The point of this post is that when Driscoll starts talking about gender and people start pushing back there is a lot of stuff that starts flying around: Agentic motives, gender role interests, educational fissures, power and misogyny. It all blends together in a conversational stew ostensibly about “real guys.” And if we are not clear about what we are talking about we talk past each other. In favor of Driscoll, our lack of clarity means we miss the important and legitimate points he is making. On the side of Driscoll’s critics, a lack of clarity means we get distracted by trivial issues (e.g., chickified church leaders) and fail to corner the critical issues of male chauvinism and misogyny.
Just read the post.
- Mark Driscoll admits being “chauvinistic” (gentlewisdom.org)