The feminist “shut up, bitch”
It’s so impressive when men who say they are lifelong feminists announce that men are women if they say they are, and that they will block any stupid obstinate women who disagree.
It’s not his call though. He can swear he’s been a feminist since his first breath, but if he feels it necessary to say that men who “identify as” women are women and that he won’t listen to dissent…then I’m not going to believe him about the being a feminist part.
Narcissists are the ones who get to define themselves; oh, and everyone else. Nobody and nothing else has that right, including reality.
I wonder if these TRAs, for whom self-identifying is the be-all and end-all, will object to me identifying as non-transphobic.
Many of the replies to his tweet say that men cannot be feminists. I grew up with 70s and 80s feminism and even though I am a man, (adult human male for any TRAs who are following this blog), I still consider myself a feminist. An imperfect feminist to be sure, but I support the notion that women are entitled to equal treatment under the law and by society as a whole; different in many ways but nevertheless equal.
Has the notion of feminsm changed over time, or is it just some woke dudes on twitter piling on men who support women’s rights?
JScarry@#3
I cannot envision any man being a feminist. There is no way at all that a man could understand what it’s like to grow up or live as a woman. Without that understanding, I don’t see how one can be a feminist. I mean, it’s not just a desire to help.
I gotta go with the radfem insistence that men can’t be feminists; it’s too easy to self-id (i.e. Dawkins)… And the idea of being an “ally” as the woke think of it is absolute bollocks.
I’m a feminist sympathizer.
Feminism is a philosophy, or rather a school of philosophies, as well as a political movement. One needn’t have a certain set of genitals, or even a certain set of experiences, in order to find a version of this philosophy compelling or the goals of the movement worthy.
Solidarity is essentially the only tool that builds a social movement in the long term. If the label ‘feminist’ means anything, it means being in solidarity with the political goals of the movement and (or, though mostly and) in agreement with the tenets of the philosophy of feminism. Insisting that this solidarity or this agreement is impossible because of a paucity of identity characteristics is rather wokish.
I am not a ‘feminist ally’ or an uninterested bystander. I’m a feminist. My penis and my propensity for growing facial hair do not remove my capacity for empathy with people who lack one or both of these characteristics, nor do they obviate my duty to articulate my agreement with the philosophy that women have human rights. That makes me a feminist.
“Feminism is ‘the radical notion that women are people.” – Marie Shear
By that definition a man can be a feminist. Whether his actions are always consistent with the notion is another matter.Knowing that it may not be is one reason some men are reluctant to so identify.
I am a Feminist. I am a Man. I do not see the two as mutually exclusive. I marched in support of abortion rights, even though I will never need one. :-) Unless the state government makes a change to the law pronto, I will offer myself as an escort to women wanting to attend an abortion clinic free of harrasment from the god squad.
If I see a woman being abused in her workplace, I will challenge the abuser. She may not need my help, but sometimes men respond faster when called out by other men. Sad, but true.
I don’t see myself as a saviour. I think of myself as a Man with empathy and consideration. (Yeah, I know, I lost my “man card” a long time ago).
I call myself a feminist but I don’t argue with women who say men can’t be feminists.
Regarding whether or not men should self-identify as feminists, there seem to be two competing schools of thought on the issue. On the one hand there’s a school of thought that says “by all mean men should identify as feminists. Sexism hurts men too, and even if it disproportionally hurts women you shouldn’t have to belong to the oppressed group to object to oppression. It’s the right thing to do, and that should be a good enough reason in itself. If nothing else we want men to self-identify as feminists because that way there will be more feminists. I.e. feminism really should be the default position. Anyone who’s opposed to sexism is a feminist etc. etc.”
On the other hand there’s a school of thought that says “screw that. We have had plenty of experience with self-identified male ‘feminists’, and they haven’t always been the best. We have seen too many examples of men coming in and talking over the women, making it all about themselves and in some cases passing off some very self-serving ideas as ‘feminism’. We have also seen too many examples of men who – the moment they faced the least bit of push-back from women – turned 180° and joined the MRA mob and spent the rest of eternity ranting and raving about ‘feminazis’ and ‘SJWs’. With ‘friends’ like that who needs enemies etc. etc.”
Personally, I went back and forth between these two camps for a while before I finally settled in the second one.
James Garnett #4, I have always attributed my current position to something (I believe, correct me if I’m wrong) you once wrote that struck a chord with me. I don’t remember the exact wording, but it was along the lines of “I will oppose sexism in any way I can and leave it to women to decide whether or not I’m a feminist”. I can’t do better than that. In the mean time, if I absolutely need a label, I will call myself an anti-misogynist.
Another point that doesn’t have anything to do with feminism per se is the problem with labels in general. I always like to paraphrase something Neil DeGrasse Tyson once said when asked if he identified as a “secular humanist” (if I remember correctly). Again, I don’t remember the exact wording, but his answer went something like this:
This, incidentally, is why I hardly ever talk about “atheism” anymore. Labels like “secular humanist” or “atheist” are just convenient short-hands for “I think a,b,c etc.”. If I can just tell you my “a,b,c etc.” in less than 60 seconds while all eternity is not enough to clarify all the (often willful) misconceptions surrounding the word “atheist”, the label ceases to be a convenient short-hand, and it’s both quicker and more accurate to just tell you what I think.
Same with “feminism”. Saying that “feminism is a movement that fights the oppression of women” (or take your pick) doesn’t get us very far when we can’t even agree on what it means to be a “woman” or what constitutes “oppression”.
Re “Anyone who’s opposed to sexism is a feminist”, this never seemed right to me, even in my self-identified “feminist” days. At the time Ophelia wrote a post called #peopleagainstbadthings (or something similar) about people who claim to be against sexism (almost by definition “bad things”) while defining sexism “so narrowly that it’s defined out of existence”. I have certainly seen plenty examples of that, mostly from libertarian, Ayn Rand-worshiping types.
So here’s your self-identified male “feminist” for you:
Nope, not good enough.
Not here anyway. Now about those Muslims…
I was raised by a single, feminist, atheist mother. I was brought up to be both. I consider myself still to be both. But my belief that I am a feminist can be questioned, and it won’t offend me. I understand I’m not welcome everywhere, and that other people don’t have to agree with my self-identification. If someone tells me reasons I should question my feminism, I should think about them. Sometimes they are good reasons, and I learn from them. But I continue to believe not only that women should have legal equality, that gender expectations should be subverted for both women and men, and that women should have protected spaces. I continue to act upon my beliefs.
I was brought up to believe that women should have their own spaces, without men, without men in womanface, without me, and they should not be harassed for it. I know my mother appreciated having these spaces, and appreciated that her friends who were lesbians had these spaces, and it seems an utter tragedy to me that these spaces have been taken away. My aunt used to go to Michfest every year, and it sucks that the TRA bastards shut it down. Lesbian erasure was one of the first phases of the TRA takeover of public discourse. Some of the kindest women I knew when I was a little boy were lesbians, and I hate it that their rights have been taken away in the name of trans wokeness.
I don’t know where I’m going with this, but I suppose the point is that one’s sex is relevant in the question of whether one can be considered a feminist. As a man, women can tell me whether I’m a feminist or not, and I should listen. I should also refrain from mansplaining feminism to women; there is no way that could make good sense. Other men, on the other hand, yeah, I can and should call them out. For example: no, Paul Ilett, you are not a feminist. You are a misogynist of the woke subtype.
latsot:
That supports my own view, which is that men can be feminist sympathisers and supporters, but cannot themselves be feminists; for anatomical reasons. (Details on request.)
I actually agree quite a bit with Bjarte about the (lack of) utility of labels in general, though I find some of Tyson’s remarks on the subject rather more indicative of his experience as a quasi-political figure representing an institution rather more than an earnest philosophical aversion to labels in general. And I find Paul Ilett, Author’s rote recitation of dogma relatively unpersuasive evidence of his claim to have been a feminist.
Nevertheless, I am troubled by the insistence that one cannot adhere to a philosophy if one has not had a certain set of experiences personally. Personal experience is of course important, but it is not universally dispositive; for one thing, different people process the same experiences very differently, and can be inspired to diametrically opposite conclusions. For another, this view denies the ability of empathy and solidarity to persuade anyone who is not personally affected by something — for all one might say “well yes you can be a sympathiser or an ally or a fellow-traveller, but not the thing itself”, that insistence that an experience is incomprehensible and unapprehensible to anyone who is not a direct victim of said experience is the death of solidarity. It is the very same notion which allows Ivy League students of color to insist that they are party to knowledge which is completely denied to poor white Appalachians about race and racism.
We are capable of understanding situations without having to experience them directly. This is the basis of all fiction, for example; I would also posit it is one of the main causes and benefits of being human in the first place.
I believe that men can be feminists, broadly, but that women are right to keep them out of movement feminism. They simply seem incapable of avoiding mistakes like this one:
Really, that kind of blindness to the assumption of male superiority is dreadfully common, and women get dreadfully tired of explaining why it is rude and demeaning. But I have nothing better to do for a couple of minutes and made this comment.
Women are not defined by their lacking the genitalia and secondary sex characteristics of men, but by having our own. Next time it occurs to a man to compare his with those of women, could he please say something like:
because otherwise he has just demonstrated his total lack of empathy and total inability to recognise that fact.
Addendum:
Nobody is saying that it is their biology which makes men inadequate feminists, but their socialisation into the dominant group of patriarchy (which blinds them to the different socialisation which the dominated group receive).
And I sometimes learn from bad reasons, too, because anything that forces me to examine my assumptions helps me understand more completely why I hold those views, and that they are valuable, but not just because someone I admire says so. I learn to argue for my position using reason and facts rather than just “shut up, bitch”. This can happen even with bad reasons.
As for male feminists, I think I’ll have to go with Seth on this one. Many men may be imperfect feminists, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t feminists. Hell, many women are imperfect feminists (maybe most of them) and we don’t deny them the right to be feminists, though we may call them out on anti-feminist behaviors from time to time.
In spite of that, I think Bjarte has struck it on the head with his list of things male “feminists” might use to derail the movement. And one thing I have seen is a tendency to identify yourself as a member of a group (since there are no dues or membership rosters, it’s easy) in order to give yourself more credibility when you try to destroy the group. Much as Bjorn Lomborg claimed to be an environmentalist in order to try to tear down the movement, though his history did not show evidence of that. In fact, feminism and environmentalism are the two fields I see that in the most, but since they are also the two fields I am the most involved with, that may be a sampling error.
So, yeah, men can be feminists (IMHO), but they might want to listen to the women who tell them they are getting it wrong. And they might want to shut up sometimes and not feel the urge to “explain” feminism to women, or “explain” what it means to be a woman.
Ilett says he has realized that “blocking is so much better than responding”, and yet he has deleted the tweet and has responded with a few more tweets. It doesn’t look like logic or consistency is part of his game plan. He’s also succumbed to the pronoun police in his twitter profile. He doesn’t seem to be a feminist despite his claim to be, and I’m not sure anyone with pronouns or declarations of TWAW can claim to be feminists. More like trans cult groupies. Looks like he wants attention to me, maybe so he can hock a couple more books. I think ignoring him is a good strategy, which is what he says he wants anyway. Win win.
Now if instead of the trans cult setting themselves against feminism, they found a way to be unifying and inclusive, it might not seem so divisive of them to insist on their identities and pronouns, but this is not what the trans cult is about, and their dogma tells a different story. Attacking, silencing, and erasing women is clearly their main tool for promoting their garbage.
Again, this is the problem I have with the politicians who blindly (or even knowingly) add the pronouns, it is so clearly anti-women and anti-feminism, because of the core group that promotes it, and yet they either don’t see it this way or they are simply ignorant. Because I have little choice but to vote for a pronoun person, purely because Donnie Dipshit is SO awful, adds greatly to my aggravation. I wish we had better choices.
Iknklast #18, I agree very much. I figure if a man finds himself in the position of “explaining” feminism to women, or “explaining” what it means to be a woman, it’s a pretty good sign he’s left feminism. And he should recognize that and stop.
It’s frustrating to me that some of the insights of theory that ended up being incorporated into late-stage wokeism still resonate for me. For example, it’s worth considering that racism is a structure and an institution, not just a feeling, and likewise sexism. We don’t have to “be racists” for racism to work through us. I have very little patience with the term “microaggression,” so I won’t go into personal interaction, but here’s a better example: it’s possible to be a banner-carrying BLM supporter and still oppose low-income housing in your neighborhood, you know, for perfectly good reasons, a decision which will disproportionately affect people of color, who have long been kept out of your neighborhood by other means. That’s racism working through us.
Likewise, we don’t have to “be sexists” for sexism to work through us. We can, say, completely support hiring more women on our management team, but when the only position we interview a woman for is in Human Resources, that’s sexism working through us.
Well spotted Tigger. Even better: ‘my lack of breasts and a uterus do not remove my capacity for empathy with people who have one or both of these characteristics’….
“Feminism” has two major senses, and both are relevant here. Of the two perspectives Bjarte presents, each connects to a different sense. And so, when people disagree whether men can be feminists, often the source of the disagreement is rooted in their use of differing senses. In short, people are once again talking past each other.
Feminism1 refers to a school of thought, a set of principles, a conceptual paradigm for viewing the relationship between the sexes. When it is argued that men can be feminists, we often see things like the quotation from Marie Shear: “Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.” Here, it is clearly feminism1 that Shear describes, and thus we can infer that what is really being argued is that men can be feminists1.
It seems prima facie reasonable that men can subscribe to feminism1 and thus be feminists1, just as it seems prima facie reasonable that women can not subscribe to feminism1 and thus not be feminists. Men may be prone to cognitive distortions due to gendered socialization, but to the extent that their attitudes and beliefs are consistent with feminism1, they can be feminists1.
On the other hand, feminism2 refers to a sociopolitical movement on behalf of the rights and interests of human females. When it is argued that men cannot be feminists, it is a practical concern, the reasoning almost always refers to male activity in feminist space, whether literal or figurative. Men talking over women, men dominating discourse, men warping things to benefit themselves—these are the sorts of expressions of power and influence that are presented as reasons to exclude men from feminism. We can safely infer that this means that men should be excluded from feminism2, and that therefore men cannot be feminists2.
There is a bothersome imprecision in this formulation. After all, it is certainly possible for men to engage in organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests; i.e., feminism2. So clearly men can be feminists2 in that sense. It is male abuse of power and influence within feminism2 that feminists2 (and feminists1) wish to prevent. When we say that men cannot be feminists2, we mean that in order to safeguard feminism2, men must not be permitted as feminists2.
This, too, seems a reasonable position. Feminists’2 concern over undo male influence within their movement is understandable, and they are entitled to protect that movement. As is usual when a word carries two distinct but related senses, results might be immediately counter-intuitive. For instance, one can consistently hold that men can be feminists1 and that men cannot be (i.e., should not be permitted as) feminists2. While the two positions are not contradictory, linguistic imprecision makes them appear so.
Papito @ #20:
Hard disagree.
What matters is whether the explainer is correct, not whether the explainer has any particular physical features, cognitive biases, nor how the explainer came to his or her explanation.
Both men and women can be right or wrong about feminism1. Both men and women can be right or wrong about what it means to be a woman.
I find myself mansplaining the trans cult to a woman far too frequently and I don’t feel good about it… but I also don’t know what else to do.
Sure she’s fine with it and doesn’t see the problem, but it so obviously is.
I find that a lot of men don’t recognize when they are mansplaining. Even a lot of men who consider themselves feminist can’t resist the temptation, and don’t realize what they are doing. Some of them resent it deeply when you call them out about it, and point out that they don’t need to explain (and often incorrectly) what you know from your years of education and experience. I have discovered that liberal men are just as much mansplainers as conservative ones.
Nullius, #22, thank you. You’ve expressed what I’ve dimly felt and had trouble articulating.
(Not the first time that’s happened!)
Well, shucks, LM.
(And the pedant’s small heart grew three sizes that day.)
I have found it generally pointless to label myself anything for a few years now. I used to call myself feminist, or left leaning, or this that and the other, but found that if my views did not match what another person considered appropriate for that label, I would soon be lectured about not being a ‘true’ member of that group. In particular, there seem to be a large number of things that people consider disqualifying for anyone claiming to be a lefty or progressive. Failing to be a vegan or vegetarian, being in favour of nuclear power generation, and pointing out that land use causes more extinction than does global warming, have all been used to declare that I am not on the left.
Regarding feminism as a label, I agree with the point that there are all too many guys that claim to be feminists only to to exhibit hostility to women or women’s rights, and I would point out that many women turn out that way too: every female that supports trans women’s inclusion in women’s sports come to mind.
Holmes, I am a feminist, (mostly) vegan, in favor of nuclear power, and am aware that extinction is complex. I still consider myself a progressive. I dare say I identify as a progressive.
Labels are useful shortcuts for categorizing people and their positions. I’m a Democrat, but that doesn’t mean that I support every idea that Democrats are proposing. I buy into most things that the majority of Democrats stand for, but not all. Biden’s stance on trans issues is particularly abhorrent. Many Democrats in Congress have no understanding of Section 230 want to weaken it. I think that’s extremely short-sighted and ignorant.
I’m not in favor of purity tests for inclusion in a group but there are some core values that everyone who professes to belong to the group must hold. e.g. You can’t be a feminist and believe that TWAW. You can’t be a Democrat and be in favor of privatizing Social Security and Medicare. You can’t be a vegan and eat fish or eggs. That doesn’t mean that you can’t hold most of the positions of the group, you just can’t call yourself a member of that group or else the label starts to become meaningless.
Tigger@17:
This is exactly the way that I think about it. As a star-bellied Sneetch, I can fight back against a society that limits, degrades, and disdains plain-bellied Sneetches, but I cannot viscerally know what it’s like to be treated that way. That’s why I don’t call myself a feminist, and never have. I am, in my own mind, at best a sometimes-useful supporter.
Nullius in Verba #22, I think whether or not men can “be” feminists (as you rightly point out, the answer may be yes or no depending on your particular definition of “feminism”. It’s just that we don’t have an agreed upon definition) and whether or not they should “self-identify as” feminists are two slightly different questions though. I was talking about the latter.
I think there’s a little bit more to it than meeting some minimal set of requirements, agreeing with the basic premises, sharing the same agenda etc. Once again the Gender Wars offers a useful starting point. In both cases we have the same overarching theme of whether or not women should have to accept biological males as part of their group, welcome them into their spaces or movements etc. My current view (as I said, I’m pretty sure I got it from James) is that it’s not up to me to tell women “I’m part of your movement”. If they want to call me a feminist (as some, but not all, have), I will gladly accept it, but I won’t argue with them or tell them they’re wrong if they don’t. It’s kind of like the difference between accepting an invitation and inviting yourself.
Nullius, the problem is that, whether or not you consider yourself a feminist, indeed whether or not you are a feminist, you still live in, and are part of, a sexist system. You can feel you are right, you can even be right about what feminism is. But when you start explaining that to a woman, the sexism in the system may start working through you. Sure, there’s information you’re providing, maybe good information. But there’s also “shut up, little woman, I’m a man and I know best” going on. It’s a difficult balance to maintain. I think it’s best to err on the side of shutting up rather than to err on the side of mansplaining, because words are cheaper than actions.
And yet, and yet… there are occasions where I would definitely maintain that the woman lecturing me about feminism knows less about it than I do, man though I am, and is prone to weaponising ‘mansplain’ into the bargain. Those that hang out or blog at FTB come to mind here. (Not that arguing the point would achieve anything when dealing with that lot…)
I recall one argument about the costuming of Wonder Woman movies came up on Pharyngula, and I stated that costume A was less sexist than costume B, and that switching to B was therefore a backward step, and one of FTB’s usual suspects misread that as the reverse. After a lengthy and acrimonious argument, someone else finally stepped in and convinced her that she had misread my opinion. At this point, I was lectured anew – apparently setting the record straight about her misread of my opinion was very mansplainy.
But I do agree that there are reasons no to continuing the argument past a certain point. In the event that the man is wrong, he is mansplaining; if the woman is wrong, she will be convinced that the man is mansplaining anyway. Somewhere along the line, it becomes an exercise in futility. The more productive thing to do is just let it abide.
It reminds me of the bind I found myself in long ago, when it was becoming apparent that I really was an argumentative so-and-so. If a person stated that I was argumentative, I could: 1) Agree, in which case it becomes established that I am argumentative because I did not dispute the charge; or 2) disagree, in which case it becomes established that I am argumentative because I argued against the charge. At the time, it did not occur to me that there was a third option: 3) Accept that I really am an argumentative so-and-so.
(I wonder if people will accept my self-idennifying as a not argumentative person?)
Holms, sorry no. Call me argumentariast-phobic, but you are what you are and you can’t identify out of it. I still feel great aroha for you though.
I’ve swung back and forth on this discussion a lot over the years. I’ve found myself increasingly uncomfortable wearing the feminist label. These days I think I’d opt for Nullius’ type 1-feminist. Philosophically inclined to feminism. In practical terms I’d probably opt for feminist-adjacant (if I wanted to be a little wry about it) or a feminist supporter. The word ally has been ruined by a certain class of activist, often not that well meaning. I’ll happily support the feminist political agenda, right up until they start sending all men to the gulags. I’ll also gleefully argue with those opposed to sex-based rights, abortion on demand, equal pay etc. I wouldn’t dream of taking part in any organisation committee for feminist action in a capacity above a non-speaking, non-voting tea maker. That’s because of the fear of warping discussion and decision making because of my potential presence and input (consider also the likes of Victor Svyatski). Does that mean my understanding of feminism is lesser than that of some women? No. My partner, who is a very strong, determined and independent woman, is utterly blind to many of the issues we discuss here. She’s totally swallowed the ‘if you’re tough and push through it’s not a problem’ world view. In my view that’s just a patriarchal rear guard, but she doesn’t get that. So, I’ll happily argue with women about whether sexism and misogyny are inherent in our society, what warping effects they have and what types of structural change would benefit women as a class and by extension quite a few men as well. I’ll even happily argue that it’s not feminism’s role to centre and champion every other disadvantaged group first, at the expense of women. That’s just a reversion to the patriarchal idea that women’s primary role is to nurture others.
Late to the party, but tossing in my two cents: I believe that men can hold what I consider to be core feminist values and work towards feminist goals. Certainly there are individual men who have done much good for women as a group, just as there are individual women who have done much harm to women as a group. Alienating men who seek to be allies does not in my opinion advance the feminist cause, but the claim that men cannot be feminists seems to generally function as shorthand for three things that are true: (a) when it comes to women’s rights, men don’t have the kind of skin in the game that women do, and their allyship may be prove to be conditional or limited; (b) as a corollary, men who are feminists when they’re thinking with their big heads may cease to be so when they’re thinking with their little heads; and (c) some predatory men pose as male feminists to gain women’s trust and shield themselves from criticism. In other words, when a man says he’s a feminist, keep a close eye on his actions rather than taking him at his word.
ATRU: @#34:
A lady friend of mine used to say of one of her noisily pro-feminist ex-lovers, “I don’t think he’ll pause for breath before he has screwed his way through he whole womens’ movement in this town.” And according to reports and unverified gossip at the time reaching me, he was well on his way to his goal.
Bjarte @ #30:
There’re two questions, but we don’t seem to be connecting on our descriptions of the second question, because I was talking about both. We clearly jibe on the first: what are a person’s beliefs and attitudes?
You come at the second from two directions. First as whether it is permissible for men to “self-identify as” feminists. There is an ambiguity here between feminist(1) and feminist(2), which we should be able to resolve the ambiguity by semantic substitution. This gives (of course) two questions.
(i) Is it permissible for a man to report that he holds beliefs consistent with a theory of political, economic, and social equality of the sexes (however specified)?
(ii) Is it permissible for a man to report that he takes part in organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests (however specified)?
Suppose we answer negatively to i. Then we commit ourselves to the notion that the sexes may not express the same beliefs. Answering ii in the negative leads to a similarly gendered position on the capacity to describe one’s activity. This gendering strikes me as intrinsically sexist, so I reject it. It forces someone to deny their convictions or their experience. Neither is acceptable.
The second way you approach the issue is through the intuition that it is not up to you to tell women that you are part of their movement. This you compare to inviting oneself somewhere and to the trans issue. It is certainly the case that there is a normatively significant difference between accepting an offered invitation and inviting oneself in. The former is definitely preferable to the latter. What is unclear to me is the meaning of “part of their movement.”
Does it mean that one engages in certain activities? That one is a member of certain organizations? That one is sympathetic to the movement’s goals? That one is a person deserving of the movement’s attention? Something else?
Of these, only the claim of desert seems remotely like inviting oneself to a party. It might be exemplified by a statement like, “I’m a feminist, so my opinion matters.” Yes, this does appear improper. However, I think it would be improper regardless of the speaker’s sex. If a woman said the same thing in order to inject anti-feminist ideas, that would be no less wrong.
———
Papito @ #31:
Papito, the problem is that, whether or not you consider yourself a moral person, indeed whether or not you are a moral person, you still live in, and are part of, a fallen world corrupted by sin. You can feel you are right, you can even be right about what morality is. But when you start explaining that to a non-believer, the sinful corruption in the fallen world may start working through you. Sure, there’s information you’re providing, maybe good information. But there’s also Satan’s influence going on. It’s a difficult balance to maintain. I think it’s best to err on the side of shutting up rather than to err on the side of opening doorways to Satan, because words are cheaper than actions.