This afternoon I’m giving a talk on how evolution, and fundamentally, the naturalistic fallacy, is abused all over the place, and then I find this open letter to the various heroines of recent movies, and I just want gak all over it. Not only does this guy call on bad biology to defend his traditionally misogynistic position, but he’s a fundie Christian who believes humans were created by a deity, so he doesn’t even accept the biology he’s misusing.
I know the whole world is ladling on the adoration for your brave contributions to modern womanhood. However, you are behaving, all of you, in ways that do not befit your sex or glorify God. Frankly, and I’m sorry to have to say this, I really am, many of you look ridiculous. Your friends and family and fans may not laugh at you. But the angels do and history will. What you’re doing might be good politics (of a sort), but it’s bad biology, bad theology, and bad storytelling. It lies about who you are as a woman and how God made you. And it makes for lousy movies and TV.
Okay, that’s the nastiest part. Now let me explain.
Let’s talk about biology first, who you are as a woman.
The most obvious things are the hardest to defend. You can write whole textbooks proving something unseen and unexpected like gravity or photosynthesis. But how do you prove the existence of Mt. Everest besides saying “Look, there it is?”
That’s why I feel dumb saying this, but:
Women are the weaker sex. They may be the smarter sex, they are often the wiser sex, they’re probably the more industrious sex, they’re definitely the prettier sex. But they’re also the weaker sex.
You would not believe how long this long-winded bozo goes on and on about this
obvious fact of life, citing movies and the Bible to prove his point. He has no sense of reality at all;
the cumulative effect of watching movie after movie wherein fine ladies such as yourselves suddenly crunch the bones of a dozen bad guys at a time is that some silly people get the idea there’s no real difference between men and women’s bodies is his main point (I think, there’s such a deluge of glurge it’s hard to extract any sense from it), but the curious thing is that he never questions the movies in which Sylvester Stallone or Jackie Chan or Steven Seagal
crunch the bones of a dozen bad guys at a time. That, after all, is the natural order of things. Heroic men crunch bones in order to rescue damsels.
So Ripley in the Aliens movies is an abomination. Rey in Star Wars is an abomination. Furiosa in Mad Max is an abomination. Those were roles that should have been played by men, because that is the natural order, is more realistic, and sends the proper godly message.
It’s an incoherent argument based on movies, comic books, and the Bible. Yet this guy uses those sources to argue for keeping women in their place. I also have to take it personally — he also tells us what we men are required to do.
As men, we were born with bodies and minds crafted for war. We are the warriors, the peacekeepers, the protectors—the bloodshedders, when the time is right. Every man is a father, whether of his own children, or the people that work for him, or the folks he leads at church. As such, he must be ready to uphold what is virtuous and punish what is evil.
Clearly, he has never seen my body, which is most definitely not crafted for war. I do not consider it my destiny to shed blood or punish evil, and I rather resent some asshole preacher deciding for me, and for every man and woman, what they must do.
In fact, the only ass I’m motivated to kick is that of the author, Nathan Alberson, but since I’m not built for combat I will defer to the first angry woman who’d rather do it for me.