Hermenuetics

Comments

Why is CT promoting Carolyn McCulley, a complementarian who recently posted an offensive joke about the "difference between men's and women's brains," thinking that it would "make you laugh"? Here's the video. The bad joke is at about 2:00 in. http://solofemininity.blogs.com/posts/2009/09/the-nothing-box.html

The male "comedian" says of women's brains, "Women's brains are made up of a big ball of wire and everything is connected to everything . . . It's like the internet superhighway AND IT'S ALL DRIVEN BY ENERGY THAT WE CALL 'EMOTION.' It's one of the reasons why women tend to remember everything because if you take an event and connect it to emotion, it burns in your memory and you can remember it forever." The scathing tone of voice makes it even more offensive.

Claims that women are "too emotional," that women don't "think logically," and that women aren't qualified to be, or capable of being, doctors, lawyers, preachers, or other leaders because of it, have been used for centuries to demean and diminish women and their intellectual capabilities, just as ethnic jokes and stereotypes have done the same for minorities.

Why, then would the CT blog FOR WOMEN promote an author who makes offensive jokes about women's intellectual capabilities? Would CT condone jokes about ethnic or racial stereotypes? These sorts of jokes have been morally unacceptable for decades now. What in the world is CT thinking by promoting this author?

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | October 13, 2009 3:11 PM

Christian Lawyer,

Thank you for commenting; as always, you raise questions worthy of response.

I watched the video that Carolyn McCulley linked to in a blog post. Unfamiliar with Mark Gungor or his approach to men and women, I was expecting to watch a fiery preacher caught up in a sermon about 1 Timothy 2:11 or Ephesians 5:22, two central biblical passages on women in the church. To my surprise, I found nothing more than a Christian-ish comedian leading an eager audience through a schtick about men's and women's brains. A few details about the video that I think are worth noting:

(1) Gungor never says that women are "too emotional" or don't "think logically." In the third paragraph, you put quote marks around phrases that aren't from him, but have been said in one way or another by other teachers. You'd have to make a more explicit connection between what Gungor is saying and others who make these claims derogatorily. I'm not seeing the connection.

(2) From the beginning of Gungor's schtick, it's assumed that he is speaking not in specific terms but in generalizations. Not all, but certainly some, Christians seem to resonate with his description of men's and women's brains because they recognize something true about his characterizations. I personally do not find this kind of humor funny, but can certainly see why so many resonate with it. I refuse to accept the idea that the only people who like this humor abide by the belief that women are categorically and essentially inferior to men.

(3) In fact, I am not seeing the connection you make between Gungor's jokes about women's emotions and complementarianism. Nowhere in his schtick does he mention biblical passages central to a complementarian approach; he doesn't even mention the Bible. If I'm following your logic correctly, you believe Gungor is implicitly calling women irrational or just plain dumb because he describes them as primarily emotional. But even if women are primarily emotional (something I don't buy), to infer that Gungor is making fun of women's intellect rests on a mind/heart dichotomy, one I think is false. Are you personally really convinced by that dichotomy?

As a final note about the author Carolyn McCulley: She has identified herself as a complementarian (see http://solofemininity.blogs.com/posts/biblical_femininity/index.html), which means, in the definition she provides, that "men and women are equal in value, but have different and complementary roles." To connect that description with racism or ethnocentrism is to believe that essential differences require a hierarchy of value between two or more groups (with white men assumedly at the top of all heaps). We can talk about how complementarianism has been used by some individuals to justify harmful, derogatory, unfair, even violent treatment. But I believe these effects are parasitic, not central to, a complementarian view of Scripture. Because of this, the editors of Her.meneutics gladly welcome complementarian writers like McCulley -- someone who, in her writing and work, has displayed obvious care for women, showing her own intellectual force and recognizing other women's.

Katelyn Beaty
kbeaty[at]christianitytoday.com

Posted By: Katelyn Beaty | October 13, 2009 4:25 PM

Katelyn, thank you for your thoughtful, but nevertheless shocking, response.

I see the comedian's "women's brain" joke as the equivalent of a racial or ethnic joke. I know CT would not countenance a racial or ethnic joke, in part because racial and ethnic jokes are offensive and hurtful, and in large part because you recognize the stereotypes underlying those jokes are false and derogatory and demeaning.

What's shocking about your response to the joke about women's brains, however, is that you concede that some Christians, including apparently, McCulley, not only are not offended, but in fact see the joke as funny precisely because they believe in the underlying "truth" of the joke. I suspected that, but I'm surprised you admitted it, because if this comedian, or the author CT is so keen on promoting, were to make that joke in any non-church workplace today, they would be censured by their firm's HR department. Is that really what CT wants to promote? (BTW, "but they laughed," is NOT a valid defense to a harrassment claim.)

I wasn't implying that the comedian actually used the phrases "too emotional" or "don't think logically." Rather, my point was that his actual words were the equivalent of those old stereotypes about women (which those who find this joke funny apparently still believe). But that equivalence is precisely why I find the joke so offensive. I'm floored that you don't see the connection between the words of the joke and the words of the old stereotype. How is "women's brains are driven by emotion" NOT essentially the same thing as "women are too emotional" and "don't think logically"?

There is NOTHING true about the claim that women's brains are driven by emotion any more than the old stereotype about African Americans being lazy is true. Both stereotypes are false, derogatory, and demeaning, even if some racist, or complementarian, Christians still believe them. That's why this joke about women's brains is as offensive as a racial joke about African Americans.

The comedian later says the difference between men's brains and women's brains affects how women deal with stress. Because a woman's brain is driven by emotion, if she can't talk about the stress she's feeling, her "brain will literally explode." Gee, that sounds like someone we'd all like to work with, right? That's the connection. The way he describes women's brains, makes it sound like women are totally incapable of holding a responsible job, which again, is essentially a repetition of the old stereotype.

(With Katelyn's indulgence, more below.)

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | October 13, 2009 8:29 PM

Here's how the stereotype plays out, even when men of good faith try to "honor" what they believe are the "natural" "differences" between men and women. Here is the U.S. Supreme Court, in 1872, upholding an Illinois statute barring women from becoming lawyers (hint: they're just too delicate and timid -- read "emotional").

"On the contrary, the civil law, as well as nature herself, has always recognized a wide difference in the respective spheres and destinies of man and woman. Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. THE NATURAL AND PROPER TIMIDITY AND DELICACY WHICH BELONGS TO THE FEMALE SEX EVIDENTLY UNFITS IT FOR MANY OF THE OCCUPATIONS OF CIVIL LIFE. The Constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and functions of womanhood. The harmony, not to say identity, of interest and views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband. So firmly fixed was this sentiment in the founders of the common law that it became a maxim of that system of jurisprudence that a woman had no legal existence separate from her husband, who was regarded as her head and representative in the social state, and, notwithstanding some recent modifications of this civil status, many of the special rules of law flowing from and dependent upon this cardinal principle still exist in full force in most states. One of these is that a married woman is incapable, without her husband's consent, of making contracts which shall be binding on her or him. This very incapacity was one circumstance which the Supreme Court of Illinois deemed important in rendering a married woman incompetent fully to perform the duties and trusts that belong to the office of an attorney and counselor."

"It is true that many women are unmarried and not affected by any of the duties, complications, and incapacities arising out of the married state, but these are exceptions to the general rule. The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator. And the rules of civil society must be adapted to the general constitution of things, and cannot be based upon exceptional cases."

"The humane movements of modern society, which have for their object the multiplication of avenues for woman's advancement, and of occupations adapted to her condition and sex, have my heartiest concurrence. But I am not prepared to say that it is one of her fundamental rights and privileges to be admitted into every office and position, including those which require highly special qualifications and demanding special responsibilities. IN THE NATURE OF THINGS, IT IS NOT EVERY CITIZEN OF EVERY AGE, SEX, AND CONDITION THAT IS QUALIFIED FOR EVERY CALLING AND POSITION. It is the prerogative of the legislator to prescribe regulations founded on nature, reason, and experience for the due admission of qualified persons to professions and callings demanding special skill and confidence. This fairly belongs to the police power of the state, and, in my opinion, in view of the PECULIAR CHARACTERISTICS, DESTINY, AND MISSION OF WOMAN, it is within the province of the legislature to ordain what offices, positions, and callings shall be filled and discharged by men, and shall receive the benefit of those energies and responsibilities, and that decision and firmness which are presumed to predominate in the STERNER SEX."

Bradwell v. State, 83 U.S. 130 (1872) (Bradley, J., concurring) (emphasis added), http://supreme.justia.com/us/83/130/case.html

Jokes that perpetuate the old slander about the differences between men and women are based on stereotypes that are false and derogatory and demeaning. I still don't believe CT should link to authors who think these things are funny or who apparently want to turn the clocks back by a century or two. Combine her posting of this "joke" with her bizarre response to the Nick Kristoff article in the NYT on international aid to women, and I find it appalling that CT still wants to promote this author. At the very least, surely there are egalitarian authors out there, within the evangelical community, who could balance out McCulley and her "humor" or her concern that aid to impoverished women "comes at the expense of" their brutal husbands.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | October 13, 2009 8:51 PM

@Christian Lawyer

Regarding your last sentence: You must've noticed that CT does publish egalitarian authors, both at Her.meneutics and in the print magazine. Unless you think any hint of complementarianism is perpetuating a hurtful stereotype, what's the harm in posting occasional guest blogs by Carolyn McCulley, too?

Posted By: Balance, Please | October 14, 2009 1:17 PM

I'm going to have to side with Christian Lawyer on this one. I don't agree with Carolyn McCulley at all, but I probably wouldn't respond in the comments section; I'll just probably skip her postings altogether.

How about getting Lauren Winner to be a guest writer? She's fantastic.

Posted By: P. | October 15, 2009 10:59 AM

Christian Lawyer, I agree with you quite often and I didn't watch the particular video but I did go to a marriage conference with Mark Gungor and what he was doing at the conference was comedy. It was very clear in context that it was not intended to be offensive or demeaning and I don't believe that it was offensive or demeaning in context. Most if not all comedy can be offensive to someone when it is taken out of context. But we should not then just assume that all comedy is bad.

Gungor is not saying that women are simply emotional. If you go to this google book exerpt (go to pages 41 to 43 to get the basic idea of what he is trying to say )
http://books.google.com/books?id=T1brQ4I0wqMC&pg=PA172&lpg=PA172&dq=gungor+mark+women+emotion+research&source=bl&ots=gYrzX0FtFi&sig=FbiY-fLxSZWfxmSZs_suUKKi4lg&hl=en&ei=qNTXSvjpFpLKtgfsgfGFBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=women%20brains&f=false

He is not at all saying women are inferior and to say that women are different is not to say that women are inferior. There are obviously differences that go beyond sex organs. Brain make up is pretty conclusively shown to be different (not completely different, but there are enough trends to show difference that we can say that the differences are mostly gender related.)

Posted By: Adam S | October 15, 2009 9:10 PM

I agree with CL and P. I believe that "complementarianism"--which includes a hierarchical view of marriage and the church with the ultimate authority of men over women--is detrimental to women AND to men alike, as well as being non-biblical. I actually do think complementarianism is "perpetuating a harmful stereotype," that has, in fact, harmed many women.

Posted By: R. | October 16, 2009 4:42 PM

Adam S, I most often agree with you too, and I agree with much of your comment here. I scrolled through the pages of his book to which you linked (and I read a bit of some other parts as well). But, I still believe Gungor was WAY over the line, both in his comedy schtick, and in his book. And, I think that McCulley, in linking just to the schtick, is perpetuating a joke just as offensive as a watermelon/fried chicken joke. I hope I didn't imply that all humor is bad, but at some point, racial, ethnic, gender, orientation, disability, etc. jokes are just offensive (even when they provoke some laughter). We learn from our HR departments "that she laughed is NOT a defense!"

Yes, I agree there are differences between how men and women process information, but the difference is NOT that women's brains are driven by emotion and men's are not. Yes, Gungor uses humor against both men and women, and it's clear he's trying NOT to be demeaning to women (although I shouldn't have to refer to a book to get the nuances that make his "comedy" routine supposedly less offensive). Nevertheless, IMO, he DOES demean women because, although he makes jokes about the characteristics of some men and some women, the jokes he makes about men are not about characteristics that have held men back from advancement in the workplace or other areas. In contrast, most of the jokes he tells about women pertain to supposed characteristics that HAVE been held against women in the workplace -- women are too emotional, etc.

And, then he adds the REALLY offensive stuff (paraphrasing):

Women are multitaskers, but men are the "gladiators" of focused thought. This is what makes men so good at what they do. "MEN WILL USUALLY RISE TO THE TOP OF ANY PROFESSION, EVEN THOSE DOMINATED BY WOMEN.... THIS IS BECAUSE MEN HAVE THE ABILITY TO BLOCK OUT EVERY DISTRACTION AND FOCUS ON ONE TASK AND EXCEL AT IT."

(CL here again:) He seriously believes men rise to the top of most professions BECAUSE THEY ARE SINGLE-MINDED (and women are not)?? Really?? Sexism, tradition, lack of opportunity, lack of access to education, men who put all of the burden for raising children on their wives -- all that has NOTHING to do with why men have historically dominated the professions??

I guess I find Gungor's stuff (and CT's promotion of an author who thinks it's funny) so offensive because it's so old. I heard these jokes growing up. They are not insightful, or fresh, or based on any recognized science. I note that Gungor does not footnote any of the "studies" he mentions. Why would anyone want to subscribe to a theory of communicating with spouses which, if said out loud in a workplace about communicating with one's colleagues, would likely get one fired?

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | October 20, 2009 11:38 PM

@Balance, Please -- Can you point me to an article on either the CT main pages or on her.meneutics written from an expressly egalitarian viewpoint on a gender issue?

Granted, sometimes at the CT main page someone who might hold an egalitarian view or two raises a question about some point of complementarianism, or writes a "balanced" article describing both sides of an argument, but I don't recall any writers explicitly writing from an egalitarian perspective.

I understood Katelyn to be saying that McCulley would blog about gender issues from a complementarian perspective semi-regularly. I don't see anyone doing that from an egalitarian perspective. So, yes, balance, please.

And yes, I believe that complementarianism, at least as expressed by those who apparently wrote the "bible" of complementarianism, the Council of Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, perpetuates a harmful, and more importantly, un-Biblical, stereotype about both men and women. I believe it to be as harmful and demeaning as Jim Crow segregation.

Posted By: Christian Lawyer | October 21, 2009 12:02 AM

The posts are definitely the best ones. Gungor is not saying that women are simply emotional.

Posted By: r4 ds | November 7, 2009 5:55 AM