Doug Wilson’s distracting us from the recent sex abuse hubbub by dishing up his usual insults about the kinds of females who displease him. Specifically, he gives us the supposed full picture of non-Christian females by stating “Unbelieving women either compete for the attention of men through outlandish messages that communicate some variation of ‘easy lay,’ or in the grip of resentment they give up the endeavor entirely, which is how we get lumberjack dykes. The former is an avid reader of Cosmopolitan and thinks she knows 15K ways to please a man in bed. The latter is just plain surly about the fact that there even are any men.”

Now, I’m pretty sure that, regardless of my actual beliefs, Doug wouldn’t count me as a Christian, since my doctrine is about as far from his as one could get. So which one am I — the shameless, Cosmo-obsessed hussy falling out of her clothing because she’s obsessed with getting men to look at her, or the resentful, man-hating, maybe-even “lumberjack dyke”?

Katie BotkinHere’s a helpful photo in case Doug’s having a hard time deciding which of these categories I belong in. In it, I’m wearing a dress my grandmother designed in the 1940s. Hussy, dyke; hussy, dyke. You know, I can’t really decide. Am I inviting the male gaze too much or too little? Because for the non-Christian/non-CREC woman, those are clearly the only options.

Doug’s pulled this distraction before, numerous times, commenting on e.g. “clueless women … who are themselves pushy broads, twinkies in tight tops, or waifs with manga eyes.” This works as a distraction because he then makes a big show of correcting the people who inevitably draw the conclusion that he’s being pretty insulting to women. Because, you see, he’s not insulting all women. He’s just insulting some women. He pats himself on the back for thus schooling the masses in logic.

Ahem. Ever heard of the straw man fallacy, Doug? Where you disingenuously act like your intellectual opponents are arguing something that’s easy to refute, then blow them aside like so much chaff? See, it’s not necessary to claim that you’re insulting all women in order to say you’re insulting women. Or are you linguistically disingenuous as well? “You’re insulting women” is ambiguous precisely because it doesn’t specify how many women you’re hurting. “You’re insulting all of womankind” would be something else.

Let’s put this another way. Let’s claim that men who spend all their time deflecting accurate criticisms by trolling the internet hordes with shots about “small-breasted biddies” are themselves bulbous, unattractive effetes whose physical masculinity is obviously so tenuous that they need to assert themselves by regularly throwing verbal tantrums like two-year-olds obsessed with the idea that not enough people think they’re in charge. Actually masculine men don’t need to spend all their time convincing people that they’re masculine. Actually witty men don’t need to spend all their time convincing people they’re witty. Men who actually show honor to women — all women, not just the perfectly-dressed, perfectly-submissive ones — don’t need to spend time protesting that they’re nice to all the women who deserve it.

I’ve said all this, but note that I’m not necessarily insulting Doug Wilson with those statements. In fact, I’ll specifically say I’m not. See how Doug’s logic works?

Now, as it happens, I actually believe that kind men — men who are kind to their own bodies and to the people around them — are far more attractive, both physically and emotionally, than men who insult [some] women for a living. And this, to cop a phrase, is “an erotic necessity.” It’s sexy when a man is confident enough that he lifts up everyone instead of maligning some. It’s sexy when men take care of themselves physically, and usually this translates to an ability to take care of women physically (wink, wink, Doug. What am I implying with this statement? Rest assured, it’s the opposite of whatever you assume it is).

Also sexy: consistency, and humility. And that goes double for any man who talks day and night about submission, patriarchy and trusting the judgment of the elders.

So for those of you who are not aware, let me take you down memory lane, back to the birth of Christ Church. Trust me, it’s relevant.

Christ Church, Moscow, was originally planted as a mission church of the Evangelical Free Church of Pullman in 1975. By the early 1990s, the church, then called Community Evangelical Fellowship (CEF), had grown to about 80 families. It was led by four elders: Bob Callihan, Fred Kohl, Terry Morin, and Doug Wilson. As this archived website states, “although the origin of CEF was in the Evangelical Free Church, the doctrinal character of Doug Wilson’s pulpit and teaching ministry began to take on a Reformed orientation, first embracing a postmillennial eschatology in the late 1980s, and moving toward a Calvinistic soteriology in 1990 or thereabout.” This was a matter of doctrinal concern to the other elders, and they, all PhDs and professors at UI, served Wilson notice that the church constitution required them to remove him from the office of elder. In a responsive letter to these other elders, Doug wrote “If you require me to cease teaching, I will submit to that. If you want me to step down as an elder, I will submit to that. In no way will I fight, or maneuver to resist you. If anyone else in the church were distressed over what I was being asked to do, I would use whatever influence I had to keep it from being a problem.”

The elders responded in turn by asking Doug to resign from the eldership, unless he could confirm that he was in line with the church’s statement of faith. They also informed the congregation of their decision.

So did Doug step down? No, he didn’t. Instead, he drafted a letter to revise the events that had taken place, listing the elders’ names at the bottom. The elders refused to sign it. Doug did not leave the church, which forced two of the elders to resign instead.

Of note here: Doug’s financial shenanigans had been an issue in this church as well — he’d borrowed money from the church to pay his tax debts, something the elders were not happy about. In an elders’ meeting, they instructed him on how to pay the debt back, and to stop self-allocating church money. Doug complicated the issue by drafting a set of fake minutes from this elder’s meeting in an attempt to show a different story, which was subsequently posted on the Christ Church website years later when all this came to light. When the authenticity of this document was pointed out as false (along with the letter that the elders refused to sign, which had also been posted as “proof” that Doug had done the right thing), Christ Church issued a non-apology apology that included the assertion that the church should have just paid Doug’s taxes because they hadn’t taken out enough from his paycheck every month (weird, I don’t expect someone else, least of all a nonprofit run on donations, to pay my taxes if I owe tax money at the end of the year — it’s called being financially responsible) and gave a bunch of excuses as to why Doug hadn’t resigned like he said he would do back in 1993.

Are we seeing a pattern here yet? Doug talks straight but plays crooked, and he’s always blaming someone else for this, even in matters of obvious personal responsibility such as paying his taxes.

Crooked men are rarely beautiful at his age, since a lifetime of self-justification and making enemies of countless former friends tends to cook you from the inside out.

I’m not saying this, of course. I’m just saying this.