This morning, hanging out with my friend Amy, we were discussing a blogpost written by an uber-conservative boy, reviewing the movie The Avengers. We strongly disagreed on his take of the movie, but...you know, to each his/her own, right?
Then I read something extremely disturbing.
Speaking of the Black Widow/Romanoff (played by Scarlett Johansson), this boy, named Gabriel Hudelson, wrote:
I wanted to conquer her, to remind her that I'm a man, and she's a woman, and she can't 'take me'.**
I've grown in a circle of friends where everyone looks down on tough women. A girl who takes down guys? Sinful. Feminist. Unchristlike. These are the words attached to these women. But what this boy has written about this character goes beyond that. The thought this boy has portrayed implies an excuse to rape. When has Christianity come to this? Belittling women and their strength? Where boys have to "conquer" women in order to prove their masculinity...where boys are so insecure and lazy that strong women scare them.
They should be scared. Maybe it'll scare the laziness out of them.
Just because a woman is strong, doesn't mean she isn't in alignment with God or rejecting femininity. Strong female characters are what the movie world needs.
As a woman, I don't need a man to save me. I don't need, nor want, a "knight in shining armor" to save me. Boys, I don't need you. The only person who can save me is God. Beyond that? Myself. This is not a post to promote feminism (though I am very much a supporter of feminists, in the sense that I seek equal rights)...this post is about women of strength.
God created me as an individual, to be strong and gifted and able to serve Him. To rely on Him. To be strong in Him. This means, I will be strong even when boys are weak, insecure, scared, lazy...I will not belittle myself, lower myself, pretend to be weak in order to boost a boy's ego. Who I am is not defined by a boy. I, myself, and my God define who I am. I prove my worth by following the calling of God, by using my God-given gifts to worship and serve Him, not boys.
Do you notice how I keep using the word boy? I say this because only a boy would be insecure enough to implicate rape as a means of keeping women in control.
Women are not in need of being controlled. In fact, we are in need of being raised higher, our strengths being recognized and acknowledged and encouraged. We are strong because that is how we are meant to be, there is a need for strong women because the world needs to see, to understand, that women do not need men to be a strong person. It is not a sin to be single and strong.
This is not to belittle marriage or a strong relationship between a husband and wife, where they support and encourage and lift each other up. This post is solely about the fact that women are meant to be strong and should never pretend to be weak when they are not. All for the sake of a boy.
Be strong, girls. Take courage, take initiative...create a life for yourselves! Do not rely on boys to define you. That is not how God has created us! Be who you were created to be, be strong because that is how He meant for you to be.
Next time...
Women of strength in movies are needed...
**Full blogpost found here:
http://allauthority.blogspot.com/2012/10/review-avengers.html
I spent about 5 minutes tracking down the blog you mentioned, just because your post inspired me so. Thank you for sharing this. It's... something I needed to hear today.
ReplyDeleteAw, I'm so glad something I wrote could inspire you, Olivia! And although this will sound completely random, you actually inspire me on Pinterest with all your awesome pins. ;)
DeleteWow. Just wow. I read that boy's post and. Oh. My. Word. I could pick that thing apart and rip it to shreds.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Sam! I don't agree with *everything* you said (but I mean, people can't agree on every little thing, can they?) But I agree with a whole lot of it! Really good post.
I especially liked "boy" versus "man" not many people seem to share my pet peeve on the difference between the two.
I agree, Caroline, I knew a lot of people wouldn't agree with every little thing I wrote, but I'm glad you were able to take away the main point of the post! :)
DeleteHi Samantha, Amy P. is a sweet friend of ours (and yours!) and she and her family are friends with my husband on Facebook. We love the P. family and treasure their friendships. By God's sovereignty, I opened Amy's fb post on this blog article in my husband's fb account. I say God's sovereignty because I only pop on fb to look for current news articles from trusted sources, so this blog post is something I would not typically read (I am a busy mom of 7!). But what caught my eye was our dear friends' son's name whom you refer to as an "uber-conservative boy" - so then I was drawn to read your whole post. While Gabriel is a genuine, Christian young man who does not need my husband or I to defend him, my husband has responded to Amy's post not only defending his character, but his view and I would like to exhort and encourage you here to not slander a brother's name. You could have very easily shared your views without mentioning his name. However, you have now sent morsels down into your blog followers' hearts regarding this young man you or they in all probability do not know and have gravely misunderstood. Please take a few minutes to read the following post: http://yoursacredcalling.com/blog/2010/07/smoking-keyboards-and-razor-mouthed-christians/. Although you don't know me, I write to you in the spirit of a Titus 2 woman, in the love of Christ, encouraging you to become all aspects of the woman God is calling you to be. With much Love, Mrs. Ward
ReplyDeleteMrs. Ward,
DeleteActually the very reason I mentioned Gabriel Hudelson's name on my blog was because I directly quoted him. Whenever I directly quote someone, I always credit them. I think you're forgetting that Gabriel publicly posted his own opinions. While I don't believe Gabriel meant to implicate rape by his words, there is a very strong sense of aggression behind his words, which implicates some form of abuse. Rape was the first thing that popped into my mind. If you'll look through the comments on that particular post by Gabriel, you will see that someone else came to the same conclusion. In fact, I discussed this very blogpost with a group of girl-friends, who all came to the same conclusion. This is not just something I am pulling out of thin air. This is an implication that many have come to, even though I do not believe that was Gabriel's original intention.
His thought process in wanting to aggressively control women who are stronger than himself is very disturbing and as it is something I have seen quite often in conservative circles, I have finally sought to address it and encourage my fellow "sisters in Christ" to reject such dangerous notions and strive to be the strong women God has called them to be.
Mrs. Ward, the term you're looking for is 'libel' not 'slander.' Slander is specifically non-written defamation of character. What Sam has done, however, is neither slander nor libel, because directly quoting what someone else wrote and attached their own name to is not false defamation of character.
DeletePerhaps you would be better served directing your energy towards chastising Mr. Hudelson's aggressive, unloving attitude toward women that he doesn't find personally pleasing.
Mrs. Roberts
Critiquing a public blog post is not "slander" nor is it "libel". If people can't stand being disagreed with or told they are wrong, they shouldn't write public articles on the internet. What that boy wrote is highly disturbing and Sam was right to comment on it. What he is promoting is not "God's plan for men and women" but what we know of as The Curse, a cycle of men and women trying to dominate each other that was the result of sin. We as followers of Jesus are not called to perpetuate the Curse in our relationships, but to promote grace and love and kindness, like the One we worship who broke the Curse. I truly hope that boy can see how damaging his view toward women is before it hurts him further.
Delete~Mrs. Saffer
I don't exactly agree with you on this subject. I don't think that men and women or boys and girls are supposed to be equal. Many times in the Bible, it speaks of men being the head of the home, and providing for their wives. Now, I'm not exactly surer if you were talking about marriage here, but wives are supposed to submit to your husbands. in 1 Peter 3:7, it says: 'Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.'
ReplyDeleteI assure you, there is absolutely nothing wrong with women and girls standing strong for their beliefs. Amy Carmichael did that in India. And lots of other woman missionaries did that as well. I do not even 1% support feminism. But when it comes to marriage, the woman is the weaker vessel, and we need to submit to our husbands. That is the reason we have so many divorces these days...because the man wanted to control the woman, and the woman wanted to control the man. You never had this many divorces back then...why? Because women knew that they had to submit to men.
Sorry this comment is so long, and sorry I don't agree with you. But that is what I believe.
I hope you have a great day!
-Christy
Christy,
DeleteActually, if you had paid closer attention to my blogpost, you would have noted where I had written:
"This is not to belittle marriage or a strong relationship between a husband and wife, where they support and encourage and lift each other up. This post is solely about the fact that women are meant to be strong and should never pretend to be weak when they are not. All for the sake of a boy."
While I strongly disagree with your views on wives submitting to husbands, and the implication you made about divorce being the fault of women not submitting, that was not the point of my blogpost. I'm sorry you completely missed the actual point.
That's good then.
DeleteNo, women are not supposed to act weak for the sake of a boy. That is not what I was implying at all. But, women are supposed to submit. submitting does not mean being weak, it means obeying God's words.
I don't see why you don't think women should submit, because that is clearly what it says in the Bible. No, divorce is not all women's fault. Notice, I said men want to control women and women want to control men. Our whole human nature is just so power-thirsty. We just want to control everyone else. But that is not God's way for us to live. We need to submit to certain people sometimes. And in a wife's case, it is their husband that they need to submit to.
But I see now what you meant on the blogpost. And for the most-part, it is correct. But it is totally okay if you believe one thing, and I believe another.
I'm sorry for any misunderstandings.
I really like your blog, by the way:)
I hope we can still be blogger friends even though we believe slightly different things:)
-Christy
While I'm not about to get into the whole submission debate here in the comment section of my blog (simply because it is beyond the point of my blogpost), I still disagree. And that's okay.
DeleteIf you'll note, the very reason I wrote up the blogpost was because a boy had publicly written that he wanted to control a woman, in a rather aggressive manner. This kind of thought process can easily lead to abuse, which is not something I want any girl to fall into. I believe women should reject the idea that they need to belittle themselves for a boy's sake. The opportunities for abuse just become that much bigger! Incredibly sad. :(
Of course, we can still be blogger friends. ;) I don't shun people for simply disagreeing with me. :) Glad you enjoy my blog!
Yes, that is okay! :)
DeleteOkay, yes, I understand! And it is incredibly sad! I misunderstood your post...sorry:/
That's great:) neither do I. There is someone I follow that believes something totlly different than me, but I still like her:)
Glad we resolved this:P
-Christy
It's always great to have friends who have various beliefs. It helps you to see other sides of a picture and makes you question and search what you really know. :)
DeleteCan I ask how you found my blog?
Exactly!
DeleteLet's see...I think I found it from Sarah Vincent's blog somewhere. I don't exactly remember though. But I think that is where I found it from:)
Ah, yes, I know Sarah. :) She's the sister of one of my best friends. :)
DeleteWhen I was 18, and my future husband asked my dad to court me, my dad told him, "She is very strong-willed, independent, and stubborn". My man replied "And that's a bad thing?" That was the first glimpse of real manhood that I had seen in a guy my age. And you can bet I kept him. ;) All the other guys I knew at that time were just boys....boys that thought being a man meant subduing a woman and having her follow him. But here was a man that thought being a man meant loving a woman and wanting a woman that would walk next to him in his life and be strong enough to take whatever life threw at them, independent enough to take care of herself and his children no matter what happened to him. 11 years later, we are just as determined to reverse the Curse in our relationship and to prove that two strong people can live in mutual love and respect, both bringing strengths and weaknesses and filling in where the other lacks. So there's my story. Sam, what you said is right on. Who you are is not defined by a boy. You should not lower yourself just to gain the "love" of a boy who cannot love you for your strength. This seems to be the message that the Church is promoting these days toward your girls and I cringe whenever I hear it. Keep writing the truth and encouraging other girls to be who God created them and not to settle for a boy.
ReplyDeleteThanks for sharing that, Darcy! It's definitely encouraging! I know how tempting it can be for girls to lower themselves so that boys will be "attracted" to them...it's hard to wait, but it is always worth more to wait than to settle for less, to turn into someone you are not. Especially when doing so places you in an abusive situation.
DeleteHey Sam!
ReplyDeleteYour post has really made me think. When I consider that paragraph in light of the perspective that you're coming from here, I can definitely understand your concerns.
If that paragraph were to be taken by itself, it would have some very dangerous ramifications!
You're also right in saying that that's not what I intended; I've revised the post to reflect what I've learned from your observations. Thank you for reminding me to be extra careful with the words that I use.