So, my read on the Allie Beth Stuckey TPSUSA thing, if anyone saw her getting chewed out.
I think this is where the evangelical movement trying to get men in the door at all costs has gotten us. The new ideal of the evangelical man is a little boy.
The problem with audience
chasing and specifically chasing a young male audience is pretty clear now. If you look at the landscape of right wing and evangelical media for men right now, it's increasingly looking like a race to the bottom. People have figured out you can get more listeners than the other
guy if you appeal to an even more entitled and even lazier listenership than the person next to you. I had my issues with things like Promise Keepers but to their credit, they did expect men to do things.
Now if you listen to most of the Moscow people, it really sounds like
they're mostly trying to appeal to insolent third graders.
No, you should not be expected to do more than you did when you were eight (go to 7.5-8 hours of another responsibility and play), no you should be getting taken care of by your spouse, no you don't have to thank her,
no it's everyone else's fault you aren't living like this, you should have all the toys you want and all the entertainment you want and everyone should be taking care of you all the time and treating you like you're the most special boy and you shouldn't have to work for it.
I think when you look at the Brian Sauves of the world, that's mostly who their audience is. Guys who want to be eight for ever (but they want to add in sex.)
So, yeah. I think Stuckey is behind the times and she got to TPUSA and she told men to have responsibilities
and be disciplined and she got absolutely wrecked for it because she didn't realize that men go to TPUSA to be told to be eight year olds. That's the new evangelical dream. That's what the new Christian man is. Eight. He doesn't want to hear about his responsibilities.
He wants to hear about his entitlements.
So when people talk about young men going to church more and joining religious movement more, I have to admit it makes me a little anxious. I don't know if that's conversion or if a critical mass of Christian speakers have finally found a
low enough rung to get people in the door en masse.
I don't want to live in a country of men who think they're eight years old. But I'm increasingly afraid that's where we're headed.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Okay, here's why I don't like A Little Life.
I think it is incredibly frustrating when a book set in contemporary America shows a distinct lack of awareness of "how things work."
Especially if you're going to be telling a graphic, ostensibly believable story.
There's a lot of
sequences in A Little Life that sound like the author had a vague awareness of how things work but didn't bother to look stuff up.
That's lazy at best, but if you're trying to portray real social problems it almost gets cruel.
For example:
Yanagihara knows that kids in foster
care are more likely to be victims of child trafficking, it seems.
So how did Jude end up in foster care?
Because he was abandoned in a car seat next to a dumpster as a baby in contemporary New York and was taken in as a foundling by a group of monks.
You know, like the Middle
I’m not even saying this in a mean way, I’m just saying this in a cultural way.
This is not what retired evangelicals are like.
White American evangelical culture highly values self reliance and independence, or at least the performance of it.
White evangelical grandmas
didn’t grow up with other women in church taking care of their kids. They would balk at the idea they should start now.
Go to any big white evangelical church in the US and start asking the retirees if they will regularly drop in and provide cleaning and childcare to
younger families. I guarantee 90 percent of the responses you will get is “why can’t they do it themselves?”
I have incredibly kind, generous, retired parents. They are eager to help sick friends or people in extreme situations.
You know, one positive things I actually can say about Kirk is I can't imagine that he would want a database of people to track people who failed to praise him effusively enough after his death on pain of losing their livelihoods.
I actually don't think threatening people into complimenting him was the kind of thing he invested his time in.
The witch hunt, if you look at the posts, has fully moved into trying to get people fired for insufficient grief or suspected insincerity when they say things
like "I don't condone violence" because they don't sound personally devastated.
I have never seen much purpose or value in the "debate bro" circuit but I absolutely don't think "harassing people into sycophancy" is recognizable as a goal of these movements.
I don’t like bringing this up because we don’t know who did it and it doesn’t excuse violence either way.
But Kirk got his start by making a list of private citizens for supports to harass.
Remember the professor watch list?
I strongly favor civil dialogue but I truly am
struggling to think of a single person who has consistently modeled it.
I think the fantasy is much more along the lines of “monopolized chaos.” The dream of the day where WE are doing the attacking, but no defending.
That’s not peace. That’s not civility.
1/So, thinking about the economic news/price increases, and how this will impact how people see Trump.
My honest answer is "it won't."
I was definitely one of those people who followed all the NYT think pieces about trying to get out of my bubble and build bridges in 2016. It's
been ten years. At this point, I think there's only three kinds of people who still really like Trump.
I’m not talking about low information, low participation voters who voted for him in Arkansas and didn’t really think about it because they didn’t think it mattered.
I mean the people who really love the president and think he's dong a great job
I haven’t met any exceptions at this point, but in my experience, the field is now narrowed down to three kinds of people I’m going to call Barbara, Stu, and Kate.
I think one odd aspect of Christian apologia for passages about wives in the NT that rankle is that we actually really overplay the oppression of women in the first century outside of Christian contexts.
It's obviously not entirely wrong but there's still a fair amount of data
showing women doing things like initiating divorces, arranging their own marriages, and managing their own financial affairs.
In my last article I tried to not overly play the role of the "Rome apologist" but I do think a flattening narrative doesn't really serve anyone well.
I am fairly skeptical of the "hey, this passage in the NT is liberating to women, compared to everyone else out there!" because it's both true and not true. You can't really create a real picture of the practical situation of the women in the Roman Empire by drawing entirely on