Rejoinders to Wartburg Whiner Posts: Women Navy Seals, Damore’s Google Memo, and Notice How Griggs’ Sexism Extends To Secular Life; It Is Extra- Biblical
Re: woman trainee dropping out of Navy SEALS training:
Men; Women: – Viva La Difference – post on Wartburg Whiners blog
First of all, it’s a good thing, or just a neutral thing, that women are allowed to even to try out for the Navy Seals. How is it bad that the Seals allow women to apply?
Is Griggs implying no, it’s not a good thing that the Seals are open to women members?
Or is Griggs just happy that a woman tried out and dropped out? What if she had stayed in and passed the course, what then?
The few number of articles I skimmed last night and this morning did not specify why the woman voluntarily dropped out.
Navy SEAL training is infamously challenging, with a 75% dropout rate for those who even make it to BUD/S,according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. And according to the Navy official, NSWC is less concerned with the candidate’s failure and more concerned with her future service.
“People try and fail on their own merits, and we respect the individual for the risk,” he added. “And whatever happens, they’re doing it to serve and protect their country.”
So, up to three-fourths of all Navy Seal trainees drop out. That’s mostly men.
Do I extrapolate from this information that all men are unsuited for the Seals, or don’t have the right stuff, are too frail, too weak, too stupid, and therefore, men should stick to sitting in recliners watching sports because they’re not suited for the Seals? No, I don’t.
Do I extrapolate that some differences between men and women (whatever they are, and it’s debatable how different men and women are and what, exactly, their differences are comprised of, outside of the obvious, e.g., most women have ovaries, men do not) should exclude men from the opportunity of trying out for the Seals? No.
Do I ascertain that God did not design men to be Seals because so many men quit or flunk out of Seals training? No.
Do I look at the book of Genesis in the Bible and see where God said (paraphrase), “man will earn his bread by the sweat of his brow by farming” mean that God wants all men for all times in every age and culture to only pursue farming as a career and to not try out for the Navy Seals program? No.
Do I assume that God is unhappy with men who want to be Navy Seals, because God really, supposedly, created all men to want to simply mow their lawns and take naps in hammocks? No.
From what I’ve read about Navy Seals training, it is very, very physically rigorous.
Most men are different from your average Navy seal.
I’ve seen reports online that many American men are shorter and fatter now than at any other time in our nation’s history – they are not physically strong enough or in shape enough to be a Seal.
I bet that the lady who recently dropped out of the Seals program could out-run Griggs and kick his ass. She’s probably in better shape than he is.
From far right wing site Federalist, which Griggs approves of:
From other sites:
Todd is the most typical of American men. His proportions are based on averages from CDC anthropometric data. As a U.S. male age 30 to 39, his body mass index (BMI) is 29; just one shy of the medical definition of obese. At five-feet-nine-inches tall, his waist is 39 inches.
Does all that mean most men should be barred from even applying? (I’d say No.)
Most U.S. men are not in top, peak physical condition as apparently is required by the SEALS, with the constant aerobic work-out these guys go through, with all the running and so on.
Most men are not cut out to be Navy Seals either. . .
But someone like Griggs would want to assume that women are a special class who aren’t meant to be Seals at all, no exceptions, or who should not be Seals – based on supposed differences.
What differences, exactly?
Having fallopian tubes? Having testicles? How does having or not having fallopian tubes or testicles hinder a Navy Seal?
Are having fallopian tubes, or having testicles, required to do things like run, shoot at bad guys, and jump from helicopters while storming Osama Bin Laden’s compound and perform other Navy Seal-ish type activities?
Google Memo and Damore
Griggs also posted this at the bottom of that “Viva” post:
FYI – Google firing – what Damore didn’t say was that females were unfit. He did say there was a difference. That was enough to get him fired.
Women can code but it’s almost never their passion. What woman ever says, “Hey, let’s spend the weekend writing code?” Very, very few.
I’m assuming that this quote in Griggs’ post-
“Women can code but it’s almost never their passion. What woman ever says, “Hey, let’s spend the weekend writing code?” Very, very few.”
-came from the Bloomberg editorial by a former lady coder named McAdler that Griggs quotes in another post on his site.
But what if a woman can code and it is in fact her passion? The sexism held by guys such as Damore may drive such a woman out of the profession or particular workplace. What about those “very, very few”? They don’t matter?
Does she, McAdler, know it’s very few (I’m curious)? How does she know? Are there surveys or stats she could provide?
No, Damore didn’t just cite differences in his memo, as Griggs is saying, and that’s what created controversy:
Damore was saying it is those alleged biological differences which make women unsuitable for tech jobs, which is why Google should not be hiring women for tech positions. Damore conflated the two items.
The media, contra the extreme right wing “Federalist” web page that Griggs cites, is not “blatantly lying” about the memo.
I read almost the entire memo myself.
“Passion Vs IQ” Is Missing the Point
In another post, Griggs linked to this (an editorial which I read last night – the link is to Griggs’ blog’s copy of it) – and I’m not sure why he is linking to this, as it does not really support his likely position that God did not design women to be coders:
In that post, Griggs is quoting the work of a lady coder, McArdle, who left coding because she was simply bored or tired of working around men all the time, and she also realized her passion was not coding.
McArdle wanted to go into some other career.
She seemed to feel that because she was not naturally predisposed to enjoy coding as much as her male co-workers, that this must be true of all women, and that this somehow validates some of Damore’s sexist memo, though I am not sure how.
Here is one snippet from her editorial (originally on Bloomberg):
by Megan McArdle
At that moment I realized that fundamentally, these are not my people. I liked the work. But I was never going to like it enough to blow a weekend doing more of it for free. Which meant that I was never going to be as good at that job as the guys around me.
That’s fine for McArdle. That is fine if that was her choice.
But it’s false to ascribe all this to biology, as she seemed to be doing.
It’s false to suggest that what was true of her in her particular case may necessarily be true of all women in that industry.
It may be former work environments such as hers (that leaned sexist, as she admitted), or her post itself, which may dissuade a younger woman who is naturally predisposed or interested in “building stuff all weekend” from even trying in the first place (see this link for more).
Let’s suppose I am a 17 year old girl who is fascinated by building things and by coding and have considered entering a tech company some day.
I’m supposed to look at McArdle’s Bloomberg post and come to what conclusion?
That there is no such thing as sexism in the tech industry, when obviously there is?
That because she became bored with the subject matter (or was not AS interested in it as her particular male co workers), I would too? How does she know that I would not find it as interesting as men would?
I doubt I’d find her editorial encouraging if I was a teen again, pondering what I’d like to do career-wise, if I was interested in technology.
There are some women out there who may in fact enjoy “blowing a weekend doing more of it [coding or engineering] for free…” even if it’s not her cup of tea.
And some of those women already work at Google with Damore as their one-time co-worker. What are they supposed to do with the sexism there?
Damore did in fact suggest all through his memo (which I actually read, did you, Griggs??) that women are not suited or smart enough, or interested in tech enough, or calm or rational enough, to be coders, and at that, he suggested, is due to supposed biological wiring.
Damore did not say that “lack of passion” is what creates differences between men and women coders.
That “lack of passion” claim is McArdle’s assumption based on her experience, but it’s not what Damore argued.
Damore did say at one point in the memo that he believes the men are more interested in “things” while women are supposedly more interested in “people” or “aesthetics.” But he tied this all into biological reasons or causes.
McArdle said she did enjoy coding or engineering, but not AS MUCH as her male co-workers. She was sort of contradicting Damore’s assertion that women aren’t interested in technical matters by saying she was – just not to the extent of her male co-workers.
So, Griggs, your link is kind of missing the point and does not refute the arguments against Damore’s memo and the accusation that it is sexist.
Women in Vet Schools
From another post on Grigg’s Whiner blog is this heading:
[ By rumor, it’s harder to get into Vet School than Med School ]
[ As long as my urologist isn’t a woman ]
If I were a urologist, I wouldn’t want to have you as a patient.
I’m not sure what to make of this news link he gives, that 80% of applicants to vet schools are women.
What of it? Is he saying this is a bad thing? Why would it be bad for a woman to attend vet school?
There is no Bible verse forbidding women from attending a vet school.
I don’t think vet schools existed in the age the Bible was written, did they? The Bible can’t outright condemn something that was not invented yet. And see also.
Beyond the Bible
On another note: notice that Griggs, who is a big believer in “gender complementarianism,” like John Piper, goes beyond even gender complementarian biblical boundaries.
Actual conservative Christians who believe in sola scriptura, would only seek to limit women from holding preacher positions or in making “final decisions” within a marriage.
A “true, biblical” complementarian would never have a problem with a woman being in the Navy Seals, working as a police officer, and so on.
In the Bible, we have an example of God placing a woman, Deborah, in charge of Israel’s army. Another woman, in the Old Testament, named Jael, killed an enemy combatant of Israel (for more information on this, please see this post).
Yet complementarians (some of them, not all of them) – who say they believe in the Bible – ignore these biblical examples that don’t fit their preconceived ideas about “women’s roles.”
We see examples in the Bible of women being in the military – but some of today’s complementarians argue that women should not be in the military.
Do you complementarian guys really and truly believe in the Bible? Because I’m not getting the idea that you do. You only like the Bible when you can cherry pick a verse here or there to support your position.
Even complementarians agree on the point that other complementarians go way beyond the biblical boundaries of women’s roles; see this page by a comp, for example:
Even incredibly sexist Mark Driscoll agrees on the proper limitations on complementarianism. I recall seeing him quoted a few years ago saying that “wives submit” as mentioned in the book of Ephesians meant that (in his opinion) a wife was to submit to only HER husband, not to ALL men.
(Though in the process of trying to find this Driscoll quote so I could link you to it, I could not find it , sorry – I cannot remember where I saw it –
I came across a “Christian manosphere” blog by a bitter sounding little troll of a guy who is EVEN MORE SEXIST than Driscoll; the guy doesn’t think Driscoll is sexist enough, good lord.
Sexist blog troll guy’s heroes are Matt Walsh, Vox (the blogger, not the news site), and some other sexist toad whose name escapes me. Just when you think nobody can possibly be more sexist than Driscoll, you find the guy who is.)
At any rate, we see James Brown (aka Seneca Griggs of Wartburg Whiners blog) going beyond the Bible and protesting roles and activities for women that have nothing to do within a marital relationship or pastorally in a church setting.
It’s none of Griggs’ business or that of John Piper or whatever other complementarian if or what women do outside any of those spheres, even in the land of Gender Complementarianism.
If a woman wants to be a NAVY Seal, or be a cop, or whatever, that is her right, biblical or otherwise.
If you’re going to pull a John Piper and start arguing you think women ought not to serve in the military, take karate lessons, or be police officers, you have assumed a lot of things about certain biblical passages, and reading things into them, that are not there.
You are making your personal biases and preferences on par with the Bible itself.
Male Hierarchy as Idol
You have turned male hierarchy and the male gender into deities, and the Bible says you’re not to have any other gods before God. But there you are, doing so.
Many complementarians are also making the male gender into a deity for women they ask women to bow down to, when they teach things like a “man is the priest of the home” and women need a “male covering.”
Er, no. The Bible says there is one and only one mediator between people and God, and that is the Lord Jesus – not a husband or male, human priest. The Bible says Jesus Christ took my sins on the cross and died for me -YOU, not a human male pastor, and not a husband, did not do so, nor, does the Bible say, you are qualified to do so, because you are not the sinless lamb of God.