Anytime Someone Invokes Ontology . . .

Here is RC Sproul, Jr., fundy extraordinaire, explaining why the wimminz must stay in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.

I can’t imagine ever speaking to a more likeminded crowd than those to whom I was speaking that hot August day. First, the audience was crowded with children. Every one of them was being home schooled. The girls not only looked both modest and feminine in their jumpers, but I’m confident that the girls had made them themselves. This was a crowd where the men were men and the women were women.

Where men were men and women were women. What does that even mean? If I'm wearing a store-bought skirt, I'm no longer a woman? Am I then a man? No, that doesn't make any sense, either. (In case you haven't guessed, not making sense is a bit of theme with Mr. Sproul.)

I don’t remember what point I was trying to make, but to illustrate the point I made a passing reference to the chain of command in my home. I mentioned that my second born child, my son Campbell, who at the time was five and is now seven, knows, as does his older sister, who was seven then and is nine now, that a day was coming when he would be in a position of authority over his sister.

Why? Why would a boy ever be in a position of authority over his older sister? Is there any reason for this?

As soon as the words were out of my mouth, all the older sisters in the crowd were both in combat mode and instantly united. Their enemies were proximately their little brothers, but ultimately, me. When I finished my address, I found myself surrounded by a mass of angry, feminine, pulchritude.

First of all, learn how to use a comma, asshat. Secondly, even removing the extra comma, "angry, feminine pulchritude" does not make any sense. Pulchritude is beauty. Angry, feminine beauty? That's utter nonsense, but I assume what you meant was, "Oh, those girls are so pretty when they're angry!"

The younger brothers did not bother to back me up. They were too busy demonstrating their maturity by doing end zone dances in celebration over what I had said.

Yes, which is exactly why they should be "in a position of authority" over the angry, feminine pulchritudiness, right?

For all their obvious anger, the ladies did manage to remain ladies.

They remained the daughters of nobility? I had no idea it was that sort of crowd.

They were polite, and demure, as they graciously asked out of which specific pit in hell my fool idea had come from. Unable to spot a lawyer in the crowd, I chose to defend myself. “Suppose,” I asked the young ladies, “your mom and dad were away some afternoon. While they were gone your baby sister, in mid-diaper change, decided a nice brisk walk in the front yard, in the snow, would be invigorating. Before she can do too much damage, you rescue the child from the cold and complete the diaper change.

Mind you, in the specific example above, we were discussing girls far too young to be left in charge of small children, but notice at this point, it's the girl who's responsible for chasing down naked children and changing diapers, not the boy.

Two hours later you peak

Really? I would imagine that you peek, but what do I know? I'm a pulchritudinous man, apparently.

out the window and see coming toward your front door a Hillary Clinton clone. This one isn’t the nanny from New York, but your friendly, neighborhood Lady from Child Protective Services.

I'm not sure where to start here. First of all, he's using CPS as to the bogeyman in a speech to children. That says an awful lot about his audience, doesn't it? I don't fear a visit from CPS. Most people who aren't abusing their children don't. Teaching your children to fear CPS says so much about what you may be doing to those children that I should just call CPS on you right now, Mr. Sproul and save us all the time.

Also, Hilary Clinton clone? WTF? Oh, that's right, she's another nonwoman, and an Evul Librul to boot. Carry on.

Who,” I asked them, “should answer the door? Who is responsible to make sure that this woman doesn’t cart off all of you?”

O.o I guess I now know why fundys hate and fear the rest of so much. We must show up in their nightmares on a regular basis if this is their introduction to the wider culture.

But, to answer your question, Mr. Sproul, how about the person responsible for changing diapers and chasing naked babies? After all, they were good enough to take care of all the grunt work, why shouldn't they talk to Teh Evul Librul.

They all agreed that in the face of this enemy, the oldest son should step in.

Enemy. Enemy. Culture wars, forever baby. Anyway, why should the oldest son answer the door? He's not good enough to change a diaper, why should he answer the door? Plus, wouldn't it be advantageous to make it at least appear that a child old enough to babysit is, in fact, babysitting?

“Alright,” I continued, “now suppose he thinks it would be a grand idea for the Lady from Child Protective Services not to see the still-rosy cheeks of baby sister, nor the gaggle of middle children. He thinks this ‘intervention’ would go more smoothly if all of you were out of sight. Does he not have the authority to instruct his siblings, even his older sister, to head down to the basement until the danger has passed?”

Danger. Fantastic. Think about this for a second. A neighbor sees a naked baby running through the snow and calls . . . fuck it, why would they call CPS instead of 911? Anyway, A neighbor sees a naked baby running through the snow and calls CPS. So, CPS is fully aware there is at least one child possibly being neglected. Now they are greeted at the door by another, older child, with no other children in sight. Isn't that going to look suspicious? Wouldn't hiding all the children be the worst option for allaying concern? Apparently, oldest son shouldn't be left in charge of a pet rock, because he's a fucking moron.

Also, does Mr. Sproul assume the Evul Hilary Clone is going to talk to a 9 year old boy, accept the missing, possibly dead from exposure baby is now disappeared and then leave without speaking to the parents or calling the police and searching the house? Really? I can't think of any behavior that would make anyone more suspicious.

All I can really say is, again, O_o The misogyny is bad enough, but this terrible fear of the rest of the world? That's not going to end well.

Oh, the ontological invoking:

The feminist movement, like every strategy of the devil, has failed on all fronts. When you make a deal with the devil, not only does he always get what you offer, but he never delivers on his side of the bargain. Feminism does not set women free from the tyranny of men. Rather, it imposes on women the tyranny of men. The truth is that “Boys protect girls” is not just a moral imperative. It is an ontological reality. That is, men will always lead women. The only question is whether that leadership will be servant leadership. The only question is whether men will lead by ordering women off to battle, or to serve men’s petty wants, whether we will send our sisters to face off with the Lady from Child Protective Services, or have them shine our shoes. Or, will we lead as Jesus led?

Basically, "because shut up, that's why!" Never trust an ontological argument.

I will leave you with this:

There is no denying the authority of Jesus. As C.S. Lewis rightly pointed out, compared to Jesus we are all feminine.

In a room full of girls, Mr. Sproul said that compared to Jesus, we are all feminine. You know, the worst thing you could be. Yeesh.

pic link