all
    been emasculated by the suicidal songs of egalitarian folly”. Which is what frazer was quoting.

    So, to repeat frazer’s question: what’s suicidal about such an egalitarian, gender-blind approach? What makes it folly?

  • The_L1985

      Are you reading the same passage we’re reading?  Because Jason can’t possibly step in front of Sarah in that scenario without getting in her way and thus preventing her from acting.  Bear in mind that this is part of an article about Why Women Should Never, Ever Fight.

    Personally, I prefer the solution that minimizes the chance of either innocent party being harmed, and in this case, that means Jason, as an untrained bystander, should stand back and let the person with the black belt handle things.

    Next, you’ll tell me that it’s wrong that sometimes I, a woman, hold the door for people of either sex.  Because I was taught that it is polite for people to hold the door for people.  Sometimes I hold the door for others; sometimes the door is held for me.  But I’m not nearly stupid enough to sit there and insist that the nearest male must open the door for me when I’ve got a perfectly good pair of hands.

    Piper’s argument is that any course of action that leads to a woman fighting is wrong.  The Jason/Sarah scenario appears in the context of an article that says that women shouldn’t engage in combat, even if they’re properly trained for it.  Piper honestly believes that even if the only people trained for combat were female, only untrained men should ever, ever, EVER be allowed to fight.  Because people with vaginas are not allowed to do anything physical, ever, clearly.

  • Kristen Rosser

    Yes, but I think Piper is going one step further.  Not just that women shouldn’t engage in combat.  Not just that women shouldn’t be allowed to fight.  But that a man shows his manhood by making a woman’s decision for her.  In other words, true manhood is all about telling a woman what to do.  A real man wouldn’t let a woman make an adult decision about what she’s capable of.  A real man would never defer to a woman’s greater knowledge or skill.  Decision-making for women is part of “real manhood.”  

  • The_L1985

    I wanted to be able to pretend that that sort of nonsense wasn’t going on.  Primarily because it hurts my brain to think of a world in which I’m not allowed to make any decisions about my own life.  I lived in that world until roughly the time I moved out of my parents’ house, and just thinking about it makes me cringe.  I’ve only just now been able to separate who I am and what I want from what my parents have always wanted me to be.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     > Don’t hear what he is not saying.

    He didn’t say that, when Jason and Sarah are attacked, Jason and Sarah should both fight. That’s your addition to his text. Instead, he said that Jason should step in front of Sarah because that “is what manhood does”.

    I think we’re hearing exactly what he’s saying.

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    To assume that Piper would have the woman stand there and do nothing while her hero fights the knife guy says more about you than it does about John Piper. That’s not the point of the thought experiment. His point is that for the man to stand idly by is cowardice. Are we really going to argue with that?

    Yes.

    If that’s his point, then he is wrong! To stand idly by while a more competent, capable person resolves a problem is wisdom, not cowardice. To realize when one’s efforts would not add, and might possibly subtract from resolution is humility; to insist on helping even when poorly equipped to do so is pride and vanity.

     If I offer to hold a door for a woman or carry a heavy box for her it doesn’t mean that I assume that she is incapable of doing that and it doesn’t mean that I believe she shouldn’t be allowed to do that.

    No. It means you think, all other things being equal, that she simply should not do such things.  
    You could have given an example of offering to hold a door for a person or carry a heavy box for someone, but since you chose gendered language, it means when it comes to women carrying heavy boxes, you do believe if a man and woman are present, the man is expected to carry the heavy box, or at least expected to ask to carry it. Even if the man is Steven Hawking, and the woman is Serena Williams. 

  • http://www.jasonknox.weebly.com jasonknox

    Chris,
    both in the knife fight example and with my box carrying example you are extrapolating beyond my intentions. I think you are right – wisdom does consider circumstances.

    In a heavy box carrying example if all other things are equal then I don’t believe that she simply should not do such things. What about the other 99 times out of a hundred in which I’m not there? Of course women can and should carry boxes. However, if all things are being equal I would offer  to carry it to do something nice for her. If she refused that would really be ok. I would just offer to lay down my preferences for her – is that so bad?

    I very much disagree that Jason attacking first would not add and possibly subtract from the “problem” of having your life threatened by a knife guy. I imagine Sarah would be much more safe and capable of finally dispatching of the  knife guy if Jason is at least distracting him. I imagine Jason being at least maniacal enough to give Sarah enough time to best assess the situation and maybe knock the knife away or get a good swift kick to the head while the attacker is focusing on Jason. That really seems to be the best solution – far better than Jason stepping back and saying  “all you!”

  • Lori

     

    I very much disagree that Jason attacking first would not add and
    possibly subtract from the “problem” of having your life threatened by a
    knife guy. I imagine Sarah would be much more safe and capable of
    finally dispatching of the  knife guy if Jason is at least distracting
    him. I imagine Jason being at least maniacal enough to give Sarah enough
    time to best assess the situation and maybe knock the knife away or get
    a good swift kick to the head while the attacker is focusing on Jason.
    That really seems to be the best solution – far better than Jason
    stepping back and saying  “all you!”   

    And with this you demonstrate that you don’t know any more about defending against a knife-wielding attacker than Jason does. If anything remotely like this ever happens to you please, for the love of good sense and the safety of all concerned, step aside and say “all you” to the person who actually knows what they’re doing. Even if that person doesn’t have a penis.

  • Albanaeon

    Wow.  You don’t know much about martial arts.  Trust me as a 20 year martial artist, someone untrained, acting entirely on ego (a form of cowardice in this case) is going to be worse than useless in this case.  In all likelihood, Jason gets stabbed and Sarah now has to know emergency treatments.  Or even worse, Jason gets completely in Sarah’s way and the attacker gets both of them.

  • Albanaeon

    Wow.  You don’t know much about martial arts.  Trust me as a 20 year martial artist, someone untrained, acting entirely on ego (a form of cowardice in this case) is going to be worse than useless in this case.  In all likelihood, Jason gets stabbed and Sarah now has to know emergency treatments.  Or even worse, Jason gets completely in Sarah’s way and the attacker gets both of them.

  • http://thatbeerguy.blogspot.com Chris Doggett

    See, now you’re just trolling.  “maniacal”? Really? 

    >you are extrapolating beyond my intentions. 

    No, Trolly McTrollerson, you are extrapolating far beyond Piper’s original argument.

     Jason knows that Sarah has a black belt in karate and could probably disarm the assailant better than he could.
    That? That’s in Piper’s piece.  Jason’s “maniacal” efforts? An extrapolation.

    I very much disagree that Jason attacking first would not add and possibly subtract from the “problem” of having your life threatened by a knife guy. 

    Jason attacking first means Jason is at real risk of being stabbed, a risk that does not exist if Jason does not engage the attacker.

    I imagine Sarah would be much more safe and capable of finally dispatching of the  knife guy if Jason is at least distracting him. 

    You have shown yourself quite capable of imaging all sorts of things that comfort you and support your beliefs. That does not legitimize such notions. 

    You’re also moving the goalposts, another time honor troll maneuver. Piper isn’t arguing that Jason should “distract” the attacker. He’s arguing that Jason should sacrifice himself if necessary before Sarah should be allowed to act. 

    Frankly, it’s a little embarrassing to see someone argue that a black belt martial artist would be more “capable” because someone was “distracting” their opponent in some vague, undefined way. 

    I imagine Jason being at least maniacal enough to give Sarah enough time to best assess the situation

    Again, you show a great capacity of imagination when it suits your preconceived positions. Tell me, do you imagine Jason (with no martial arts training to speak of, no special note for his physical fitness or health) getting stabbed in this scenario? 

    As a thought experiment, Mr. Lives-Under-A-Bridge, would you make the same argument if Jason is the black belt, and Sarah is not? Would you argue that Sarah should put herself in front of Jason, and try to “maniacally distract” the knife wielder? 

  • KarenH.

    It’s virtually impossible to assess the threat when Jason is standing in front of you, blocking your vision.

  • Lori

     

     

    His point is that for the man to
    stand idly by is cowardice.

    No, it’s really not. You need to go back and read his quote again.

    Are we really going to argue with that? 

    Even assuming that’s what Piper was saying, which it’s not, the answer would still be that yes, we are going to argue with it. Because it’s stupid.

    For the woman to act a helpmate

    There’s a real big part of your problem, right there.

     

    He doesn’t think that a female trained martial shouldn’t be allowed to defend
    herself.  

    No, he just thinks that a man who knows full well that she’s more equipped to
    deal with the situation at hand should nevertheless get in her way and attempt
    to do it. Because penis, that’s why.

     

     If I offer to hold a door for a woman or carry a heavy box for her it
    doesn’t mean that I assume that she is incapable of doing that and it doesn’t
    mean that I believe she shouldn’t be allowed to do that.  
     

    It’s fine for you to offer. It’s not fine for you to grab the box out
    of the woman’s hands because it’s written in your soul to carry boxes for women.

    In writing this John Piper was seeking to condemn male cowardice

    Allowing the best qualified person to handle a situation is not cowardice. It’s smart.  See
    above re: yes, I am arguing with you about this.

    and argue that men ought to be willing to lay down their lives for women.

    Why?

    No really, why? Why is it only the man’s job to die? Why is a man’s worth
    measured by his willingness to die, even when doing so is actually pointless and unnecessary? Because, penis? 

    He is not saying less than that and he is not saying more than that. Don’t hear
    what he is not saying.

    We’re hearing him just fine. He’s spouting gender essentialist crap that’s
    insulting to men and to women. In attempting to defend him you’re doing the
    same.

  • SisterCoyote

     I would be totally okay with breaking down all these arguments, in the future, down to “What, he has to do that? Why? Because, penis?”

    Since that is, after all, what they tend to be saying.

  • The_L1985

     It works for every stupid sexist argument, too!

    “Men can’t stop themselves from raping, because PENIS!”

    “All men know how to perform complicated mechanical repairs, because PENIS!”

    “Men should always be paid more than women for doing the exact same work, because PENIS!”

  • Lori

    Penis. It’s magic.

  • The_L1985

     I forgot one!  Added tire-changing to the list.

  • Carstonio

    Heh. Sounds like Harry Potter slashfic. 

  • http://dumas1.livejournal.com/ Winter

     It occurs to me that a number of mammals have a bone known as a baculum inside the penis, something humans lack. Olivander says at least once that all wands have a core that’s part of some magical creature (Veela hair, phoenix feather, etc.) and I’m pretty sure that there are some magical mammals around.

    Of course, a baculum from a large mammal (even something dog-sized) would probably be rather too large for a conventional wand, so we’re talking escrima sticks or a full-length wizard staff. With a knob on the end.

  • The_L1985

     Well, of course.  As Nanny Ogg can tell you, any good wizard’s staff has a knob on the end.

  • Carstonio

    Interesting that none of the Potter books have wizards treating their wands as penis proxies, or at least joking about the concept. No fretting when witches use the Disarming Charm on wizards, either.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

     There was a small joke at the beginning of Deathly Hallows.  Ron gives Harry a pick up book for his birthday, and mentions that its not all “wand work you know.”

  • Carstonio

     Oh. I had read that literally, thinking that Ron was talking about casting love charms.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

     Well, if you want to take all the dirty nasty fun out of it.  LOL

  • AnonymousSam

    Not even if you do a little find-and-replace magic on a Harry Potter story?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    It really is suggestive sometimes when you replace one letter in “wand” ^_~

  • AnonymousSam

    I suspect you and I have seen the same bash.org post!

  • The_L1985

     Are you referring to the infamous “wang” fiasco?

  • SisterCoyote

    Oh my God, I am so very in favor of this. *makes note for all further sexist arguments on the internet*

  • David Starner

    The time a woman shows me how it’s possible to change a tire with only two hands and no third appendage, I will let her change the tire.

  • Carstonio

    So penises are for prying off hubcaps? Or for jacking off up the car?

  • Tricksterson

    Maybe if they’re Centari penises.

  • SisterCoyote

    Q: What does it take to operate a fully-loaded 747?
    A: Penis.

  • EllieMurasaki

    The time a woman shows me how it’s possible to change a tire with only
    two hands and no third appendage, I will let her change the tire.

    You always need a second person to help you change a tire? Because I’m a woman (sometimes–not today, but my vagina doesn’t change when my gender does) and I am perfectly capable of changing a tire all by myself.

    Find flattest out-of-traffic place to pull over. Put on emergency flashers. Put car in Park and apply parking brake. Chocks front and rear. Haul out spare tire and jack. Put jack under car, making sure jack will be lifting a nice solid part of the frame. Crank jack till no weight is on tire to be changed, but don’t quite get the tire off the ground. Hubcap off. Loosen nuts, lefty loosey, star pattern. Crank the jack a little higher so’s tire’s off the ground. Remove nuts. Remove tire. Put on new tire. Put nuts back on, righty tighty, star pattern. Crank the jack back down so’s tire’s on the ground but not bearing weight. Tighten nuts. Crank jack down till it can be taken out from under car. Tighten nuts if possible. Put tire and jack in trunk. Remove parking brake. Turn off emergency flashers. Drive off.

    For the record, I am not a woman today, but I was a couple days ago, I might be tomorrow, I have a uterus, and shockingly enough, I have changed my own damn tires. Pain in the ass to do it solo with upper body strength of nil, I admit, but not impossible (proof being that I’ve done it), and the stronger one is the less difficult it gets.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    I used to be able to change tires m’self, but that was back when I had a Honda Civic and my tires were small anyway.

    Now I have a sedan and I’m 10 years older and TBH I’ve needed my roomie’s help getting the spare tire on. :(

    EDIT: That being said, me being a male has nothing to do with my capability or lack of such at tire-changing. Just putting that out there in case jason knox wants to blabber any more gender-essentialist happy-clappy.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Oh. Sorry.

    I think my point was to point out that big strong manly man such as whatsisface there obviously considers himself shouldn’t need assistance changing a tire, and not-dumbshit such as whatsisface there presumably considers himself should know that not needing assistance changing a tire is a common state of affairs regardless of gender, despite how people insist on gendering basic auto maintenance.

  • David Starner

    It was a joke about the possible (if horrible to contemplate) value of a penis  in changing a tire. Not a terribly funny one, I’ll admit.

    And, yeah, if I had to change a tire, I’d like a second person, at least for moral support.

  • SisterCoyote

    I don’t even have one, and the idea of using a penis to change a tire is cringe-inducing.  So many heavy and easily-droppable things.

  • EllieMurasaki

    Oh. With that context, your remark looks much different. Sorry for snarky.

  • The_L1985

    …You don’t have a jack and some kind of small container to keep the lug nuts in?

  • Tapetum

     Huh? There was a tire changing in my life less than twelve hours ago. One person, a jack and the other standard tire-changing stuff. I don’t recall any third limbs coming into play.

  • Carstonio

    I’m waiting for a surrealistic comedy to have two dueling men dispense with the sword symbolism and actually fence with their penises.

  • Lori

    You have spent much time on the wilder shores of the internet, have you?

  • Carstonio

    Is the dueling-penises scenario common in an erotic context or a comedy context?

  • The_L1985

     Yes.

  • Lori

    I don’t know that it’s common in any context. In fact, if it is I’m happy to go right on not knowing. The thing I’m thinking of would probably best be described as intended to be erotic, unintentionally funny.

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    I’d be very surprised if Tom of Finland didn’t draw that scene at least once. 

  • Fusina

     Huh. I never noticed a penis on myself, but I can repair stuff around the house and not only change a tire but also the oil (and the air filter, and I know how to break down and reassemble a carburetor, not that either of these apply anymore but I had a car that burned dirty and constantly needed cleaning once upon a time). Err, spousal unit cannot be trusted with repairs for the most part, whereas I was trained by my Dad to do this.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    No, he just thinks that a man who knows full well that she’s more equipped to deal with the situation at hand should nevertheless get in her way and attempt to do it. Because penis, that’s why.

    Considering that the guy has a knife, Jason might well no longer have a penis after attempting this, if the attacker is particularly vindictive.  

    I suppose that is one way of mitigating his bravado.  

  • Greenygal

    For the woman to act a helpmate means, particularly if she is a trained
    martial artist, fighting the guy as well. Piper wouldn’t say that if she
    was alone that it would be improper for her to fight and he isn’t
    saying that it would be improper to have her join in.

    Piper’s article begins with these lines:

    “If I were the last man on the planet to think so, I would want the honor
    of saying no woman should go before me into combat to defend my
    country. A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he’s a wimp. He should be ashamed.”

    So.  Women should not be in combat.  Any man who thinks it’s okay for women to be in combat should be ashamed of himself.

    Explain to me how this is Piper saying that Sarah ought to join in the fight, because I would be interested to hear it.

  • http://www.jasonknox.weebly.com jasonknox

    greenygal,
    When I wrote “for the woman to act as a helpmate means…” I was using my imagination to fill in the gaps of Piper’s article – I don’t believe that Piper was saying anything either way about what the woman ought to do or not do. I don’t think Piper is talking about Sarah at all.  I think Piper was using one situation to make one point and it looked to me as though people were using their imaginations to assume negative things about him. I wanted to propose alternatives. 

    I think Piper’s main point is not “women serving in combat is intrinsically bad” but that “men abdicating their roles and their duty to die for others when called upon is intrinsically bad.” It seems to me that Piper believes that women serving in combat is the symptom and the disease is “men acting cowardly.” I don’t imagine he is mad at the women serving, I think he is mad that men would stand by idly making it necessary for women to serve. 

  • Lori

     

    I think Piper’s main point is not “women serving in combat is
    intrinsically bad” but that “men abdicating their roles and their duty
    to die for others when called upon is intrinsically bad.” It seems to me
    that Piper believes that women serving in combat is the symptom and the
    disease is “men acting cowardly.” I don’t imagine he is mad at the
    women serving, I think he is mad that men would stand by idly making
    it necessary for women to serve. 

    You defense just keeps getting more and more ridiculous. You need to step back and think about what you’re saying.

    There is no good reason to think that dying in combat is the duty and role of men. Further more, the change in the combat status of women is not due to any abdication of penis-defined duty. Women are not going to serve in combat because we’ve run out of male meat to feed into the grinder. They’re going to serve in combat roles because they wish to do so and are qualified to do so. That’s the essense of an all-volunteer force. Those who choose to serve do so, in the capacity that is needed and which they are able to fulfill.

    Again I ask, is Piper calling for mass enlistment or a return to the draft? I don’t see any indication that he is. That tells me that he’s mad about women serving and is trying to manipulate the manhood myth in order to shame people into making that stop.

  • http://dpolicar.livejournal.com/ Dave

     > It seems to me that Piper believes that women serving in combat is the symptom and the disease is “men acting cowardly.”

    Sure, that seems likely.

    Whereas in reality, women defending themselves, one another, their families and their nation is just one of many things that people of both genders do. Treating a soldier’s decision to serve as nothing but the unfortunate consequence of my decision not to is both insulting and inaccurate, and doesn’t somehow become less so when that soldier is female. (Or black. Or gay. Or from Tennessee. Or lots of other things.)

  • Carstonio

    I think Piper’s main point is not “women serving in combat is intrinsically bad” but that “men abdicating their roles and their duty to die for others when called upon is intrinsically bad.”

    The latter isn’t any better than the former. Both wrongly attempt to shoehorn people into roles based on sexual identity, as if belonging to one sex or the other meant having specific intrinsic responsibilities.

  • Matri

    I was using my imagination to fill in the gaps of Piper’s article

    That’s what you’re going with? Really?

    Can someone refresh my memory: Who was it who said “Don’t hear what he is not saying.“?

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    There’s filling in the gaps, and then there’s using a frakkin’ backhoe.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    “If I were the last man on the planet to think so, I would want the honor of saying no woman should go before me into combat to defend my country. A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he’s a wimp. He should be ashamed.”

    I cannot be the only young man who fantasized about fighting side-by-side with my battle-sisters?  

  • fraser

     Nope!

  • http://www.facebook.com/j.alex.harman John Alexander Harman

    No, you’re not.  Honor Harrington fan, here; back when I was first reading that series, I once had a dream in which I was (I think — I rarely remember my dreams at all, and then only in snapshots) a junior officer serving on the bridge of one of her ships.  Probably H.M.S. Nike, it was when I was most of the way through The Short, Victorious War.  I really wish the film and/or TV adaption of the Honor Harrington novels would actually get made, and one of the minor reasons for that is just how much complementarian morons like Piper would hate it.

  • Greenygal

    re: Honor Harrington, one of the first things I thought of when I read Piper’s scenario was a scene in one of the later books where Honor’s husband assures her that if they are ever accosted by muggers he will stand back and hold her coat while she takes them apart.  And then buy her lunch.  And this is a major authority figure in the series, a naval officer with decades of experience, who nonetheless sees nothing wrong with acknowledging that his wife is a lethal hand-to-hand fighter and he’s not, and in that situation he should get out of her way and let her defend them.
     
    (Granted, that conversation was a joke, and anyone who actually got through their combined security would probably be a trained assassin who merited a lot more concern than a random mugger, but I’m still sure that in that situation he would know that it was his job to back her up as usefully as possible, not the reverse.)

  • http://www.facebook.com/j.alex.harman John Alexander Harman

    That was a nice scene — I really like the way Weber developed Honor’s relationship with Hamish and Emily in the last few books.  Of course, any attack on the two of them would also have to get past Nimitz and Samantha — as has been demonstrated several times in the books, a Sphinx treecat whose human companion is threatened is roughly equivelent to a furry, self-propelled buzzsaw with a reaction speed no human martial artist can match.

  • EllieMurasaki

    That many novels with that much going on, it’d have to be either TV (at least five episodes per novel, I’d hope) or a whole bunch of movies. With really good CGI budget because Nimitz. And not whitewashing anybody, not Honor or her mother, not the royal family, nobody, and to hell with “it’s too hard to find good actors of color” because that’s bullshit anyway. And paying attention to how the background characters from the Star Kingdom are fifty percent female!

  • Albanaeon

    Soooo… we are simply misreading phrases like “what manhood does” and “a society were men are emasculated” in conjuncture with a story on how a real man is suicidally stupid and can’t just get out of the way more competent woman.

    I think you are the more likely to be reading things into this sad little anecdote than we…

  • http://newlife.id.au/ Marg Mowczko

    Jason,  just relying on John Piper’s own words, I do think that stepping in front of  Sarah is stupid, and potentially puts her in more danger than if the man let Sarah, who is trained in this area, deal with the situation and call the shots.  Piper makes the point that the man “knows that Sarah has a black belt in karate and could probably disarm the assailant better than he could.”

    Like MaryKay who commented above, I’ve been in two situations where  I  defended someone who was being attacked physically and verbally.  Gender simply doesn’t come into it.  

    Stronger people should protect weaker people.  Masculine muscular strength isn’t everything.   There are other abilities that can be used to defend, protect and rescue people.  

    Thankfully Moses had several women in his life who were willing to protect him in some risky situations: Shiphrah, Puah, Jochabed, Miriam, the Egyptian princess and Zipporah.  And there are other examples of brave Bible women who risked their necks to help and save others.  

    In the church, I’ve seen capable, called and gifted women being overlooked and made to ‘sit on their hands’ while less competent men are given the more influential ministries.  This is stupid.

    John Piper grossly underestimates the courage and capacity of women in general.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Sue-White/1605859612 Sue White

    John Piper grossly underestimates the courage and capacity of women in general.

    Sounds to me like he’s threatened by it.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Ok, I like, remember you from before, and I recall having to tilt my head and wonder what the hell you were on about because you had these bizarre-seeming happy-clappy views about Old Testament laws that don’t really mean anything anymore when medical science has essentially rendered them irrelevant.

    You seem to be remarkably unfazed at the fact that Piper is asking the reader to accept his unstated assumptions about how men and women ought to act and then trying to blame the reader for spotting them in the first place.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2012/12/08/saturday-salmagundi-6/#disqus_thread

    Original thread in that link by the way folks

  • Baby_Raptor

    Here’s the short of the entire situation: Your role in life, or in any given situation, should not be based on the reproductive equipment you were assigned as a fetus. 

    Forcing people into specific roles because of the reproductive equipment they have is bad. It’s wrong. It’s unethical, disrespectful, stupid, and it causes harm. 

    For Piper to insist that a man should do ANYTHING, muchless die for someone, simply because he has a penis, is wrong. I don’t care what the bible says. The bible’s “woman, submit” rules have been proven bad for everyone involved. They need to be dropped. And they aren’t anymore helpful for men than they are women, certain mens’ universe-sized egos be damned. 

  • Carstonio

    Your role in life, or in any given situation, should not be based on the reproductive equipment you were assigned as a fetus.

    Forcing people into specific roles because of the reproductive equipment they have is bad. It’s wrong. It’s unethical, disrespectful, stupid, and it causes harm.

    This, a thousand times.

  • fraser

     I don’t take it as allegory. I take it as a literal statement. I suspect most people here do too. That’s why we disagree.

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    Suppose, I said, a couple of you students, Jason and Sarah, were walking to McDonald’s after dark. And suppose a man with a knife jumped out of the bushes and threatened you. And suppose Jason knows that Sarah has a black belt in karate and could probably disarm the assailant better than he could. Should he step back and tell her to do it? No. He should step in front of her and be ready to lay down his life to protect her, irrespective of competency. It is written on his soul. That is what manhood does.
    And collectively that is what society does — unless the men have all been emasculated by the suicidal songs of egalitarian folly.

    And with that, Jason removes himself from the breeding pool forthwith, making the next generation of society incrimentally less stupid.  

    Thank you Jason, your ego-driven sacrifice has improved those who remain alive, and for that we salute you.  

  • Worthless Beast

    As an asexual, I really *despise* the use of the “breeding pool” and one’s potential participation therein as a measure of worth. 

    Just throwing that out there.  (And you don’t have to listen to me, look at my username).

  • spinetingler

     Despite several efforts, I’ve found that it’s very difficult to do anything like “breeding” (even if we’re just practicing) in a pool.

  • spinetingler

     Despite several efforts, I’ve found that it’s very difficult to do anything like “breeding” (even if we’re just practicing) in a pool.

  • MikeJ

    Happily, within moments of stepping in front of her, Jason is going to be dead, and then  Sarah is going to kick the attacker’s ass, and then she won’t be stuck with a jackass.

  • flat

    man I love a good ending

  • MikeJ

    What if instead of a black belt, Sarah had a gun? They’re really the same thing. In both cases, one person is armed and the other person isn’t.  In one case the person is armed with competence, in the other she;s armed with a gun.

    I can’t imagine a rightwinger not getting a hard on from a little bangbangshootshoot. Of course he’s going to love it when Sarah unloads into some swarthy attacker.

  • Tehanu

    “unless the men have all been emasculated by the suicidal songs of egalitarian folly”

    Uh, how is it NOT suicidal to jump in front of the person who is better able to protect both you and herself and prevent her from doing it?  Oh right, because penis, that’s why.  Riiiiight.

  • http://mordicai.livejournal.com Mordicai

     RIGHT?  Like, jumping in front of the trained combatant because you have a penis is…uh, actually suicidal folly?  I’m just trying to go with his own metaphor here…

  • spinetingler

    Jason would best be of help by circling 180 degrees around the other side of the attacker, distracting the attackers attention allowing Sara an opening to wreak havoc, probably in the genital and knee area.

  • http://www.facebook.com/j.alex.harman John Alexander Harman

    Some years ago I dated a woman who has several years of martial arts training, which I do not.  We actually discussed this scenario at one point, as at different times in our relationship we found ourselves on sidewalks after dark in Washington, D.C., Baltimore, and Oakland (usually on the way to or from a ballroom dancing venue, many of which are found in fairly low-rent neighborhoods).  When walking on a city street, I would walk on the left, which kept both her and my dominant hands free (I’m left-handed and she’s right-handed). Our contingency plan for dealing with a mugger was that I would break left and she would break right; the mugger would most likely turn toward the larger opponent, giving her an opening to take him down.

  • Carstonio

    Reminds me of Dan and Laurie from Watchmen being ambushed by a gang that grossly underestimated the couple’s fighting ability.

  • http://www.facebook.com/j.alex.harman John Alexander Harman

    Love that scene — that quick little look they give each other before attacking, like “Ooh, this is going to be *fun!*”

  • Carstonio

    And how about their arousal after the fight? I liked the technique of interspersing Jon’s disastrous TV interviews with the dialogue having double meanings.

  • Tapetum

     Weirdly enough, this is exactly the contingency plan my husband and I have. He’s left handed to my right, and he’s a big and obvious hazard, while I’m merely big for a woman.

    In an attack situation, I don’t expect him to sacrifice himself for me. I expect him to follow my orders, and I’m going to be severely pissed if he doesn’t, and gets hurt as a result. He’s the big, strong male, but I’m the self-defense instructor with a decade’s experience.

  • J_Enigma23

    Kid 1: “hey, you got your misandry in my misogyny!”
    Kid 2: “No, you got your misogyny in my misandry!”
    Narrator: Two shitty tastes, now together in one convenient package!
    Kid 1: “Wow… I can’t imagine having one without having the other, now! This is awesome in the crappiest way possible!”

    The Pipsqueak Piper babbled: “- unless the men have all been emasculated by the suicidal songs of egalitarian folly”

    So, hang on. You’re telling me to jump out in front of a guy with a knife, and then you turn right back around and criticize egalitarianism as suicide, using suicide as a bad thing when that’s basically what you just told me to do?

    If I see a guy with a knife, I’m going to try and figure out what the hell they want and try to talk my way out of the problem as fast as I can.

    Really, I’m surprised he’s not attacking Sarah as a ball-bashing man-hating femnazi harpy since she knows Karate while whimpy old Jason over there doesn’t. After all, wimminz shouldn’t be allowed to know that stuff, since it clearly makes them masculine and that’d be a bad thing.

    Hey, Piper, here’s an idea: let people do what they do best, irrespective of gender.

  • Lori

    I think it’s worth noting that Piper’s biography doesn’t mention anything about military service.  I guess it wasn’t cowardly not to serve when there were no women in combat roles, but now it is. Is he calling for mass enlistment or bringing back the draft? I’m guessing he’s not.

    I also think it’s worth noting that he’s 67 years old and well past the point of being able, never mind expected, to serve in combat instead of a woman.

    IOW, same old, same old—an old man spouting lies in order to get young men to die for the old man’s belief’s.

  • Worthless Beast

    I think most of us are missing the *real* solution to this problem:   Jason and Sarah exchange worried looks, start running – to a well-lit and populated area if they can.  Also, one of them pulls the cell phone from their pocket (if they have one, most do – though I forget mine and leave it at home sometimes) and dial frickin’ 911.  Dealing with a crazy guy with a knife?  That’s a cop’s job.  Said cop can be any gender.  I don’t think either Jason or Sarah are going to care.

  • SisterCoyote

    My sister and I just went out to dinner with our brother, and I bit my tongue the entire night while his friend, who I gather is also his boss, acted the Traditional And Slightly Pervy Old Dude part, complete with sexism and “Respect your elders,” and it was mildly annoying, but well worth the opportunity to sit down and enjoy a night with my siblings.

    So reading this is a breath of fresh air. The person who holds the door is the person who gets there first. The person who pays is the person who can afford to (or split the tab! Nothin’ unchivalrous about that!), or the person whose turn it is, or, as with my boyfriend and I, the person who is quicker/sneakier about getting their wallet out. The person who fights off an attacker IS THE PERSON WHO IS CAPABLE OF DOING SO.

    You don’t call in A Man to fix a computer, you call in someone who knows how to fix computers. Same goes for cars! Plumbing! Lighting fixtures! Are these also fields in which we should make sure male egos are satiated, regardless of competency? What a bloody moron.

    (Not even going to bother with the concern troll. Just… no.)

  • The_L1985

    “I was using my imagination to fill in the gaps of Piper’s article”

    Pity. One quick click of a hyperlink and you could have just read the damn article like I (and probably several other people) did.

    Again, the article itself is one against women serving in combat.  The entire article is, in fact, “women serving in combat is intrinsically bad because in Piper’s version of Christianity men and women should never be allowed outside of very rigid gender roles.”

  • cyllan

    the man does refuse to allow the woman to die in his place. Is that so controversial?

    Yes.

    I am going to be cranky if someone Bravely Sacrifices Themselves for me.  I’m going to be really fucking furious if they do so while they are throwing their life away for something that I could have resolved.  They are making their death my responsibility, and…fuck that noise.

    Jason, as someone untrained, is best off screaming for help and calling 911 on his cellphone.  Sarah, as someone trained, is best off screaming for help and calling 911 on her cellphone. If it comes down to a knife-fight, you will want emergency responders there as soon as humanly possible. 

    As for the carrying boxes and opening doors:  it is polite and reasonable to offer to help out.  If I see someone with a heavy box, I am likely to offer assistance.  I will open doors for people who are behind me. Note the gender neutral terms here; they are important.  If you are only offering to help women with heavy boxes, you are not a gentleman; you are an ass.

  • The_L1985

     I never understood that mindset.  It’s like such people don’t believe that it’s ever possible for a man to have more boxes and things than he can reasonably carry, or for an empty-handed woman to come along at just the right time to help out someone with full hands by opening a door.

    In fact, if all the men are carrying parcels for women, and men are supposed to open doors for women but not vice versa, then who will open the door when they reach the woman’s intended destination?  You can’t open a door with your hands full.

  • http://leftcheek.blogspot.com Jas-nDye

    Piper lives by honor and shame culture. he just needs to acknowledge that. “You have brought dishonor to the male dominance. Throw yourself on this sword.”

  • Alethea

    This reminds me of the time I heard a woman preaching on TV about submission. She said that a wife should always obey her husband, even if her husband is wrong or if he tells her to do something that’s a sin. Her reasoning was that the error/sin would be on his head, not the wife’s, and if the wife did not obey, that would be a sin for her. I ended up screaming “NO! NO! NO! NO!” at the TV before scrambling to change the channel. I’m surprised that I didn’t have blood trickling out of my ears afterward.

  • SisterCoyote

    My first reaction is “Somebody needs to take Aral Vorkosigan’s seminar on criminal orders.”

    My second reaction is horror at even hypothetically getting into a universe where married couples and/or husbands actually issue commands to their partners. EWWW.

  • The_L1985

     That is so deeply disturbing I don’t know what to think.  Every church I went to said that “Honor thy father and mother” didn’t count if your parents were telling you to do something that you knew was morally wrong.  This crazy woman is arguing that women should have less agency than children.

  • AnonymousSam

    So. I have made an executive decision. Piper’s getting up there in years, and knowing conservative men with a large audience and their tendency to go into histrionics and have heart attacks and all that wonderful rot, I have decided that I must take steps to ensure that rather than risk a competent woman having anything to do with his eventual heart surgery, an incompetent man should perform this surgery unassisted at a time of no one’s notice, lest a competent female intervene and ruin the entire procedure. In fact, in the interests of expediency, it would be better not to wait for this to become an emergency. If someone so much as dials 911, a competent female might answer the call, and we can’t have that.

    Therefor, I am asking–nah, pleading–that any incompetent men out there who have ever had an interest in open heart surgery, please don’t allow common sense to interfere with your written-on-thine-soul duty to do what’s right and help this man before a trained professional female can jeopardize everything.

  • Tricksterson

    So it’s official then?  Common sense and inteligent behavior are sinful in the eyes of God?

  • AnonymousSam
  • Baby_Raptor

    I would never forgive my fiance if he got hurt trying to do something I was better equipped to do just because penis. Especially if it cost him his life. (Though I guess my lack of forgiveness wouldn’t matter much if he were dead.)

    Men like Piper are just scared of women that can actually hold their own. And I’m willing to bet that it’s because men like Piper *can’t*. They can’t handle being in a world where they aren’t worshipped and given everything. 

    And since they cannot, everyone who can is now a danger to them. 

  • MaryKaye

    This has something which has been previously noted in _Left Behind_, which is the attitude that principle is more important than outcome, even predictable outcome.  So, you say awful things to non-believers in order to get them to convert and it’s a predictable crashing failure, but that’s okay, you upheld the principle!  Or, you jump in front of knife guy and thereby endanger several peoples’ lives, but that’s okay, you upheld the principle!

    I guess people like me, who think this is hopelessly stupid, are labeled “utilitarians” or “relativists” and are dismissed as such.

    It gives everything the faint air of being a game rather than real life:  like one of those videogames where you’re trying to improve your score.  (In one of the Ultimas, once you talked to a beggar you had to give him a coin or it would hurt your morality score, leading to silly scenes of the party weaving and dodging through town trying never to talk to a beggar.  Also, giving more than one coin didn’t help, so one never did that.)  Because in real life, if you had to sit with Sarah after Jason gets killed, it’s going to hurt.  A lot.  And then you have to visit Jason’s parents and talk to them about why he’s dead.  And don’t forget the cut tendon in Sarah’s arm where she took a cut trying to protect Jason after he was down.  It’s going to take a couple years of physical therapy for that to heal, if it ever does.

  • http://www.facebook.com/j.alex.harman John Alexander Harman

    …the attitude that principle is more important than outcome, even predictable outcome. …
    I guess people like me, who think this is hopelessly stupid, are labeled “utilitarians” or “relativists” and are dismissed as such.

    I think this is exactly right.  Now, I’ll happily own “utilitarian,” but “relativist” isn’t quite right; a better term would be “consequentialist.”  It’s not that we don’t have moral principles, some of which may even be quite inflexible (e.g. sexual coercion is always wrong)  — it’s that we apply them primarily to the probable outcome of a course of action, instead of blindly to the action itself.

  • Carstonio

    That’s my stance as well. A useful if someone broad question about probable outcomes is “What kind of world do you want for your grandchildren?”

  • http://twitter.com/bliumchik MK

    I take it he’d rather live in the fictional European Union of Rob Grant’s book Incompetence, where it’s illegal to fire someone for not being very good at their jobs. I wish him luck, but I suspect it’s only funny from the outside.

  • Wingedwyrm

    I think I get John Piper’s thinking.

    To his thinking, roles exist platonically.  They don’t serve a purpose.  You don’t have an obligation, as a man, to defend women in your presence because you are the one capable of doing the defending in the situation.  You have an obligation, as a man, to do the defending because the defense because that is your role.  It is not that the role serves any purpose.  It just is.

    This comes right in line with a certain view of morality.  It’s not that a certain thing is moral because there is an ends that is served within a specific moral framework.  It’s that a thing simply is moral platonically and independantly of anything, including situation.

    It’s not just “irrespective of competency”, it’s irrespective of anything ever, including the very real pain and suffering that may happen.

    It’s really a soulless approach to issues of the soul.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gregory-Peterson/1608524690 Gregory Peterson

    I’m reading Winthrop Jordan’s classic 1968 “White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro, 1550-1812.” Racists of that era loved The Great Chain of Being. The excessively handy Wikipedia gives a brief overview. “It details a strict, religious hierarchical structure of all matter and life, believed to have been decreed by God.”

    It’s nonsense, of course, but things like Piper’s self serving  nonsense reminds me that even if nobody talks about the Great Chain of Being anymore, the concept apparently still presumed in religious right circles.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gregory-Peterson/1608524690 Gregory Peterson

    The Tornado, the Lutherans, and Homosexuality

    by
    John Piper

    |
    August 19, 2009
    http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/the-tornado-the-lutherans-and-homosexuality

  • Hexep

    John Piper’s comments are of such staggering foolishness and wrong-headedness that I am quite sincerely stunned into disbelief of them, and have no constructive comments regarding them. That is all.

  • Joy_F

    Interesting theory. I see how this results in a lot of bad decisions. Like when my father attempted to balance the checkbook irrespective of competency and accidentally got the water shut off. My mom never let me touch it again. Had nothing to do with who was the “masculine leader” it had everything to do with him being dyslexic and not being able to correctly calculate. I can only imagine the financial disaster that would have ensued had she let him continue irrespective of competency.

  • Chloe Lewis

    “If I were the last man on the planet to think so, I would want the honor
    of saying no woman should go before me into combat to defend my 
    country. ”

    The thing is, we’ve had women in combat for some *considerable* time now; the front lines are deep, war is chaos, and there have been women with irreplaceable specialties. And yet, Piper and his friends: not in combat.   

    Oh! He only wanted the honor of *saying* he held the principle!

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Dollars to donuts when someone challenges him on that he’ll have a “reason” why his ass is apparently so irreplaceable he didn’t want it shot off in Iraq or Afghanistan.

  • The_L1985

     Or Vietnam.  I’m given to understand that this fellow is at least as old as my father.

  • flat

    no

  • The_L1985

     No to what?  We can’t tell which comment you’re addressing here.  Mind giving us a quote so we know what you’re talking about?

  • flat

    You know Jack Reacher is the manliest man on the planet and if there was some kind of jackass threatening him and his sgirlfriend with a knife he would beat the crap out of him faster and more ruthless than you can say profesional trained killer.

    But he will think the situation through and the difference between Piper and reacher is that he atleast admit that his behaviour is dangerous and stupid and that he should runa away and call the police, but then he wouldn’t be Jack Reacher.

  • rikalous

    Jason would best be of help by circling 180 degrees around the other
    side of the attacker, distracting the attackers attention allowing Sara
    an opening to wreak havoc, probably in the genital and knee area.

    That +2 attack bonus from flanking can make or break a fight, that’s for sure. And that’s assuming Sara doesn’t have levels in Rogue.

    John Piper’s comments are of such staggering foolishness and
    wrong-headedness that I am quite sincerely stunned into disbelief of
    them, and have no constructive comments regarding them. That is all.

    I know, right? How do you argue with someone who states straight out that they don’t consider competence the basis for deciding who’s best suited for a job? It’s like trying to correct the math of someone who insists that one and one make three.

  • vsm

    That reminds me of the one time I’ve ever been threatened with serious physical force. The other guy, an enormous bald dude, was standing in front of me, popping his jaw in a weirdly threatening way. I had nowhere to run so I froze and saw AD&D 2nd Ed. rules flashing before my eyes. The next thing I realized I was trying to figure out how many hit points I had and how many punches I’d be able to take before dying (not very many, as I recall). Luckily, he apparently took my complete inability to act as a badass show of determination or something, because he walked away. If I ever run into Piper’s situation, I’m pretty sure I won’t be stepping in front of any knives.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

     Yeah if she has levels in that she is going to get bonus attack dice! 

    Take that, knife wielder! 

  • http://www.facebook.com/j.alex.harman John Alexander Harman

    If she’s a blackbelt, she probably has levels in Ninja, which is like Rogue only more combat-focused.  You do not want a ninja in your blind spot.

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     Well, she might have levels in Monk, in which case she’ll need that flanking bonus to hit.  (Stupid Flurry of Misses….)

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    You know who else didn’t care about competence?

    George W. Bush.

    “Brownie, you’re doin’ a heck of a job!”

  • Matri

    It does explain their voting habits, doesn’t it?

  • Consumer Unit 5012

     “First-rate managers hire first-rate employees.
    Second-rate managers hire third-rate employees.”

  • SergeantHeretic

    This argument from Li’l Johnny Piper is the perfect summary for everything the “Persecuted Hegemon” stands for. This is their wholemovement in a nutshell.

    “Give us primacy and pride of place and dominance and give it to us because we are white, and male, and heterosexual and Pseudo-Christian and wealthy.”

    Shum copetence, shun reality, shun any questions other than our race, our sex our religion and our sexual oritentation!”

    That’s the Persecuted Hegemon’s whole thing, right there.

  • french engineer

    Now what I would love to see is a military team, preferably all female, to show up at this man’s home with a camera crew.

    “Well, sir, you expressed a desire to fight in Afghanistan in the place of second class Mary sue here, United states army. You will be deployed in . Here is your gear. Since you decided competency was not relevant to the decision to fight, no training will be scheduled. We leave now, you’ll be in Afghanistan in 17 hours.”

    The meltdown and the backpedaling would be hilarious.

  • SergeantHeretic

    I would pay money to be there while that team of troops helps Johnny pack his trash and helps him find his way to the airfield.

    I myself have encountered these macho mysoginists who want to assert their primacy over women, my responce was to always tell them, “Your Uncle Sam is always hiring. Step up and suit up and show us girly girls how it’s done.”

  • http://profiles.google.com/marc.k.mielke Marc Mielke

    Before I moved, my go-to person for car advice was a close friend’s wife, or rather, a friend who happens to be married to another friend. Her father worked for GM, and when she decided to go to art school, he insisted she also learn auto mechanics as a fallback. 

    That she also has a photographic memory and is possibly the most organized person on planet Earth also came in handy. 

    Regarding the knife-wielding madman; another friend used to teach rape-prevention classes to women at colleges. There were basic rudiments of self-defense, but the attitude he taught women to have when forced to defend themselves struck me as more important, making it crystal clear that if they were in a position requiring these skills, it was a life-and-death situation and to act accordingly. Exercises designed to familiarize students with gouging out eyes and other such wonderful tactics then followed. 

    I would think any woman trained simply in this way of thinking would have an advantage over most men. Part of the ethos of ‘manliness’ is that men fight and this is manly, with a mindset of ‘beating the other guy up’ rather than ‘fucking killing him by any means necessary’ (assuming a failure to first disengage, of course). 

  • The_L1985

     I remember learning the fist-to-the-solar-plexus and the keychain-eye-gouge in middle school, but when I learned it, the teacher danced around the whole rape thing and just was sort of like “because you’re a woman, Bad Men might attack you, and here’s how you might survive it.”

  • Fusina

     My Dad taught me to drive. He also, as part of the driving lessons, taught me to change the tires, the oil, the air filter and how to clean out the carburetor. (I do admit to really liking the gloves that are readily available now, cleaning used oil off hands is a total pain).

    I was taught some survival skills by a very nice security guard at the mall I worked at for a while. His take was, yell, scream, and flail about, but to do that flailing near the nose and hit it as hard as you can, or even better, the front of the neck (larger target). Either of those places, he said, the person would lose interest in anything but pain for a while, and the front of the neck as the attacker would also be trying to breathe. Was also told that knowing who and what was around you was good, so be aware of surroundings.

    I explained to my daughter’s friends that fighting when one is evenly matched strength for strength is one thing, but that generally when a woman is fighting a man, we fight dirty, as it becomes a survival thing. So yes, gouging eyes was mentioned.

    I don’t know that I necessarily won this one argument, or whether the guy gave up so I wouldn’t say the word penis to him again, but in discussing this sort of thing (and this was back in the eighties, so for me, this is the same old same old) he made the argument of, for the sake of brevity I’ll shorten it to, “Men Lead! Penis!”  I asked if a competent woman should then follow even if she knows more than and has experience in the field. Short answer, Yes, to which I responded, “So, a penis and testicles means a leader?” and my argument was conceded to be valid. Or, as I said, to end the discussion.

  • http://www.aeryllou.tumblr.com/ Aeryl

     My partner and I spar a lot, and he will tell you, I am always the first one to go with a fake out debilitating strike.  It’s a reflex you must hone as a woman, cuz if you can get the fucker down, you don’t let them back up. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/j.alex.harman John Alexander Harman

    Part of the ethos of ‘manliness’ is that men fight and this is manly, with a mindset of ‘beating the other guy up’ rather than ‘fucking killing him by any means necessary’ (assuming a failure to first disengage, of course).

    I remember a somewhat related idea in one of John Sandford’s Virgil Flowers mysteries.  There’s a scene where Flowers has to break up a bar fight between two women, and part of his though process is that this is more dangerous than intervening in a typical fight between men, because men in our culture are generally socialized to fight with their fists and feet, and usually strike areas where a bruise or at worst a cracked rib is the maximum likely injury.  Women, by and large, aren’t socialized to fight at all, so when they do get into fights, they don’t tend to follow any such “civilized” rules, and are thus more likely then men to inflict serious, possibly permanent injuries with fingernails and teeth.

  • Carstonio

    The socialization you describe almost sounds like a system of rules, like Marquis de Queensberry meets Jean-Claude Van Damme. I never heard of anything like that when I was in school. Instead of getting into fights, I would lash out if I felt I was being pushed too far, such as someone throwing things at me or calling me names or laughing at me. I even punched a guy in the eye when he gave me a wedgie in the locker room. Almost all the time the other guy wouldn’t even retaliate, like he was shocked by my reaction. I didn’t want to fight, I just wanted to scare the other person into leaving me alone. What truly scares me is that if things escalated, I might have assumed that the guy was trying to seriously hurt me and would have responded in kind out of self-defense.

  • Narcissus

    And here I thought the man with the knife should get my coat since I have others. I wasn’t aware that Jesus *really* wants me to  have a badass girlfriend who I then must show off to as we dismantle thief like the non human scum they are. The capitalist, Chuck Norris gospel trudges on.

  • banancat

    Except Jason is far more likely to rape Sarah than some random stranger. Who is supposed to protect her in that case?

  • Carstonio

    Yes. Examples like Piper’s imply that we’re living in a precivilized era or a postapocalyptic hell where any woman without a man is fair game for rape.

    http://www.salon.com/2013/02/04/gun_lobby_guns_make_women_safer_partner/

    A growing chorus of gun advocates have dusted off outdated gender
    stereotypes of women as vulnerable and defenseless, exploiting them to make the case for fewer restrictions on guns. Arguing that without guns women will be less safe perpetuates the notion that violence against women at the hands of men is an inevitable reality of our culture. It suggests that attempting to stem violence at its root is futile and the only solution is to go “all in” on guns—arm everyone. I am offended and frightened by the notion that what is needed to keep women and children safe is an increased presence of the very weapons responsible for so many deaths of women and children every year.

    This claim falls along the dangerous spectrum of (il)logic that says we simply should dress more modestly, drink less, stay at home after dark, and arm ourselves with mace and self-defense skills to avoid being the victims of violence.

  • EllieMurasaki

    It’s not rape if she knows the guy, because she has for certain done something to indicate her willingness to sex him, even if she didn’t say she wants to this time, even if she has never ever said she wants to. And even if it is rape, Jason’s a fine upstanding community member, wouldn’t want to ruin his life by pressing charges, would we Sarah? and never mind what he did to you, it’s not important.

  • other lori

    I’m still mulling over his comments, and one thing I’m struck by is how anti-Christian, and even anti-Calvinist, they are. Self-sacrificial love is written on the male soul? This from a five-point Calvinist? I thought, according to Piper’s theology, the human heart was deceitful above all things; I thought human beings were, in their natural state, incapable of good; I thought that we were all, male and female, totally depraved. 

    Apparently not. Apparently all human males are innately wired to act in ways consistent with the highest form of agape love, and it’s that damn Rachel Held Evans who has ruined it all. If it weren’t for egalitarians, men everywhere would be acting with nothing but the most selfless love for each and every woman they meet.

    It’s a flatly un-Christian notion. There is nothing in the New Testament that indicates that self-sacrificing, agape love is the natural human state, or the male default position. Now, people can certainly disagree with that, and that’s fine, but that is the position the New Testament that Piper would claim to be all literal about seems to take. According to the NT, agape love comes from God, because that is the love God has for us. But the whole point is that such love runs counter to many of our natural instincts to put ourselves first. 

    But, Piper seems more interested in social convention than love, anyway. He doesn’t claim that Jason should offer his life to protect Sarah as an expression of love; he wants Jason to do it because he wants that to be what men do, the role they play. But even Paul doesn’t argue that husbands should lay down their lives for their wives because they are men. He argues they should lay down their lives for their wives because they love them. Every time self-sacrifice is mentioned in the NT, it is in the context of love. But love plays no role in Piper’s world, just duty and social convention. He’s not interested in male self-sacrifice as an expression of love, but male self-sacrifice as an expression of masculine superiority. And that’s how he’s able to take what could be a beautiful thing (one person sacrificing themselves for another, like those stories we saw after the Aurora shootings of a few men who died shielding their girlfriends from bullets, because they loved them) and turn it into something gross and infuriating.

  • http://tobascodagama.com Tobasco da Gama

    We choose the fight the mugger and do the stupid thing. Not because it is easy but because it is dumb.

  • Jim Roberts

    Actual conversation from college. (We had just finished a late-night soccer game on a field with lights. This was in summer at college, and it was known that a group of townies would occasionally come around and harrass women walking alone at night):

    Me (to a young woman about to walk back to her dorm alone): I should probably go with you.
    Her: I’m a black belt in karate. I can handle myself.
    Me: . . . Can you walk me back to my dorm? I want to save myself for marriage, and you know how these townies are.

    (She walked me back to my dorm, which just happened to be next to hers)

  • Carstonio

     Heh. Piper’s mythology seems to rest on the assumption of female virginity as male property. Like the old belief that a “deflowered” virgin wouldn’t have much value in the marriage market. One can’t peel back the layers of the onion very far without encountering the concept of women as property.

  • Jim Roberts

    Indeed – the college I went to was at least nominally Christian, and more than one of my friends ended a relationship when they found out their girlfriend wasn’t “pure.” I found to be frankly despicable and let a few of them know that, particularly the guy who broke up with his girlfriend that she’d lost her virginity due to abuse.

    In the case I mentioned, I was basically trying to save face – I was quite well aware that she could defend herself better than I, but for better or for worse a woman accompanied by a man is less liable to be harrassed or attacked than a woman walking alone. I just started off the conversation wrong.

  • banancat

     

    a woman accompanied by a man is less liable to be harrassed or attacked than a woman walking alone.

    I wonder how true this is though, regardless of gender.  When I’m walking alone, especially if I’ve been drinking, I am hyper aware, not because of the threat of rape, but because of the threat of robbery.  I went to college in the middle of a city and when I walked home from a bar I paid close attention to my surroundings and the people around me.  But when I’m walking with another person, male or female, I pay much less attention to my surroundings because I’m engaged in conversation with the other person.  I think if I wanted to rob someone, two distracted people would be more appealing than a lone person. This has been the case with the few robberies that I am personally aware of, but of course the plural of anecdote is not data.  I wonder if it has been studied though.

  • other lori

    I don’t know, in general, I think that those out alone are more likely to be harassed/attacked. My husband–a 6’5″, 220 lb. guy–was robbed at gunpoint while walking home alone. We’ve had several other muggings of men walking alone. In general, walking with others after dark if possible is probably a wise safety precaution for people regardless of gender, especially in higher-crime areas. I get regular emails about crime on the campus where I work, and nearly all of it, especially the robberies, involve people who were alone.

  • Tricksterson

    That makes sense, multiple people,whether it’s Rambo and Chuck Norris (to use a pair of fictional characters as an example) or a pair of teenage girls with no combat skills are inherently harder to control than a singleton.  Even if you have a gun, much less just a knife, you can only really keep it trained on one person while the other (in the first example i pick Chuck Norris) screams and runs for help.

  • EllieMurasaki

    *thinks about Chuck Norris jokes*

    *dies*

  • OriginalExtraCrispy

    A woman on Twitter recently mentioned she was mugged in broad daylight in a nice neighborhood because she was distracted walking and texting. Awareness is the first rule of self-defense for either gender, though I think women tend to be taught that more often than men. I guess they think penises deflect bullets.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     Years ago, (the woman who is now) my wife ordered me to escort her friend out to her car at the far end of the parking lot, for protection. About halfway there, we had this conversation:

    Me: Hey, aren’t you in the army?
    Her: Yeah
    Me: So… Admittedly I don’t know all the details of being in the army, but they do make you do some basic training in stopping people who are trying to kill you in the army, no matter what your actual job is, right?
    Her: Yeah.
    Me: So… Technically, aren’t you protecting me on this trip?

  • http://adammclane.com/ Adam McLane

    Since his own hermeneutic cannot construct a plausible reason to hold women back, he’s left with nothing more than boyish attempts to protect his boys club. 

    I hope he enjoys his retirement. It was time. 

  • AnonaMiss

    “My little sexist: Penis is Magic.”

  • Foreigner

    I’d just like to say here that my wife can change a tyre. Has, indeed, done so. I just passed things as required. This is one of the reasons I married her in the first place.

    Um, OK, yes, as it happens I am a lazy bastard, but that’s not what I meant.

  • LL

    It doesn’t really surprise me to read that a religious “leader” doesn’t think competence is important. Most “leaders” don’t seem to value competence. 


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X