Interesting Article!

[Hetta]

It's a short blog article.....like Hetta said, a jumping off point. I'm not sure what sort of "practical" advice you're looking for.

It's hardly intended to be a step-by-step guide.

 

[McScribe]

I don't find the advice "useless" or "counterproductive". Perhaps because I can use articles like this to discuss these attitudes with my children. It's a good jumping off point for us to have a discussion. Maybe parents see it differently to non-parents.

I've been a parent. I lead children's ministry at my church. And checking over the 144 or more comments on his blog, I haven't seen any discussion, just a lot of declarations and more platitudes, nothing actually practical.

 

[Hetta]

IDC what it says on the blog and I'm talking about having discussions with my own children. I wouldn't waste my energy having discussions on a blog. Now that is counterproductive.

 

[McScribe]

It's a short blog article.....like Hetta said, a jumping off point. I'm not sure what sort of "practical" advice you're looking for.

No excuse. Jesus manages to use parables as illustrations, and they're not very long at all, shorter in most cases than the blog post. The Apostles manage to teach on morality quite effectively in what are mostly short letters. For example, Paul teaches on how to address our elders when correcting them--by offering respectful advice rather than defying them. But where's the general guideline in this pastor's remarks? I don't see them. He talks around the subject.

I'm not trying to villainize the guy, I'm sure he's a decent fellow trying to do a good job. However he's falling into a trap I see a lot of modern church leaders doing, of meandering around subjects rather than speaking to them bluntly and directly. I mean both VG and I pointed out the basis of how the conversation could be more effective, but you seem to have trouble accepting that.

 

[mkgal1]

1. The pastor makes the main point about holding power over women and about violence and misogyny, and that "as men, our value does not come from how much power we hold over women."

2. The 'conversations with daughters' he links to barely refer to men at all; they refer only to self respect and decency.

3. So boys are being told that they need to be intentional in the way that they treat others, while girls are being told that they need to be intentional in the way that they treat themselves.

I see both Thicke and Cyrus making choices, but while the pastor feels that there has been too much talk of Cyrus and finds it acceptable that she has been told essentially to have more self respect, he calls Thicke and by proxy other boys and men on how their collective responses to women affect society. That is why I call it lopsided.

Right.......men's value doesn't come from how much power they hold over women.....their value comes from being respected and being loved as they respect and love the people who matter to them [same for women].

I suspect those linked articles about conversations with daughters don't make reference to boys because it's not something within their control (they can only be "in charge" of their own selves). Self-respect *does* flow over into how we treat others (whether they are male or female)....so, there's really no need to magnify that there is any special conditions for another gender.

Like I said earlier......those choices were made within a corrupt system (a system that Miley obviously is willing to pay the price to be a part of).

 

[McScribe]

Right.......men's value doesn't come from how much power they hold over women.....their value comes from being respected and being loved as they respect and love the people who matter to them [same for women].

I suspect those linked articles about conversations with daughters don't make reference to boys because it's not something within their control (they can only be "in charge" of their own selves). Self-respect *does* flow over into how we treat others (whether they are male or female)....so, there's really no need to magnify that there is any special conditions for another gender.

Like I said earlier......those choices were made within a corrupt system (a system that Miley obviously is willing to pay the price to be a part of).

Let me see if I understand this--so women and girls have no sexual power so there is no need to talk to them about how their behaviour affects others.

On the other hand men and boys do have sexual power so there is a need to talk to them about how their behaviour affects others.

Am I understanding your point here?

 

[mkgal1]

I mean both VG and I pointed out the basis of how the conversation could be more effective, but you seem to have trouble accepting that.

I tried to get you to clarify that earlier. I'm having "trouble accepting that" because, I don't know what "that" is.

 

[mkgal1]

However he's falling into a trap I see a lot of modern church leaders doing, of meandering around subjects rather than speaking to them bluntly and directly

I disagree. To me, this article (in the OP) is direct----not "meandering".

 

[McScribe]

I disagree. To me, this article (in the OP) is direct----not "meandering".

If you're fine with it, then there's nothing further to be discussed between us on this subject.

 

[mkgal1]

Let me see if I understand this--so women and girls have no sexual power so there is no need to talk to them about how their behaviour affects others.

On the other hand men and boys do have sexual power so there is a need to talk to them about how their behaviour affects others.

Am I understanding your point here?

Power ought not be the dynamic (that's driven by fear---in opposition to God's love).

No.....you're not understanding my point. Neither is that the point of the article (from my understanding). The main point is:

Our value comes from being respected and being loved as we respect and love the people who matter to us.~from the article linked by Eric Clapp

That's equal.....as if applies to male and female.

 

[mkgal1]

If you're fine with it, then there's nothing further to be discussed between us on this subject.

 

[mkgal1]

Just commenting on a few things that were raised earlier:

I see both Thicke and Cyrus making choices, but while the pastor feels that there has been too much talk of Cyrus and finds it acceptable that she has been told essentially to have more self respect, he calls Thicke and by proxy other boys and men on how their collective responses to women affect society. That is why I call it lopsided.

I'm still struggling to see how this is what you first meant when you said that the author is protecting "her" as if she were Dulcinea, who is actually making her own choices. I asked if you meant Miley or women in general.....and this is your response?

Also......what *else* do you believe needs to be said to Miley (that's what is seems like you're suggesting when you are disappointed the author "finds it acceptable that she has basically been told to essentially have more self respect".)? I don't (FTR) believe the author believes that Miley (specifically) needs to be "told" anything.....that it's more about our own children and what *they* should be taught. Miley is out of our jurisdiction.....and, most likely, doesn't have the ears to hear us (IOW.....she's NOT interested).

I mean both VG and I pointed out the basis of how the conversation could be more effective, but you seem to have trouble accepting that.

All I saw that you said was that it was lopsided. I never saw any direct ways the conversation could be more effective (well......you said something more "practical") Isn't it practical to suggest that we speak to our boys about how their value comes from being respected and being loved as they respect and love the people who matter to them?

 

[Tropical Wilds]

A whole lot more would have to occur for the genders to be reversed.

Meaning?

 

[McScribe]

I'm still struggling to see how this is what you first meant when you said that the author is protecting "her" as if she were Dulcinea, who is actually making her own choices. I asked if you meant Miley or women in general.....and this is your response?

Yes it is my response. Let me try again though. I think that Miley's actions are taken to be representative of women who behave in an overtly sexual manner outside of a private intimate relationship.

Also......what *else* do you believe needs to be said to Miley (that's what is seems like you're suggesting when you are disappointed the author "finds it acceptable that she has basically been told to essentially have more self respect".)? I don't (FTR) believe the author believes that Miley (specifically) needs to be "told" anything.....that it's more about our own children and what *they* should be taught. Miley is out of our jurisdiction.....and, most likely, doesn't have the ears to hear us (IOW.....she's NOT interested).

See above--Miley's example is taken to be representative, not literal.

[/quote]
All I saw that you said was that it was lopsided. I never saw any direct ways the conversation could be more effective (well......you said something more "practical") Isn't it practical to suggest that we speak to our boys about how their value comes from being respected and being loved as they respect and love the people who matter to them?[/quote]

I didn't actually see that the remarks made to young women (the theoretical or actual daughters in the other blog entries and articles) were any more effective, actually.

For example imagine being an adolescent reading the pastor's views or the mothers' views--what is actually being said?

1. To what extent should young women not imitate Miley Cyrus?
2. How should young men respond to women they find overtly sexually attractive?
3. If people should demonstrate mutual respect--what does that actually look like? Should young men take overtly aggressive sexual behaviour from women to be disrespect for themselves?

There are, in my opinion, many more questions that could be asked or issues surrounding what was said that could be discussed.

 

[akmom]

I'm not trying to villainize the guy, I'm sure he's a decent fellow trying to do a good job. However he's falling into a trap I see a lot of modern church leaders doing, of meandering around subjects rather than speaking to them bluntly and directly.

Robin Thicke should have physically removed himself from the situation - even if it caused an interruption in the song. He should not have put up with her unexpected antics any more than a woman would be expected to, on stage or not. Is that the sort of blunt/direct advice you mean?

I didn't actually see the performance, but I think the descriptions in this thread are sufficient to form an opinion. Thicke becoming indignant and escaping the groping certainly would have made for a memorable scene also.

 

[McScribe]

Robin Thicke should have physically removed himself from the situation - even if it caused an interruption in the song. He should not have put up with her unexpected antics any more than a woman would be expected to, on stage or not. Is that the sort of blunt/direct advice you mean?

I didn't actually see the performance, but I think the descriptions in this thread are sufficient to form an opinion. Thicke becoming indignant and escaping the groping certainly would have made for a memorable scene also.

That is certainly a step in the right direction. That's actually advice that suggests what to do. Of course it's hard to say...how much was planned, how much spontaneous? Was he a willing participant? But certainly it would have been memorable.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Robin Thicke should have physically removed himself from the situation - even if it caused an interruption in the song. He should not have put up with her unexpected antics any more than a woman would be expected to, on stage or not. Is that the sort of blunt/direct advice you mean?

Somebody shouldn't have to torpedo their career to prevent somebody who's behaving inappropriately from doing so. This was arguably his most high-profile performance with the largest audience of his career. I think his non-engagement in what was going on, paired with his removal to a different stage when the songs transitioned as a pretty bold and proactive statement that he wasn't participating or condoning.

I didn't actually see the performance, but I think the descriptions in this thread are sufficient to form an opinion. Thicke becoming indignant and escaping the groping certainly would have made for a memorable scene also.

If you haven't seen the performance, how can you comment on what he did or didn't do or what he should or shouldn't have done? She touched him, he didn't respond to her or interact with her, he walked away, and he actively ignored her. It was a stark contrast to his normal performances where he dances, walks and dances around the stage, and is quite animated.

Honestly, again, I'm not a fan of either of them, but I think he acted clearly to show he wasn't approving of what was happening and was talking all the steps possible to maintain his professionalism, not contributing to embarrassing her, and then when the situation was correct, removing himself.

 

[ImperialPhantom]

I didn't actually see the performance

ok then

 

[mkgal1]

I didn't actually see the performance

ok then

Really....to get the full picture.....more than the VMA performance needs to be watched; RT's music video should also be taken into consideration (of which Miley was not a part of). IMO....she was chosen to perform with him for a reason (a calculated one.....is my guess).

 

[ImperialPhantom]

A few points on the Miley bit.

First off: Why is this so bloody shocking? Does NOBODY remember the late nineties and possibly early oughts when everybody thought that Marilyn Manson was literally a satanist, or when a sexualized 16 year old named Britney Spears was gyrating on stage? Come on dude. This is TAME stuff. Nobody does anything shocking anymore.

Second of all, the only reason she's getting slvt-shamed to this extent is because she used to be Hannah Montana. If Lady Gaga or Nicki Minaj did it, NOBODY would have said anything.

And third, why do pastors have to be so unoriginal as to have to use low-hanging fruit moments like this to teach a lesson? Can they be taught without using a reference to Miley or whatever the shock-of-the-moment is to sucker attention out of people? What about using the potential Syria conflict to illustrate how a house divided cannot stand, or using what's going on in North Carolina to understand what happens when oppression is attempted and people don't learn from history? No, instead we just want to slvt shame women. As does most of the Christian world. Hella lame.