SHUT UP AND MAKE A PIE!

How should Christian men interact with women in conversations and debates online?

(I am not here discussing the topic of “brothers and sisters in all purity,” although that is certainly important as well; my purpose here is to explore the idea that in order to properly rebuke feminism, Christian men should rhetorically bludgeon women online.)

Lest I be accused of misrepresenting anyone’s position, here are a few quotes:

“When women go into the arena of public discourse, leaving the protective cover of their father or husband, there inherently comes risk that comes with that activity. The expectation that men should “pull their punches” when interacting with women online in matters of the culture war (feminism/politics) or doctrine is an unreasonable one.” - @theheroesforge

“She wants the privileges, claims to have the strength, and demands the authority... and she's not joking.

Well, now it's time to give her what she asked for.

She's to be treated like a man.” - Les Lanphere

Now, then, I don’t buy this reasoning at all. I don’t think the fact that she is detached from reality means that we should participate in her delusion. I will continue to treat her like a woman because that is what she actually is… And because I actually am a man.

1 - First, let’s step back and note similarities between this reasoning and conversations that are happening in the broader red-pill world – like a recent post urging men who see women giving a distress signal to “keep walking“ because they don’t “owe women anything.“

I would start off by noting to the ladies that if you cannot see connections between the smashing of the Christian patriarchy and Muslim countries where they punish a r*pist by r*ping his sister – and yes, that actually happened – then you need to pay more attention to what is going on in the world. Egalitarianism can only survive on the fumes of a Christian ethic, where men still treat women with respect. Because men carve out a safe space for women, women are then able to pretend that they are the same as the men.

If you smash the Christian patriarchy, I promise, the alternative will be far worse. The egalitarian pipe dream that men, like Atlas, will continue to hold up the world, while women insist that they owe men nothing, will result in Atlas shrugging.

So ladies. Repent of your feminism. Repent of your wh*redom. Repent of your OnlyFans. Repent of your immodesty. Repent of your rebellion. Return to what God made you to be, and delight in being under both the authority and the protection of good men.

2 - Now, back to the good men. Since everybody prefers to look at the speck in their brother’s eye, it is popular for the feminist to yell about the patriarchy, and popular for the red-pill to yell about bad women. But the Christian approach is different, and it begins with the log in in one’s own eye.

So let’s return to the original conversation. First, we must address a fundamental premise that is often posited by the men in the “go make a pie“ camp. This fundamental premise is that women should not be involved in public discourse… Like… At all. I have yet to see this clearly defined or argued for. It’s usually just a naked assumption.

“If women want to get involved in public discourse, then we will respond to them like they are men, because they are in public discourse where only men belong.”

So are women allowed to talk in mixed company? Are they allowed to have opinions on anything outside of homemaking? Can they discuss those opinions? This really needs to be defined, because so far it’s basically a matter of whatever gives the based bros feminism-feels. And whenever we are legislating arbitrarily we are in dangerous territory.

I completely agree with Isaiah 3:12 that women in positions of political power and public office are a sign of judgment. That’s not the same thing as a woman having a Twitter account. This bare assertion does not cut the mustard.

You might argue that it’s more appropriate for a woman to focus her energy on her Titus 2 endeavors in the home. I largely agree. We need more home-minded women.

(Furthermore, usually men should focus more energy on their obligations in their homes and vocations. The Internet is a time waster for everybody.)

You might should say that women should be characterized by a gente and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God (1 Pet. 3). Amen.

So say that.

Still does not prove that women are not allowed to voice any opinions publicly. This blanket imposition that a woman stating an opinion in public is THUH FEMINISM - (Except for the women that agree with us and do exactly what we think they should) - This is silly.

This must be established, because this has been used as justification for the following premise. If it is true that public discourse – including posting to social media about politics or religion or culture – is something that is only the province of men, then all women who do this are putting themselves in the place of men. They are implicit feminists. They are like white people with white guilt in the leftist framework – guilty of a subconscious worldview that they don’t even know that they hold.

3 - If that premise is accepted – which it should not be, at least not without argumentation and definition – then the next premise is:

All women who put themselves in the place of men should be treated like men.

(We should manhandle them and be gruff and rude and rough with them to put them in their place.)

This proposition must also be proven.

Let’s do a thought experiment. Let’s say that America is going to decide whether or not to put her daughters on the front lines, and she is going to decide this by having a martial arts contest between a man and a woman.

If the woman wins, we put our daughters on the front lines. If the man wins, we don’t. (And also, the 19th amendment gets repealed. Let’s keep things fair. Again, the assumption that men should readily die for women, but that women do not have any obligation towards men is not Christian, biblical, natural, or rational.)

OK, the two contenders are chosen. Now, if you know anything about sports, you know that the statistical probability of the man winning the fight is astronomical. So at this point, he has three options.

The first option is the “white knight“ option. The man throws the fight. He lets her win, or maybe he just forfeits at the outset. Who is he to get in the way of a strong empowered woman who is pursuing her dreams?

This isn’t actually loving. It is participating in a lie, insulating this woman from reality – which will find her eventually – and condemning the daughters of America to a role that they are not suited for.

The second option is the red-pill option. In this option, the man attacks the woman with maximum ferocity. By the end of the fight, she has eight broken ribs, a dislocated shoulder, a concussion, and a fractured hip. Because men don’t owe women anything.

Moral reprehensibility aside, this is a terrible argument. The entire sympathy of the audience is now with the woman. The women of America are not interested in giving up their vote to the kind of men who are happy to bludgeon them.

Now, judging by the Internet, these are the only two options. Thankfully, the Internet is stupid. There is a third option.

4 - What if the man decisively and calmly wins the fight, using as much force as necessary to win a clear and clean victory without breaking a sweat, and yet taking pains to be as gentle as he can with his weaker opponent?

The same thought experiment can be applied to a more realistic scenario. Let’s say a fight breaks out in the high school cafeteria. A teen girl, for some completely unjustified reason, is screaming at and hitting a teen boy. What should he do?

The white knight simply stands there and takes it. He lets the woman vent all of her emotions and does not introduce her to any form of reality check.

The red-piller executes a classic takedown, and then pounds on her face for a while.

How would you counsel your son?

I would encourage him to use whatever force necessary to stop her from hurting him, and no more. Push her away. Put her in an arm lock. Strike her with an open hand.

She needs to know that this sort of conduct is not only not OK but that she is completely out of her league. But you need to teach her this without turning yourself into a monster.

5 - Now let’s get back to the Internet dialogue. I think that the ramifications of the thought experiment should be pretty straightforward. Christian men should courageously rebuke all sin, including the sins of women. They should rebuke feminism, even when it makes conservative women mad. They should speak the truth straightforwardly, without fear of man – or woman.

However, they should also speak the truth in love, and with wisdom. The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable. So generally, whether speaking to a man or to a woman, this will include not resorting to name-calling, insults, and other forms of avoiding the question. While mockery has its place, its place is a much smaller one than it is granted by the Internet.

So yes, Christian men should rebuke women. But they should rebuke women as Christian men. It’s not about what the women deserve. It’s about who we are in Christ.

To return to the opening exhortation from the red-pill Tweet, “keep walking“- I am very glad that Jesus did not keep walking.

And He is my example.

He did not wait for His bride to deserve it. He gave his life anyway.

He did not abdicate His authority. He did not simply bow to her every whim. He did not pretend that she had no obligations towards Him.

But He did act first, and selflessly. He did use His strength for the protection of the weak, not because the weak deserved it, but because that is how the truly strong behave.

And we know this, because Christ is the truly strong One.

So rebuke women. Offend them as much as is necessary.

But let the offense be the truth.

Not our ability to present the truth in the most offensive way possible.

(Photo credit CSA Images)