Ding Ding Ding Ding!!! Candice Watters Gets It!

Candice Watters, writing for Boundless, has provided a very good article for the ladies.

I must admit that I haven’t listened to very many of the podcasts. I found myself choking on my coffee when I saw this quote from Glenn Stanton, a Boundless writer who is usually pretty good.

…women left to themselves will develop into good women, more responsible women, just naturally, for various reasons and we could talk about that. But men have to be taught how to lead. They have to be encouraged how to lead. They have to be welcomed into leadership. And I don’t think we’re doing that today. We’re not taking young boys and saying, “OK, we need to make men out of you.” And I think that’s the large reason for the man problem today, is that we have to be very intentional about man-making, man-creating. And I can hear all the women saying, “Absolutely!” It doesn’t just naturally happen. It happens more naturally with women than it does with men.

Glenn, with all due respect, what you’re saying isn’t remotely Biblical.

If there is one sentence that sums up human fallenness, it is this: IF GOD LEAVES US TO OURSELVES, THERE IS NO LIMIT TO THE EVIL WE CAN ACCOMPLISH TOGETHER! Ya dig, Glenn?

Now how does this play out among the sexes?

Left to themselves, MEN develop into murderous, domineering, materialistic, skirt-chasing cads lacking in basic human compassion.

Left to themselves, WOMEN develop into murderous, manipulative, materialistic, Alpha-chasing sluts lacking in basic human compassion.

There’s more to the doctrine of sin, but that is the 1000-mph version.

That said, women–left to themselves–aren’t going to be any more “good” than the men. It’s just that their depravity often metastasizes under the radar. And when the pastors are all fixated on the problems of men, their blinders keep them from noticing the depravity of the fairer sex.

Now, back to Candice…

She does a very good job highlighting three fundamental problems that women have (which, incidentally, men also have, even though it plays out a little differently):

(1) Women value the wrong things.
The only thing I would add to what she said is more along the line of detail: just as the men are more naturally-drawn to the smoking hottie who just spent $5G on a breast enhancement–the women are more naturally-drawn to the cool Alpha with the hot “Game”.

This is why Andre Agassi and Rafael Nadal have more sex appeal to the women than Pete Sampras and Roger Federer, even though Federer and Sampras are the two all-time winningest men’s tennis players.

(2) Women compete with men.

This is correct, but they also compete with other women, to the point of VICIOUSLY sabotaging each other in passive-aggressive form. Women rightfully hate it when men compare them to other women, but they compare themselves to each other all the time.

(NOTE: the men do it too, but they are more likely to sabotage each other through less-entertaining means. Think bribery and bid-rigging…)

(3) Women think their role is inferior.

I could write a volume on that one alone. But let’s just say that, for both sexes, discontentment comes naturally. Left to their natural state, men never have enough of what they want. The same is true for the ladies.

As for inferiority, that drives the women to compete with and undermine men. Candice is dead-on with respect to what happened in the garden: as a result of the Fall, women have a natural desire to undermine the men, just as the men have a natural desire to dominate the women.

All said, women are addicted to power at least as much as the men. The difference: with women, it is an attractive feature in a man whereas men are not attracted to that quality in a woman.

Henry Kissinger once observed, “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac.” This is an element that draws them to the Alphas: Alpha is power. As a group, Alpha males make more money, and are better at getting what they want.

Women will want to marry a man who has power, even if that power is merely superficial. Women will KNOWINGLY marry abusive men all the time. While there is a lot more to this dynamic than mere power, don’t kid yourself: power is a huge part of it.

I’ve seen CHRISTIAN women fall hard for meth dealers and crack dealers and abusive felons–even while they were in jail and while they had pregnant girlfriends from whom they were running. They’ll ignore the nice guy in the front pew, but will ENTHUSIASTICALLY hop into bed with the agnostic punk rocker with the 666 tattooed on his arm.

As for the men, they’ll pass up the nice, average-looking gal in the front pew, but will throw all discretion out the window for the slender hottie who only comes to church when it’s volleyball season.

But yes, to make a long story short: Candice gets it.

19 thoughts on “Ding Ding Ding Ding!!! Candice Watters Gets It!

  1. “…women left to themselves will develop into good women, more responsible women, just naturally, for various reasons and we could talk about that.”

    OH.MY.WORD. i’ll have to get over my shock that some naive person actually thinks this is true before i can comment. this person has loads of fresh manuer piled high outside their door but believes it’s a lush, beautiful garden instead.

  2. @Ame
    No kidding! I like Glenn Stanton. Usually, he has very good stuff at Boundless.

    But if he really believes that, he’s dangerously misguided. He REALLY needs to think this through a little better.

  3. I must take issue with one thing Candice Watters wrote.

    Joseph, too, was noted for his good looks, both by the author of Genesis and Potiphar’s wife (Genesis 39:6). Of all men in Scripture described as “handsome,” only Daniel is presented as faithful, without mention of any major sin issue tied in some way to his good looks.

    Joseph fled from Potiphar’s wife when she grabbed him, leaving his garment in her hand (Gen. 39:12). She then falsely accused Joseph of trying to seduce her, and Joseph landed in prison as a result (Gen. 39:20). If my understanding of Scripture is correct, Joseph did NOT sin against Potiphar’s wife.

  4. Let’s not lose Glenn’s second half which is worth discussing. The ladies are not just left to themselves. All of church and school life is geared towards them and their needs. He’s completely wrong there, as you say.

    Where he gets it right is that we should be intentional about men making. My pastor has taken to man-shaming, the women are better at this and that, nearly every Sunday. It got me thinking…if men are fully responsible for the spiritual welfare of their family, when do they receive the training or mentoring for this? If we look at the bible, man making is pretty intentional. The only place I see it today is Boy Scouts, and talk about an organization under endless attack.

  5. singleman :

    Joseph fled from Potiphar’s wife when she grabbed him, leaving his garment in her hand (Gen. 39:12). She then falsely accused Joseph of trying to seduce her, and Joseph landed in prison as a result (Gen. 39:20). If my understanding of Scripture is correct, Joseph did NOT sin against Potiphar’s wife.

    Not only that, we can surmise that Potiphar didn’t think Joseph sinned against his wife.

    Remember that Potiphar was captain of Pharaoh’s guard—in other words, the chief executioner. If he had even the slightest thought that Joseph did what his wife claimed, he would have killed Joseph on the spot. Yet, what does he do? He throws Joseph into prison. I’d say that Potiphar didn’t believe his wife for one second. (And I’m far from the only one who thinks that.)

  6. Candice says, “When a husband and wife relate to one another according to the model in Ephesians 5, their marriage becomes a ministry for spreading the Gospel.”

    it’s not simply a ministry, i think it’s also a mystery, especially to the world … which is why there is so much critism. i think, too, the christian women who do this poorly, and the world, have spooked single women into a defensive mode toward ‘submission’* before they even get to experience what that is and looks like.

    “We praise the achievements of women, even when they come at the expense of men. But life isn’t a competition, a cosmic matchup of boys vs. girls. We need each other. And for those of us who believe in Christian marriage, especially so.”

    i would say *especially* at the expense of men … and with armies of women cheering us on to do so. we need to wake up and take a step back and realize this is absolutely wrong. we need to stand up for what is right, even if doing so is at our own expense.

    ***

    *i always must add the post script when dealing with submission – if a man is abusing you mentally and/or emotionally and/or physically with submission, seek wise and godly, professional, counsel immediately. there is a difference between abuse and biblical submission. a huge difference.

  7. (1) Women value the wrong things.

    absolutely … and often. we must always ‘check’ ourselves against the bible. and, we’re flighty – we tend to value whatever we do not have … so once we get what we value, we don’t want that anymore and value the ‘other’ thing we do not have. contentment must be our main goal … all other goals must be measured against the bible.

    (2) Women compete with men.

    i’ll go one step further than Amir – women compete with everyone and everything. period. they even compete with their kids, with other mom’s, with things – women want to stand out and be the best. they are just more manipulative and sly and subtle about doing it than men, and they’re very good at it – just ask a daddy who has a little girl – that little girl has him all wrapped up. it’s not a bad thing – it’s neutral this ‘thing’ that we women have … how we use it either becomes good or bad.

    (3) Women think their role is inferior.

    ohhh, my … hence the intense competition. when a woman is confident in who she is and in who God made her to be, as she is, you will not find this.

    i’ve been emailing my counselor/therapist from time-to-time as i’m writing some things for him regarding divorce from the pov of one who has been there, and in a recent response he wrote, “you were created for something that requires your exact personality, spiritual gifts, strengths and talents, and passions.” this is true for all of us. God created us for something that requires OUR exact personality, OUR spiritual gifts, OUR talents, OUR passions, all of which that HE, God, gave to us … not someone else’s or something else. when we accept who God made us to be, how He made us, and become content and confident in this, then we will no longer compete or think our role is inferior or even value the wrong things – and this applies to the men as well as the women.

  8. btw – ya’ll are spot on about Joseph, and Candice did miss that one, completely. he was filled with the feeling he was more special than others by his dad, causing his siblings to despise him. slavery humbled him. staying true to himself and God and the teachings of his dad enabled him to flee potipher’s wife. prison further humbled him. then he was finally ready for God to use him. Joseph’s story has always been an inspiration to me.

  9. @singleman
    i noticed that, too. but that struck me as a minor gaffe. i thought she meant to say, “other than Joseph…”

    @Taylor
    no question about it. like i said, i usually agree with Glenn. that one statement struck me as totally out of character. but when i speak of overstretches of headship theology, that’s one way it manifests itself.

  10. Wow. Amazing this made it to print over there. I wonder if she’ll apologize for it in a few days like Ted did when he spoke some truth.

  11. My blood pressure hit the roof when I saw that Stanton quote, too, but it wasn’t surprising. Why do you say Stanton is usually pretty good? Admittedly I don’t keep up with Boundless as much as I used to, but the only times I ever see Stanton mentioned there, the only context in which he’s ever quoted, is when they’re discussing these “men in the church today” issues–and he ALWAYS says something like “women are naturally good and want what’s right, but we’re not manufacturing good men.” When has he ever said something that’s accurate or edifying?

    Of all people, the folks at FotF should know better. Abortion anyone? Hellooooo….

    But of course, the mainstream social conservative mantra believed by people like Stanton is that women don’t really want abortions (i.e., they’d prefer to marry the father of their baby or something), but they’re coerced into them by evil men.

  12. @Hermes
    Normally, the stuff I’ve read from Stanton is pretty matter-of-fact, sticking to research and speaking to the general. While I expect everyone at FotF to drink at least some of the Headship Theology Kool-Aid, it appears that Mr. Stanton has OD’d on the stuff.

    In the prior era, I had my run-ins with the Boundless folks. Even Ted–who was/is a LOT more on our side than he was ever able to discuss–caught some flak over here. Candice Watters–whom I defended in this thread–has been on the receiving end of my flak at times.

    (What really puzzled the heck out of me, though, was why they got rid of Motte Brown. If there was a guy who drank their Kool-Aid, Motte was their poster boy. None of the others were as gung-ho for Headship Theology as Brown. I liked Brown personally, but he had overstretched on that HT front.)

    But of course, the mainstream social conservative mantra believed by people like Stanton is that women don’t really want abortions (i.e., they’d prefer to marry the father of their baby or something), but they’re coerced into them by evil men.

    In the pro-life movement, there is a sector of folks that present women as “abortion’s second victim”. There are rare cases where that presentation is true; i.e., teens forced to do this by their parents, teens raped by a family member whose parents forced them into “covering up the family secret”, etc.

    There was a time in my life when I believed the “women are abortion’s second victim” line: at that time, it was common in the training at crisis pregnancy centers to present that POV. It was part of the training videos.

    What’s funny, though: it was my 3 years at the crisis pregnancy center that cured me of that mindset. I got to see–firsthand–the games the ladies played, the kinds of men they hung with, the way they rationalized abortion decisions.

    I once had a client whose husband was with her; they were trying to have a baby. Before he met his wife, he had a g/f to whom he was engaged. She became pregnant and had an abortion against his will. He had been supportive, wanted to marry her, the whole nine freaking yards. She killed their baby.

    Later on, when I was a youth minister at a church in Louisville, I saw firsthand what kinds of men the gals preferred, how they sought to have their cake and eat it too, and how they “repented” while not taking ownership of their own failures.

    This is not to say that men didn’t have their problems: I had LONG ACCEPTED that premise. Before then, I believed that all men had to do was lead and love right, and women would (a) be attracted to such a man, (b) would not choose promiscuity and abortion, and (c) would gladly submit to such a man in marriage.

    I believed all of that crap EVEN THOUGH–AT LEAST ON PAPER–I ACCEPTED THE PREMISE OF TOTAL DEPRAVITY!

    Now, I’m no respecter of the sexes with respect to depravity. I pedestal NO ONE. Not you. Not me. Not Ame. Not Russ. Not even MrsLarijani. Not even Recon or Guinness, those great heroes of the 1st Feline Battalion!

  13. Amir,

    The women you cite from the crisis pregnancy center certainly serve as rebuttals to the idea that women are somehow innately good. But, in the same vein as the idea that women are coerced into abortions, I think the Stantons of the world would say that those women were not “left to themselves,” but were “led” into those sins by bad men. Rememeber, these are the people who think that women get with bad boys only because the bad boys are somehow conning the women into believing that they’re nice guys. And if you point out how this or that women explicitly turned down nice guys and threw herself at a bad boy, they’ll say that she must have low self esteem, she must have had a poor father figure, she’s a victim who somehow picked up the idea that she deserves to be abused or doesn’t deserve a nice guy. They always find a way to fit the evidence around their a priori assumption that women are innately good.

  14. @Hermes

    And if you point out how this or that women explicitly turned down nice guys and threw herself at a bad boy, they’ll say that she must have low self esteem, she must have had a poor father figure, she’s a victim who somehow picked up the idea that she deserves to be abused or doesn’t deserve a nice guy. They always find a way to fit the evidence around their a priori assumption that women are innately good.

    I’ve seen that argument made many times. And while all of those factors can be contributory to the problem, we could also make similar arguments on behalf of the men: society is waging a full-on war against masculinity; the education system is stacked against men; the Church isn’t addressing the issues of men, etc.

    Ultimately, though, it’s an issue of depravity. While the aforementioned factors exacerbate matters, removing them doesn’t remove our innate nature.

    I’ve seen enough women–given a choice between a good man and a bad man–choose the bad.

    I’ve seen enough women–abortion-minded–who were given options that would have facilitated their keeping their babies, and they chose abortion. I’ve even seen women abort their children against the wishes of their husbands or fiancees. I’ve seen enough women try to deny custody to caring fathers who wanted to marry them and give the child a 2-parent family.

    I’m not saying all of this to rag on the women, but rather to point out that the “sugar and spice and everything nice” attribution to them is a pile of manure.

    Neither sex is lighting up the world for Jesus.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Connect with Facebook

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.