Clashing Feminists and Evangelical Chaos

https://www.newsweek.com/like-child-voiced-tradwife-senator-katie-britt-embodied-christian-rights-expectations-1879414

This is one of those extremely frustrating articles to read.

Newsweek's Sarah Stankorb is of course a secular feminist that doesn't understand Christianity and misinterprets the causes and actions of various groups.

That said, Britt is hardly some kind of 'traditional wife' in that she's a US Senator and thus anything but a housewife. It's a profession that is not only full time, it consumes your life and it is certain her husband and family suffer the consequences.

So in other words, Britt is something of a feminist herself.

The article in question deals with her GOP Response to the 2024 State of the Union - Biden's last.

The speech and its delivery were awkward and subjected to lampoon - famously on Saturday Night Live.

But for many secular feminists, Britt represents a view of womanhood they both fear and detest. And this is where things get frustrating because again - Britt is also a feminist and thus actual conservative Bible-oriented Christians are not going to support her either. In fact, we would view her as something of a worldling and theologically compromised.

Britt's claim of being a mother and wife first are simply not true. The job won't allow for it and she's already demonstrated that she rejects New Testament norms and expectations regarding everything from family life, to the embrace of power and mammon.

The Duggars were a disaster. I guess they thought they were somehow being a witness for Biblical Christianity. Instead they appeared as disingenuous money-grubbers portraying a life that's completely out of touch and unattainable - even for those who might want it. Their dirty laundry ended up being aired and it left an ugly stain on their legacy. There have been certain 'styles' (we might say) of manhood and woman-hood that have emerged in recent years. One thinks of the Jeff Durbin-like bearded tough-guy tattoo look that (in the past) would have fit the barfly or criminal persona. Today it's deemed masculine - even while a lot of these men are not always that masculine at all. Likewise the diminutive Pollyanna voice (the child-like tone cited by Stankorb) is something that emerged in some of these circles, and yet I find just as many Right-wing Christian types embracing the mouthy/slutty style of figures like Boebert, Taylor-Greene, and Mace.

Britt and Coney-Barrett are one type and yet I'm also wondering if this really is an affectation or simply how they talk? There's a wide diversity in styles. Not every Democratic woman comes across as a butchy WNBA player - though some do. Some are the masculine types - while others like Ocasio-Cortez or the recently defeated Jasmine Crockett are actually quite feminine and even sound at times like they have a 'little girl' voice. In some respects I'm wondering if this aspect of the story is much ado about nothing.

Likewise one finds degrees of masculinity in US politics as well. There are certainly more effeminate-type men in DNC circles and yet there are a lot of GOP men trying to lay it on a bit thick. Others like Lindsey Graham while not flamboyant nevertheless come across as a bit off - and thus I wasn't surprised to learn years ago of the rumours that surround him. His deranged and manic behaviour is perhaps connected to other psychological tendencies.

George W. Bush has a kind of higher voice and comes across as awkward and yet many found him to be some kind of paragon of masculinity. Some of this also just has to do with cultural norms. There are types that emerge and wane over time. Today, I think a lot of American men come across as effeminate even if they're not actually homosexual. We're a long way from either John Wayne or Robert Mitchum-type men being the norm or model. Whether that's good or bad, I leave for others to judge.

There was also a fast-talking and somewhat abrasive American type that was pretty normative back in the first half of the 20th century - one some of us remember but it now more or less gone. I'm thinking of Bogart, Cagney, and Edward G Robinson.

The bottom line is the new feminist class has their own type and expectations and are critical of women who don't meet them. But I don't say any of this to defend Britt who I consider to be something of a rebel woman who has rejected Biblical norms on multiple fronts.

The article argues that Britt is the submissive type. Really? Then why would she become a US Senator? Her husband may be all NFL brawn but in my book he's a milquetoast - again the kind of pseudo-masculine man of the modern era. There's more to being a man, husband, and father than being able to play tackle football. I don't buy the 'supportive husband' bit. That simply means that he's the submissive one - she comes first. She's the princess, she's the queen. Whether she wears 'the pants' or lipstick doesn't really matter. Her career and her office priorities set the agenda for the family - not the husband's leadership. He's the dumb lug that opens jars and can reach the top shelf.

This is all came up in earnest back in 2008 with Sarah Palin when actual conservatives argued that Christians should not support her. She was not a good wife or mother and time bore this out. But scheming Christian Right politicians were desperate to re-engage Evangelicals in an election they were losing - and did lose anyway. But once that Rubicon was crossed, there was no turning back. And what's happening now is really nothing less than a kind of schizophrenia.

And yet the Newsweek article misunderstands these issues and misreads them and views them all through a flawed lens - and as such muddies the already confused waters. As the Evangelical world is blowing up over Trumpism and the likes of Doug Wilson, many Christian women will actually resonate more with Stankorb than anyone else.

But in all cases, whether it be the Christian Right, the Doug Wilson movement, and Evangelicalism in general - no one is actually reading or following New Testament teaching.

Stankorb's assessment of politicized homeschooling and the like is not inaccurate and it's a shame and stain on the movement - one that is otherwise important to me. We homeschooled our children and I think it's really the only viable option for Christians today. That said, I counsel every homeschooling parent I encounter to stay away from the various curricula that are out there produced by Evangelical sources.

Stankorb speaks of the astonishing embrace of Trump in 2016 - and up to the present. The way to explain this is simple - it was a Faustian bargain. It's about power.

The Evangelical movement embraced feminism, psychology, and divorce in the 1980's and 1990's and so having already lost its way, it's not hard to see how women in that movement have become confused about femininity. Some think you can be feminine while holding political power and being a career woman. Others equate femininity with being sexually provocative - the Barbie doll/Silicon Mar-a-Lago look that characterizes Trump's women and many of the women who surround him. The now fired ICE Barbie (Kristi Noem) typifies this with her heavy makeup, artificially plump lips, and extra long (carefully displayed) hair combined with cowboy/Western style or the commando-camouflage look. Either way, it's a kind of pseudo-femininity. And in her case many have long known that her Christianity and all the rest was fraudulent.

Stankorb is right - the Britt speech and persona are farcical, but not for the reasons she thinks. It's something more profound and sadly destructive as it discredits Christian women who (unlike Britt) are serious about Biblical obedience and the call to be keepers of the home, let alone shamefaced and submissive to their husbands - of which women like Noem and Britt are the antithesis.

And yet how frustrating for some of these women who might wear skirts and have long hair and because of this are connected in the public eye to the Trump cult.

I do agree with Stankorb that Christian Nationalism is problematic but again for (I'm sure) quite different reasons. I was interested to discover that she's from Northeast Ohio and has past connections to a larger Rust Belt area I know well. But I was very disappointed to see leaders from the Evangelical Left endorsing her book.