I've got a wee beef with this recent post from Stuff Christians Like, entitled rather troubling, "Girls that have a past" and then subsequently subtitled as, "The unofficial identifying girls in church who have a past scorecard".
My beef isn't because:
a) I'm a girl with a past (though I kinda am, but not much of one and presumably didn't score very high on aforementioned scorecard because of my fear of white shorts);
b) I dislike SCL or its writer in residence, Jon Acuff (SCL is something I usually really like, so much so that I read portions of it outloud at dinner parties and sleepovers); or
c) Because I'm a feminist (though, again, I kinda am, but more in the way of Leslie Knope as opposed to Nancy Pelosi).
Instead, my beef is due in large part to:
a) The post saying it's meant to "call out" guys who think this way and keep such scores, but instead invites "girls" to tally up their own scores to see how they measure up;
b) Limiting the categorization of girls with a past to such profound outward signs of promiscuity as hoop earrings, a desire to drink, and tardiness;
c) Stereotyping the good girls as legalistic, un-marry-able prudes (who, in fairness, love a good orphan);
d) The host of this party, Jon, having to consistently defend, clarify, and define the post as "satire" and yet still claim it as "truth," not that he would know anything about that, as he married a good girl; and
e) The uninspired writing of a piece of satire without a clear beginning, middle or end, with no justifiable or redeeming conclusion that pierces the soul with wit, poignancy AND laughter (as all good satire must), and still also manages to reference Kim Kardashian.
I love SCL, and up till now, highly respected and learned a great deal from Acuff. But this post uses a common misconception as an excuse to judge - and laugh at - all women based on their looks, their facebook profiles, and their favourite verses (to name just a lousy few).
No wonder so many people have such a hard time going to church; we're not even safe among God's people.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
the SCL post was awful and the comments were worse. the sexist, degrading stereotypes were so much worse than any "hurt feelings"--the only critique acuff owned up to.
ReplyDeletemore of the same virgin/whore nonsense. and it wasn't even good satire!
Maybe he's trying to be Mark Driscoll.
ReplyDeleteWOW - totally not funny. Definitely not satire. So many other ways to have written something along those lines and gotten the same "point" across, whatever that actually was. Highly offensive.
ReplyDeleteWow, I read the SCL post and would definitely agree with you. He's right. I did kind of feel like burning his house down after I read that post!
ReplyDeleteI really didn't feel that way at all. I'll admit I didn't fall over laughing at this post, but I did chuckle several times over the stereotypical categories that I fall in to. Whether I have a past or not, I love Jesus and believe in His grace, and if that is true- then someone (who I believe loves the Lord) poking fun at God's people is of no threat to me. I think we learn to laugh at ourselves a little bit more. I don't think his post was intended to put any type of person up on a pedastool or say who is right or wrong - I think he meant to make us laugh. And I did.
ReplyDeleteThat girl is going to be really great to live with too...seriously...he is probably being honest, but that is a great recipe to have a really jacked up marriage...which he seems to get, being as you said, married to a good girl. Yes, it is posts like this that make everyone want to be "different" for the sake of being different. Instead can we all like Twila Paris and wear hoop earrings without those things defining us. Yes, this all makes me extremely upset...
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment, Anonymous. I did chuckle at "homeschooled because she got kicked out of school", and I do realize what the *intent* was, and anyone who knows me knows I laugh at myself and others and all things hilarious all the time, but this was not hilarious. It was sad, and annoying, and frustrating, and silly, and didn't accomplish at all what it set out to. And, also, did I mention the bad writing? Because I mean, really, that's the worst offense. :)
ReplyDeleteOh, thanks to all the comments! This is my most-viewed post yet! And I did get a nice response from Jon Acuff indicating I wasn't too off the mark with my rebuttal.
ReplyDeleteSo a rereading of the original article (after fuming about it all day), makes me see that I missed John Acuff's comments on the post. The moral of this story is to not try to read blogs and homeschool at the same time. Anyway, I will say, that I appreciated one thing after rereading and mulling. I do think that American society, and Christians included, put the rebellious types up on a pedestal. We honor those who buck the system and whose individualism throw a kink in the works. It is partially what the country was founded on, but as a Christian woman, it is hard to see clearly the woman I need to strive to be, because of these mixed messages. Elizabeth Bennett, one of my favorite characters in English literature, (not American, though) is treasured for her rebellion against societal norms. I love the character, and she is moral, but is she biblical. I have no clue. So I get the scorecard a bit. That is what I am trying to say. I get that there is a temptation as a Christian woman to not want to fit into a mold, to want to be defined by something that sets us apart, and I admit that sometimes those things that set me apart are not good traits, but I hang on to them regardless, because I feel like they are me. And I am sure that is all clear as mud. Oh, and I do feel like there should have been a point to the original article...it was very difficult to read clearly, or it could have just been me.
ReplyDelete