Bunnies Nibble at Driscoll, Find Him Fluffy
"He may be good, but he's not safe," hares claim.
Today rabbits everywhere became hopping mad because of a recent blog post by Seattle Pastor Mark Driscoll. In it, the minister of Mars Hill Church had suggested that bunnies may possibly substitute for humans as Episcopalian Bishops to remedy traditional exclusion. Males needed to "man up", Driscoll said, so this would not happen in the future.
The hares were split on the meaning of the bizarre reference, but most did not think it was meant to be cute. "We may be cuddly and soft," said a particularly incensed rabbit of Caerbannog, "But we won't take this insult lightly. I just want to bite him, and not just a flesh wound either!" Many acknowledged that the post was not directly meant for bunnies, yet felt it was not necessary. "He could've left us alone," mentioned Rabbit of Winnie-the-Pooh fame. "He is such a typical omnivore."
While some also considered Driscoll's comments as a slander against rabbit virility, others took them as an attack on women and homosexuals. Jessica Rabbit and Bugs Bunny particularly thought so, and worried that it could spread contempt beyond Mars Hill. "As a woman, I wouldn't even be considered for such a high-ranking position as a human," she remarked. "He's just acting like he's a playboy, and he isn't even a bunny." Bugs Bunny, on the other hand, wondered whether his cross-dressing in some of his animated films negatively influenced the Seattle Pastor. "Elmer and Daffy are just dumb sometimes," Bugs noted, "but this guy, I don't know what to think."
Whatever the case, the hares want Driscoll to stop putting his foot in his mouth instead of using it as a charm. Protests and other actions will be planned soon, and they hope that it will bring attention to the Seattle Pastor's unhelpful words. (Brian McLaren is apparently not involved as some people had rumored, they state, so this is not a matter of jealousy from his supporters.)
Mark Driscoll, when asked about all this, claimed that this was just a misunderstanding. He welcomed the protesters, and hinted that perhaps having them over for dinner would be an option. "I really need to get a taste of my critics," Driscoll replied. He also stated that a clarifying blog post was in the works, and will involve no mention of the offended bunnies.
Saturday, November 18, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Jadon,
ReplyDeleteWanted to ask if you might be willing to elaborate on your comment on Graceful Journey…
“What is revealing to me is that many people, especially the men, do not seem to comprehend how the other sex perceived the post without discounting it quickly afterward.”
Can you offer any more insight into this? I find it really frustrating that many of the men who initially make sympathetic gestures seem to disengage so quickly (before any real progress is made)? I’d love to better understand this!
Jadon,
ReplyDeleteJoy here...
Cynthia and I are like Jonathon and David. She is one of the few people I would defend to the death... whether she is right or wrong!!
I found you and was a little spooked by the direct quote... didn't have time to do my homework, so sent off the link to Cyndi. It was just odd that we were quoted one after the other and that we know each other so well...
I hear you are one of the good guys... Thanks!
You are on my bloglines now. I'll keep checking you out.
One of my frustrations, I realized last night, is that we are hearing voices that speak out but we are not seeing action. I have just begun this conversation with my husband... on objectifying women... but last night, while we were watching football, the commercials made me realize just how far we have to go. As long as men allow themselves to be seduced by Wall Street and Hollywood, women will always be seen as decorative objects.
I want my husband to be as outraged as I am at the use of a woman's body to be a marketing symbol... I am tired of sex being commercialized... I am sick of the whole thing!
Sorry for getting off topic...
I appreciate satire. Your satire of the situation really shows the true ludicrousness of the position MD has put himself in.
(Sorry for the delay, Amber. I’ve been slightly frustrated trying to articulate a helpful response. My apologies…)
ReplyDeleteAmber, I think the main reason is that men experience these types of situations differently than women somewhat, which is quite evident with the recent Driscoll post and clarification. Moreover, men may perceive it more as losing power instead of losing artificial advantage. It is much easier to attempt to smooth over conflict or put out fires of frustration as well. Men may find short-term gain as more comfortable than long-term pain. They may also assume that women need to struggle with this more than they need to do. Men may not always know how to respond to these problems specifically as men either.
To take the Driscoll post and update as an example:
Men, especially complementarians, tended to see Driscoll’s post in the most positive way possible because it was about them and sexual temptation by women. Not only that, female criticism reinforced the feeling of being undermined, which increased male defensiveness. (Complementarian men could also assume that women should just be submissive or silent on the matter.)
Women (particularly noncomplementarians), on the other hand, perceived Driscoll’s post as a personal affront because there were only negative or unflattering images of them and not enough focus on what men could do to engage and build trust between women and men. Moreover, women did not seem to remark that men could not do this alone. Essentially, men saw the content and considered the intent legitimate, while women saw the post skewed and considered the intent inadequate. Mark’s post thus became mediocore and ineffective in creating trust between the sexes.
This also occurs after Driscoll’s clarifications. Although he explicitly argues his original points more clearly, he omits any concern about whether it discounted women in some fashion. This gave the impression to men that the women’s concern about the original post was not supportive toward the men. Since men saw the primary intent as legitimate, it did not assist them to respond to women satisfactorily. With women it merely reinforced the sense that their criticism was disregarded. Therefore, Driscoll has continued to divide women and men against each other, which is a disservice to both.
Does that help, Amber? If I need to elaborate or explain myself further, please let me know. Thank you for your question.