We Don't Need No Magisterium: (Jason's Version) (But Actually, We Do)

She's right, you know. Women as such have nothing to do with this. Men are searching for the term that fits what they are feeling, what they are describing, and it's not enough. But they sense weakness, indecision, equivocation, compromise. And having been locked in the same cultural epistemic prison as the feminists they despise, they call the problem 'feminization.' But just as 'gender' is a stupid, imprecise word that means to undermine the very words we are trying to define, so are the terms used in this discussion. Does 'male and female' really mean something? Do these terms refer to something real? How many times have you heard, "Maleness or femaleness is a useless cultural construct"? A lot, right? Put it another way: The universal terms we might apply don't refer accurately to this thing or that; all that matters are the particulars. Ockham called; he wants his philosophy back. And when American men express frustration at the things they find in their worshipping communities, all they are doing is waging the same battle of redefining the terms, without asking and answering the first question: What does it mean to say 'I am a man'? And is that a real thing? If it is, if the terms that define us separately according to sex are real--there is a true correspondence between the universal concept "man" and me in particular--then we all have a duty to submit as individuals to the reality of that. Affirm it as true and then build upon it. We might have many interesting discussions about the particular ways we put the truth about ourselves into practice, but as it is written, "God made man in his own image; male and female he created them." That is to say, God is not an Ockhamist. When God defines and speaks, it simply is. The feminine is absolutely not a negation of me as a male. It is other in some sense, but if I were to declare it in opposition, I would be denying the image of God. It's right there in the verse. If God does not believe femaleness to be a negation of His image, why should I? Driscoll, while doubtless trying to affirm good things about males and maleness, has bought the lie that feminism uplifts women; it doesn't. It destroys, on purpose, the meaning of the words 'male' and 'female'. Then it gives us a vicious replacement of a word instead, purposely leaving it undefined, rooting for us to destroy each other: equality. I don't need to say anymore; the world-destroyers don't define it; why should I? In every discussion of sex and sexuality, they equivocate, like always. But 'equality' is a male bovine's fecal matter kind of word. My only caution to the author is not to accept undefined words and allow people to use them as clubs, as though we have agreed on what they mean. I affirm Amy in her femininity as such. We as a species have not always been so gracious to one another, which is to say, we have accepted the lie of negation. I will not; I am happy to be a man, to submit to its objective reality as a part of me.