«

»

Dec 18 2005

The Godbag Feminist

Clueless Episcopal priest godbag-with-a-blog fancies self “notable feminist” ; deludes self re: feminism.

[From the Episcopal Womens Caucus:] “A feminist is anyone who believes that God created males and females equally human.”

That put me squarely in the feminist camp. I thought about who else in the world today might be a feminist also. I began a list:

George W. Bush, feminist
Pope Benedict XVI, feminist
Bishop Jack Iker, feminist
Sean Connery, feminist
Pat Robertson, feminist”

He further deduces that athiests can’t be feminists, which absurd reasoning puts me squarely in the non-feminist camp. I can’t believe I’ve been blaming the patriarchy for nothing all these years.

[thanks Stingray, who, incidentally, just started her own blog yesterday]

28 comments

3 pings

  1. wordgirl

    Dear Twisty,

    I was horrified to discover that Father Dipshit (whose blog you hyperlinked) hails from the same place where I went to Kindergarten. This numbnut was not there when I was learning my colors and numbers (1965), but I’m worried that the kind of karma/atmosphere that might attract such delusional cretins as this guy might have infiltrated the wrinkles of my young, impressionable brain. Should I worry? Should I have my brain bleached or is it too late?

    Signed,
    Frantic and Creeped Out

  2. Timothy Matkin

    I’m glad to see that you appear to be in agreement that the definition of feminist offered by the Episcopal Women’s Caucus is indeed not exactly a clear and accurate definition.

    P.S. Life is to short to be frantic and creeped out.

  3. Nia

    I think that would be an accurate definition of a Christian feminist; whatever they say, non-feminists don’t believe that men and women are equal.

  4. binky

    I suppose the “and after they are born they are totally fucked, dude” is implicit in the definition of Chritian feminism?

  5. Dr. Virago

    which absurd reasoning puts me squarely in the non-feminist camp. I can’t believe I’ve been blaming the patriarchy for nothing all these years.

    OK, my head is exploding in confusion now. I’m also laughing my ass off.

  6. CafeSiren

    Actually, Binky, that’s pretty much correct. I’ve studied a bit of early Christianity and its not-too-much-later interpretations with an eye to gender systems, and the consensus (based on Late Antique and Medieval interpretations of Pauline and Pseudo-Pauline texts) seems to have been that a) God created men & women as spiritual equals, but b) this musn’t necessarily equate with equality on Earth. Blame compromises that early Christians made to get picked up by the rigorously pro-male Roman empire (plus whatever 2nd-c. mysogynist fucks wrote Timothy & Titus and then attributed them to Paul).

    (See what happens when the semester ends and academics have nothing better to do?)

  7. Becket

    It’s a weird world where this guy declares himself a feminist and I have declared myself not to be.

  8. TimT

    I’m just amused by his suggestion that anyone not creationist can’t be a feminist. It’s all a bit confusing for me – I mean, didn’t you say a couple of months ago that feminists were closeted Klingons?

    Speaking of which, here’s more evidence for that hypothesis:

    A DISABLED woman bit off the tip of an alleged rapist’s tongue as he tried to attack her, police said today, in the third such case of self-defence in Thailand in 14 months.

    Sunthorn Sunthornkuna, 51, whose right eye is blind and whose right leg is deformed, visited a Bangkok police station on Saturday night to file a complaint that security guard Boonrawd Kannawan, 41, tried to attack her.
    “She had bitten some 2cm off his tongue and spat it out at the scene,” police Lieutenant Weerachai Silpa said.

    Police arrested Boonrawd late on Saturday night while he was being treated at a private hospital in nearby Phatum Thani province and said he confessed to the attack.

    On August 28, Thai police said they would collect DNA tests to confirm a woman’s claims she bit off the tongue of a teenager who allegedly tried to rape her.

    Advertisement:
    In October 2004, a 17-year-old girl visited a police station in Thailand carrying a plastic bag containing a 2.5cm piece of the tongue of a man who she claimed had tried to rape her.

  9. Grace

    HELLO!!! The godbag priest is MOCKING feminism! Ignore him!

    Of course, the EWC came up with a definition that’s pretty easy to mock. But really, it’s just the translation into Christian terms of “A feminist is someone who believes that women are people”.

    Other than that, what CafeSiren said.

    – a female Christian feminist not-godbag ordination candidate who believes that subscription to the Nicene Creed is perfectly reconcilable with feminism, environmentalism, hyper-lefty progressive politics, and queer-friendliness, thank you very much.

  10. Twisty

    Grace, you reveal no secrets when you suggest that Fr. Matkin, who responds above with revealing condescension, oozes unchristianlike derision for us deluded heathen fools who find white male oppression distasteful and are dubious that our murdering psychopath president possesses feminist credentials.

  11. Asilon

    I have no idea whether Fr Matkin honestly considers himself a feminist or not, but I read his blog entry as taking the piss out of the EWC for their totally fatuous definition; I didn’t think for one moment that he was writing sincerely. Perhaps the patriarchy has warped my sense of humour.

  12. Cantrixargenta

    I also thought he was taking the piss out of the EWC statement. Whether he was trying to make a point that they have a crappy definition of feminism and should be real feminists, or that they have a crappy definiton of feminism and should get back in the kitchen and not think too much, I’m not sure. Episcopalians/Anglicans have a weird sense of humour like that (a sense of humour developed via committee). (Hoo hoo, Epi/Angli in-joke!) When they get like that, best to distract them with a quiet word about how the youth group doesn’t want to sing “Shine, Jesus, Shine” anymore.

  13. banana slug

    I also got the impression Fr. Matkin finds the EWC definition ridiculous. He makes a similar statement in his own comments section. I think you might be jumping on somebody who (at least partly) agrees with you.

  14. Joolya

    Reading on I’m more and more convinced this guy’s post was tongue-in-cheek.

    (PS Where the hell does that phrase come from?)

  15. ae

    I almost retched reading that list of supposed feminists, which offends, even if an example of extreme irony. Hellfire-and-brimstone types will never believe women and men are “equally fully human.” So fuck them. I think it was Jeebus who said, Subjugate Thy Female Neighbor Through Force, Keep Her as Chattel, and Above All Control Her Sexual Expression, for the Male Godbag is Divine. /quote

    Joolya, see this.

  16. zuzu

    My aunt, a 71-year-old, Vatican II-type nun, *still* won’t call Himself anything but “Cardinal Ratzinger.” Rock on, Aunt Louise.

  17. Simon

    On the basis of this post alone I don’t think he deserves the roasting he’s getting. He was clearly deriding the “definition” of feminism as seen by the EWC. He may dislike the EWC (particularly the “W” part) and that may be the reason for lampooning their definition but I see no evidence of that in his post. Maybe the rest of his blog will reveal him as a Godbag woman-hater.

  18. wordgirl

    If the Fr. Matkin is really being sarcastic about the screwy definition of feminism, why would he consider himself part of the same company of asshats like Robertson and Bush? It’s one thing to laugh at the notion of these two idiots being feminists…or even the idea that organized religion believes that women and men are equal. But to place yourself on the same team as that list of crazy robber barons is basically akin to outing himself as a misogynist in feminist’s clothing. The reason why we’re so confused is that Malkin is also a bad writer who can’t make himself understood.

  19. frippy

    Actually, most of those sentiments were expressed by the Apostle Paul who more or less founded the Christian religion as we know it. Not that I’m an apologist for Jeebus and His followers… just sayin’.

  20. frippy

    This reminds me of a conversation I had this weekend with a Christian man. I expressed one of my major hangups with his religion (and all religions in particular) which is, how am I supposed to be thankful to God for making me the supposedly inferior sex? How am I supposed to joyfully submit to a man when I have as much free will as any man? Wouldn’t God want me to have an independent, personal relationship with It, rather than have it parsed to me (in small words, so I can understand, natch) by a husband who might not even be on the right track anyhow? What I was told, as some attempt to explain the inferiority in positive-sounding terms, was that you know, men have to submit to God but God has to be a good master, so the same thing is between men and women — in other words, yes, I need to be shackled, but they’re shiny shackles lined with marabou feathers and applied with the greatest gentleness by my tender male master! Isn’t this the kind of reasoning supporters of slavery used to make themselves feel like they weren’t immoral fuckheads?

    Anyhow, the point is that I think the guy who wrote this thinks being a feminist is being one of those nice oppressors who puts his woman in designer chains. Wheeee…. :(

  21. Timothy Matkin

    Hmmm. My normal readership has no difficulty in grasping the concept of sarcasm.

  22. Timothy Matkin

    Granted that it was only Kindergarten, I’m sure Father Beste would want us to express our regret for having failed to open your mind.

  23. AyMayZed

    Yes wordgirl, your analysis has the most merit.
    I doubt that Fr. Matkin wanted to appear to be as vinegary as the article makes him seem.

    His failure to get to any point reminds me most of the pathetic Mr Casaubon in Middlemarch.
    Do you agree that one should not play Dorothea to such obscureness lest it prolongs the man’s agony?

    Or is it a case of:
    “A man’s mind, what there is of it, has always the advantage of being masculine, as the smallest birch tree is of a higher kind than the most soaring palm – and even his ignorance is of a sounder quality.” also from Middlemarch.

  24. wordgirl

    I have no difficulty (nor others) grasping the concept of sarcasm when it’s not expressed in convoluted terms. If Fr. Matkin feels he’s being misunderstood, he should step forward and and say so. Perhaps he just enjoys reading our attempts to grasp at the straws of his scattered rationalizations. But–then–that’s the patriarchy for you! He’s able to express himself SO much better when writing about something toward which he has more empathy…like James Bond.

  25. Timothy Matkin

    Or food. And yes, it is enjoyable.

  26. Marie

    Huhn? Twisty, your piss-taking is usually so accurate that I had to read Matkin’s post twice to confirm my initial thought that not only was it taking the piss, it was also fucking hilarious. I haven’t stopped patriarchy-blaming, but I’m off to read a little more of this fellow’s blog.

  27. Twisty

    We endeavor to give satisfaction, ma’am.

  28. Chameleon

    Dear twisty, I have never commented here before though I lurk as often as I can. Thank you for this link. As someone who lived under the baleful delusion of religion during my youthful years my skin creeps whenever I come across scum like the author of that dismal pile of dung. I commented on it as follows: “The basic elements for a gynocidal campaign – an ideology of male supremacy, a vivid imagination of (particularly female) sexual filth, loathing of eroticism, belief in the sanctity of marriage and the family, and the containment of women in male-controlled in-stitutions” Jane Caputi in Violence Against Women, London, Sage, 1993, p18
    Sounds like your average Christian to me. Feminism and Christianity (or indeed any other delusion devised to legitimate the social order by removing it from the realm of rational criticism as divinely planned and ordained) are incompatible. I choose feminism because I don’t believe in female inferiority upheld and sanctioned by men in frocks reciting mumbo-jumbo. Atheists are more likely to challenge injustice and question prevalent belief systems/attitudes since they are free from the cringing subservience of the opium-addicted (in Marx’s sense) “faithful”.

  1. Pharyngula

    Sorry, Ladies

    I'm not a feminist anymore. Twisty has just found the new definition of feminism.

    "A feminist is anyone who believes that God created males and females equally human."

    Under that definition, Pat Robertson is a feminist, and I'm…

  2. Glurp at I Blame The Patriarchy

    [...] Oh by the way, the consensus seems to be that the Godbag Feminist turns out to have been a parody or something. Well, my young rector, lucky you. In my experience, there’s nothing more satisfying than to have one’s devastatingly clever satire completely misread by some arrogant jerk. [...]

  3. Billigflüge

    Billig Flüge

    Billigflüge zum billig fliegen

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>