If you thought this was a cheap attempt to explain women, sorry, you still need those check out line magazines and day time TV for that. This post is about an article by Barbara Rainey titled A Woman’s Emotions and how predictably wrong she is in what she says. When I was reading it, for the first time in my years of contemplating this I had a revolutionary thought…one that when you read it you may have to pause and think through before reacting to what I am actually saying rather than having a knee jerks defensive reaction. My thought was, maybe we shouldn’t be asking women about their emotions. There is folly, and it is apparent in this article, in someone stating self analytical thoughts on emotions that they describe as something they get trapped in, something sort of outside their control, something that skews their perception.
I remember thinking “What do I do? Where do I go?” Dennis was pursuing me to resolve our conflict, and I was so confused that I went into the bathroom, shut the door and thought, “I can’t get out of here. I’m stuck in this relationship.” [my emphasis]
I held the future of my marriage and my family in my hands.
Here she is describing someone who is out of control, who is confused, maybe even angry, or afraid. And that same person is having thoughts of flight but for the realization breaking through that there is more at stake than her feelings getting reconciled. She loses that insight quickly however.
As a woman experiences the various emotions in her daily life, she needs to feel loved and accepted by her husband so she can maintain a positive attitude. We are made in the emotional image of God; we shouldn’t be afraid of those emotions when they crop up.
What is “the emotional image of God”? Is it having the capacity for and ability to experience emotion? Or is that a sort of anything goes endorsement of her emotions? Are we to assume that emotions are good….by design? Is she extrapolating that because God made emotions, emotions are innately good? It seems she is, and I do not think that is correct, in fact I’m certain it is not. .
It is plainly stated in scripture to beware and weigh feelings carefully, watching for deceit, and somewhat related, to take thoughts captive. She reveals where she stands on that issue when she writes exactly what we have come to expect from today’s feminized church,
We know we are created in the image of God, but many of us don’t realize our emotions are a significant part of God’s image imprinted within us. Women need to feel comfortable with who they are emotionally. [my emphasis]
She conflates having the capacity to feel emotion with open ended endorsement of same. If it was merely stating that women are created emotional creatures and need to be OK with that, it would be fine…very basic and self evident, but fine. However, in the vague language of pop psychology (“comfortable with who they are“….what does that even mean?!) she endorses a woman’s emotions….no matter what. What is required, apparently, is not any measure of temperance, but rather that she and presumably everyone else be accepting of her emotions, regardless.
Lets imagine for a moment plugging men into this post, and using the thing that those of us who still believe in gender differences would likely substitute for emotions if we were discussing men. Imagine the following statements.
“Men need to feel comfortable with who they are sexually”.
“A man experiences various sexual urges in his daily life and he needs to feel loved and accepted by his wife so he can remain positive”
Whoa there buddy, what if those urges are unhealthy? (imagine head and finger wagging). And what if they are sssiiinnnfuuullll’ah?
Who would be asking those questions? Men? Sure, in church there would be men including pastors asking those questions, but women would be vehemently asking them as well, seeing any open ended acceptance of man’s sexual nature (God given) as problematic because via this nature men are tempted and sometimes fall into sin. Sorry, women should get no free pass here. It is ever more obvious that the place many women are led by their feelings is unhaaapiness and ultimately an affair and/or divorce court. I am sure Mrs. Rainey would object to my characterizing her words as such, however I would submit that while not openly stated, if done adroitly, further inquiry into her beliefs would not contradict what I assert here because hers is a conventional gynocentric churchian belief.
It is quickly taken on board by women, and just as quickly accepted by those men who see the Christian faith as another vehicle with which they can pander and not be like those other guys.
The Personal Jesus ™ is made up of the emotions she is writing about. He has told her everything she has written here in a conversation between her and well,…. her, as if she asks the mirror, “you talkin’ to me?” She thus protects his existence by creating its rationale with emotional building blocks.
The popular pro-family Christian organization that she represents is, as Dalrock often points out, celebrating the accommodation of the proclivities of the female while leaning into the admonishment and correction of males. That is no more evident than in the juxtaposition of female emotion and male sex drive and the respective treatments they receive in the church.