The Social Justice Left Keeps Trying to Out-Stupid Each Other and All of Them Are Winning

 

Dang, I thought this was easily the stupidest story I was going to read today: A feminist rabbi just wrote a book about how gender inequality and “rape culture” came about because God slut-shamed Eve in the Garden of Eden, or something.

I want you to think about this. Here is a young, beautiful, intelligent, naked woman living in a state of Grace. She’s hungry, so she does the most natural thing in the world and eats a piece of fruit. For following her instincts, trusting herself, and nourishing her body, she is punished. Her punishment? She will never again feel safe in her nakedness. She will never again love her body. She will never again know her body as a place of sacred sovereignty….

The founding myth of Judeo-Christian religion, the story of Eve, granted generations of men permission to violate women. It teaches us that women are liars and sinners. Even if “She” is telling the truth, she deserved it. God told her not to eat that apple, or wear that skirt, or go out after dark, or be pretty, or desirous, or in that bar or on that street or in that car or born a girl.

“Man oh man,” thought I. (Or, “People Oh People,” in Approved Canadian). “That is surely the most idiotic thing I am going to read today.”

It was not. Because some Social Justice Warriors on Airstrip One are offended by the safety instructions on shopping carts.

They say that safety instructions on the handles of the carts only depict women with children, using a silhouette of a figure in a dress….

Samantha Rennie, executive director at equality group the Rosa UK Fund for Women and Girls, said last night: ‘The idea that shopping trolleys should be gendered in any way seems ridiculous.

‘It’s a seemingly small factor that plays a role in reinforcing stereotypical ideas of the woman being responsible for the weekly food shop.’

And Matt O’Connor, of campaign group Fathers4Justice, said: ‘Tesco needs to stop this gender apartheid.’

Maybe it wasn’t quite as stupid as the first thing; or maybe it was worse. I don’t know. Does it matter?

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 58 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    The only way to kill the Social Justice Left is to destroy the internet. It’s how they connect, it’s how they promote their asinine ideas, it’s how they expand and multiply.

    To kill them, we have to kill the internet.

    I’m willing to make that sacrifice for the good of the world. How about you guys?

     

    • #31
  2. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    Ed G – We are told that humans are made in God’s image, moreover, we read that Adam named all things.  Naming is the definition of choice.

    Further, the very fact that they sin implies that they have free will.  A machine cannot sin, only its creator can.

    • #32
  3. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    I don’t see the big deal.  It’s not at all stupid.  A little overdone, yes, but not stupid.

    The Rabbi is writing from a stultified-feminist perspective, Eve’s actions were in a way understandable, and the price she paid was waaaaaay out of proportion to the crime.

    We are all Eve, tempted by the pretty things around us, beguiled by our own Serpents, hiding our shame to avoid the wrath of God, passing our guilt down to our descendants.

    That’s why Moses wrote the story.

    • #33
  4. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    Kate Braestrup (View Comment):
    Separation, inequality, misunderstanding and hostility between the sexes: These are not what God originally had in mind for his creatures. These are the consequences of seizing for ourselves that which belongs to God.

    Wonderfully stated.  Thanks again, Kate.

    • #34
  5. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Kate Braestrup (View Comment):
    Separation, inequality, misunderstanding and hostility between the sexes:

    I’ve admittedly been in a male-dominated field all my life–there are few female carpenters or concrete finishers, for instance, so I’ve not dealt with this on a day-to-day basis.  But this is certainly not how my wife and I approach things.

    • #35
  6. Kate Braestrup Member
    Kate Braestrup
    @GrannyDude

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Kate Braestrup (View Comment):
    Separation, inequality, misunderstanding and hostility between the sexes:

    I’ve admittedly been in a male-dominated field all my life–there are few female carpenters or concrete finishers, for instance, so I’ve not dealt with this on a day-to-day basis. But this is certainly not how my wife and I approach things.

    I’m in a male-dominated field too, and it’s not how things work there (or at my house). But —as we see around us—the potential for a lot of misery and heartache is certainly present in households, industries (Hollywood, for example) or whole societies. Like, say, Yemen.

    • #36
  7. Chuckles Coolidge
    Chuckles
    @Chuckles

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):
    The only way to kill the Social Justice Left is to destroy the internet. It’s how they connect, it’s how they promote their asinine ideas, it’s how they expand and multiply.

    To kill them, we have to kill the internet.

    I’m willing to make that sacrifice for the good of the world. How about you guys?

    No internet?  No facebook? No instagram?  Could life even exist?

    • #37
  8. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    Ed G – We are told that humans are made in God’s image, moreover, we read that Adam named all things. Naming is the definition of choice.

    Further, the very fact that they sin implies that they have free will. A machine cannot sin, only its creator can.

    If it never sins, how can you know it’s not a machine?

    [Edit: added missing apostrophe.]

    • #38
  9. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Kate Braestrup (View Comment):
    Adam didn’t argue or protest because he had been standing next to Eve throughout her conversation with the serpent.

    An unsatisfactory explanation because even were Adam to have been there at the same time, it was still Eve to whom Satan spoke, and it was she who picked the fruit and ate from it first.

    But then, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

    • #39
  10. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    Ed G – We are told that humans are made in God’s image, moreover, we read that Adam named all things. Naming is the definition of choice.

    Further, the very fact that they sin implies that they have free will. A machine cannot sin, only its creator can.

    There is no such thing as sin prior to eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There is only creation as God made it. If there is no knowledge of good and evil then there is no moral agency, like animals.  Yes Adam is the top animal and obviously has better communication and thinking ability than the other animals and he has more privilege, but that isn’t the same as moral agency.

    • #40
  11. Joe P Member
    Joe P
    @JoeP

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):
    The only way to kill the Social Justice Left is to destroy the internet. It’s how they connect, it’s how they promote their asinine ideas, it’s how they expand and multiply.

    To kill them, we have to kill the internet.

    I’m willing to make that sacrifice for the good of the world. How about you guys?

    They existed before the Internet. Part of the reason they even were able to grow during the Internet age is that they were already embedded in a number of institutions which were more powerful before the Internet, such as media and academia. Destroying the Internet would simply revert power to those institutions.

    • #41
  12. TheSockMonkey Inactive
    TheSockMonkey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    Ed G – We are told that humans are made in God’s image, moreover, we read that Adam named all things. Naming is the definition of choice.

    Further, the very fact that they sin implies that they have free will. A machine cannot sin, only its creator can.

    There is no such thing as sin prior to eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There is only creation as God made it. If there is no knowledge of good and evil then there is no moral agency, like animals. Yes Adam is the top animal and obviously has better communication and thinking ability than the other animals and he has more privilege, but that isn’t the same as moral agency.

    I don’t think so. When the serpent suggested to Eve that God withheld the fruit from them, because He didn’t want them to be as wise as God, I think he was appealing to Eve’s sense of fair play. He was suggesting that God’s motives were impure, and he didn’t have their best interests in mind. That implies she already had a sense of some things being right, and others wrong. Of course, that still leaves the question of how that differs from a knowledge of good & evil.

    • #42
  13. DrewInWisconsin Member
    DrewInWisconsin
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Chuckles (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):
    The only way to kill the Social Justice Left is to destroy the internet. It’s how they connect, it’s how they promote their asinine ideas, it’s how they expand and multiply.

    To kill them, we have to kill the internet.

    I’m willing to make that sacrifice for the good of the world. How about you guys?

    No internet? No facebook? No instagram? Could life even exist?

    It would be a better life. Slower. Happier. And no SJWs!

    • #43
  14. Ed G. Member
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    TheSockMonkey (View Comment):

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    Ed G – We are told that humans are made in God’s image, moreover, we read that Adam named all things. Naming is the definition of choice.

    Further, the very fact that they sin implies that they have free will. A machine cannot sin, only its creator can.

    There is no such thing as sin prior to eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. There is only creation as God made it. If there is no knowledge of good and evil then there is no moral agency, like animals. Yes Adam is the top animal and obviously has better communication and thinking ability than the other animals and he has more privilege, but that isn’t the same as moral agency.

    I don’t think so. When the serpent suggested to Eve that God withheld the fruit from them, because He didn’t want them to be as wise as God, I think he was appealing to Eve’s sense of fair play. He was suggesting that God’s motives were impure, and he didn’t have their best interests in mind. That implies she already had a sense of some things being right, and others wrong. Of course, that still leaves the question of how that differs from a knowledge of good & evil.

    I see what you’re saying. Let me start by admitting that I don’t really know what I’m talking about. That’s true for all of us I suppose but I mean I’m not sure what I think or believe on this topic.

    That stipulated, I think I was allowing for intelligence as the most privileged of the Eden animals. I think there is a difference between intelligence and moral agency, though. I don’t think I have time to explore that in any greater detail (see me in April), but I think it’s easy enough to identify that distinction in the present day with real life examples. Utilitarianism might be a broad example: we can think about utility but often utility can lead to morally monstrous results. Doesn’t the criminal think he’s maximizing his utility? Didn’t monsters like Stalin or Hitler believe they were pursuing some version of maximized utility? Heck, what about something much more common like tough love? Are we more moral when we give the panhandler five bucks or when we ignore him? (I suppose taking him into your home, and caring for him might be most moral but that has utility considerations of its own).

    • #44
  15. Jules PA Inactive
    Jules PA
    @JulesPA

    TheSockMonkey (View Comment):

    I don’t think so. When the serpent suggested to Eve that God withheld the fruit from them, because He didn’t want them to be as wise as God, I think he was appealing to Eve’s sense of fair play. He was suggesting that God’s motives were impure, and he didn’t have their best interests in mind. That implies she already had a sense of some things being right, and others wrong. Of course, that still leaves the question of how that differs from a knowledge of good & evil.

    When Eve and Adam were given a clear boundary, and clear consequences, the moment each choose to cross that boundary against instruction…that is exactly when they knew good from evil.

    The fruit of the tree was forbidden. Do not eat it, you will surely die.

    Until they took freely from the tree, they did not know evil. Once they did, that made them accountable for their free choice to believe the serpent, instead of G-d.

    • #45
  16. Randy Webster Inactive
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    When Adam delved and Eve span,

    Who then was the gentleman?

    • #46
  17. Skyler Coolidge
    Skyler
    @Skyler

    Jules PA (View Comment):

    TheSockMonkey (View Comment):

    I don’t think so. When the serpent suggested to Eve that God withheld the fruit from them, because He didn’t want them to be as wise as God, I think he was appealing to Eve’s sense of fair play. He was suggesting that God’s motives were impure, and he didn’t have their best interests in mind. That implies she already had a sense of some things being right, and others wrong. Of course, that still leaves the question of how that differs from a knowledge of good & evil.

    When Eve and Adam were given a clear boundary, and clear consequences, the moment each choose to cross that boundary against instruction…that is exactly when they knew good from evil.

    The fruit of the tree was forbidden. Do not eat it, you will surely die.

    Until they took freely from the tree, they did not know evil. Once they did, that made them accountable for their free choice to believe the serpent, instead of G-d.

    All I know is my reaction would have been, “Well, if you won’t tell me the knowledge, I’ll go figure it out myself.”

    • #47
  18. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    I can’t imagine the Garden of Eve story going any other way, and it wouldn’t even be a story if they stayed in the garden.

    To me it speaks to who we really are. That we are willful and must take our lumps. We may remain God’s children, but until we left the garden we weren’t His adults.

    • #48
  19. OmegaPaladin Moderator
    OmegaPaladin
    @OmegaPaladin

    Ed G. (View Comment):

     

    I see what you’re saying. Let me start by admitting that I don’t really know what I’m talking about. That’s true for all of us I suppose but I mean I’m not sure what I think or believe on this topic.

    That stipulated, I think I was allowing for intelligence as the most privileged of the Eden animals. I think there is a difference between intelligence and moral agency, though. I don’t think I have time to explore that in any greater detail (see me in April), but I think it’s easy enough to identify that distinction in the present day with real life examples. Utilitarianism might be a broad example: we can think about utility but often utility can lead to morally monstrous results. Doesn’t the criminal think he’s maximizing his utility? Didn’t monsters like Stalin or Hitler believe they were pursuing some version of maximized utility? Heck, what about something much more common like tough love? Are we more moral when we give the panhandler five bucks or when we ignore him? (I suppose taking him into your home, and caring for him might be most moral but that has utility considerations of its own).

    19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

    Here, the Lord is relying on the man for judgement.  The Creator of the universe is asking one of his creation to do the naming – not the angels, not the other animals, man.  This is establishing man at having control of creation, and judgement over it.  If man did not have free will, what would be the point of this.

    But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

    So nothing in creation is suitable as Adam’s helper.  Not dogs, not cats, not horses, not dolphin, not monkeys.  Nothing in creation is suitable for Man but Woman.  The text seems to imply that Man is part of the process – God is asking Adam who would be a suitable helper, then announces that one must be made.

    Now, what is the knowledge of good and evil?  Why is this a bad thing?  Well, knowledge is not evil – what is naming, if not the creation of knowledge and language?   It is the awareness of evil, of the absence of good – and in turn the absence of life – death.  In order to understand evil, you lose your innocence.  You feel shame, and you do good out of fear of punishment rather than love of God.  Before this, they could do evil, but it never occurred to them.

    • #49
  20. Ralphie Inactive
    Ralphie
    @Ralphie

    OmegaPaladin (View Comment):
    19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

    Here, the Lord is relying on the man for judgement. The Creator of the universe is asking one of his creation to do the naming – not the angels, not the other animals, man. This is establishing man at having control of creation, and judgement over it. If man did not have free will, what would be the point of this.

    But for Adam no suitable helper was found.

    Excellent. Eve was to be a helpmate. A pastor commented years back that when women write books for women they are about relationships, and when men write for men it is about the mission.  In man’s quest to accomplish the mission, there may be a woman in the story, and she helps him to get the mission done.

    • #50
  21. TheSockMonkey Inactive
    TheSockMonkey
    @TheSockMonkey

    Ralphie (View Comment):
    Eve was to be a helpmate. A pastor commented years back that when women write books for women they are about relationships, and when men write for men it is about the mission. In man’s quest to accomplish the mission, there may be a woman in the story, and she helps him to get the mission done.

    Helpmeet, actually, not helpmate. But that’s a good point. I think that’s what the Bible’s talking about when it says that Eve’s desire would be for her husband, and he would rule over her.

    • #51
  22. Ralphie Inactive
    Ralphie
    @Ralphie

    TheSockMonkey (View Comment):

    Ralphie (View Comment):
    Eve was to be a helpmate. A pastor commented years back that when women write books for women they are about relationships, and when men write for men it is about the mission. In man’s quest to accomplish the mission, there may be a woman in the story, and she helps him to get the mission done.

    Helpmeet, actually, not helpmate. But that’s a good point. I think that’s what the Bible’s talking about when it says that Eve’s desire would be for her husband, and he would rule over her.

    Thanks. I got lazy to look it up and winged it.

    • #52
  23. Doctor Robert Member
    Doctor Robert
    @DoctorRobert

    My wife and I discussed this story today as it came up in our daily reading.

    The ramifications of this simple story are so deep, so complex, so central to our lives, even two thousand years after it was written.

    I mentioned the discussion here on Ricochet.  We went over some of the arguments various Ricochetti have made

    One thing occurred to me.  Adam was there with Eve as the serpent beguiled her (Gen 3:6).  He knew of the prohibition (Gen 2:17) and had told Eve of this (Gen 3:3)  yet he took no steps to stop her from eating the fruit.

    What a cad.

    What a lout.

    What a boor.

    A gentleman would have rebuked the serpent; a hero would have vanquished the serpent; a metrosexual would at least have taken Eve by the hand and said, “nothing good will come of this, Eve, let’s get ourselves somewhere else”.

    But Adam DID NOTHING except to eat of the fruit with her.

    So there’s another lesson in the story.  Not only must one obey God (contrast Eve and Adam in Genesis 3 to Christ in Matthew 4); one must also be willing to step up and prevent the people you love from disobeying God.  Failing to do so can have awful consequences.

    • #53
  24. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    But Adam DID NOTHING except to eat of the fruit with her.

    So there’s another lesson in the story. Not only must one obey God (contrast Eve and Adam in Genesis 3 to Christ in Matthew 4); one must also be willing to step up and prevent the people you love from disobeying God. Failing to do so can have awful consequences.

    Interesting.  Might it be that Adam is given authority over Eve so that he will actually have to take some responsibility in the future?

    • #54
  25. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Didn’t Adam fail in his duty by neglecting to keep the serpent out of the garden in the first place? And, speaking of ungentlemanly and irresponsible, pointing to Eve and answering to God that, “the woman made me do it,” is, um, unattractive to say the least!

    My understanding is the ancient term used for the serpent suggests intimidation was involved — “Nice gig you’ve got going here. Shame if anything happened to it.”

    This all suggests Adam was every bit as fallen as Eve. Nobody gets a pass.

    • #55
  26. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Didn’t Adam fail in his duty by neglecting to keep the serpent out of the garden in the first place?

    I have here in my hand an affidavit stating that Adam was away on a spider-removal mission at the time of the unfortunate snake incident.

    • #56
  27. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    TBA (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):
    Didn’t Adam fail in his duty by neglecting to keep the serpent out of the garden in the first place?

    I have here in my hand an affidavit stating that Adam was away on a spider-removal mission at the time of the unfortunate snake incident.

    Ha! Well, that is one of man’s major responsibilities!

    • #57
  28. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Doctor Robert (View Comment):

    But Adam DID NOTHING except to eat of the fruit with her.

    So there’s another lesson in the story. Not only must one obey God (contrast Eve and Adam in Genesis 3 to Christ in Matthew 4); one must also be willing to step up and prevent the people you love from disobeying God. Failing to do so can have awful consequences.

    Interesting. Might it be that Adam is given authority over Eve so that he will actually have to take some responsibility in the future?

    On cue, the voice in our heads screams “That’s not fair!  Why should Eve be punished with submission to her husband just because of his sins?”

    The little voice, of course, presumes that there is something wrong with submission–only absolute equality in every possible respect is morally acceptable!

    But why do we think that?  Other than our post-Enlightenment cultural conditioning–really, why?

    Indeed, perhaps submission of someone to someone was necessary–otherwise, no one would let anyone else take responsibility!  And responsibility matters.

    But why submission of the woman to the man, we ask?  Perhaps “Why not?” is a good answer, since someone has to take responsibility.

    But maybe there’another reason–a terribly unfashionable but very good reason.  It’s a reason well understood by our friends on the Left who think that women should be free from pregnancy so they can climb the corporate ladder, taking responsibility in the workplace.  Taking corporate responsibility (in the workplace or in the family) is a challenging occupation, and having babies is a challenging occupation, and it’s hard to have two occupations most of the time.  (Not that it’s never been done; I presume a number of us have!)

    • #58
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.