What REALLY Went Wrong with Desiring God’s Critique of CAPTAIN MARVEL
The
proverbial hornet’s nest got a solid whack with a stick when Desiring God
published an article by Greg Morse entitled Behold
Your Queen: The Real Conflict in Captain Marvel. When the piece was
initially published, I was concerned. After further reflection, I became more
concerned. And after seeing the angry, hurt, and incredulous responses from
many women I know, I became deeply concerned.
That
concern turned into a lengthy written response, divided into two separate blog
posts (here
and here).
I laid out what I believed were four problematic components of the article.
Because of
the great respect I have for those at Desiring God, I personally reached out to
Mr. Morse and shared my concerns. He thanked me for contacting him directly, and
even offered to schedule a video chat for further discussion.
We were finally able to participate in that video chat just over a week ago. During our
conversation (which he opened and closed with earnest prayer), Morse displayed a
depth of humility that challenged my own lack thereof. He never actively sought
to defend his rhetoric. On the contrary, he had printed out both my articles, read
through them carefully, and prepared several questions to better understand where
I was coming from. He expressed a genuine desire to better discern how the
arrow of his message might have missed its intended target.
In the
end, our conversation confirmed what I had written
earlier: “If Greg Morse and I were to sit down and have an in-depth talk
about our worldviews, my guess is that we would agree far more often than we
disagree.”
That is
exactly what ended up happening, and it created a need for me to write a
follow-up piece. Hence, this blog post. I wish both to modify my critiques and
help clarify Morse’s initial intentions.
THE
FEMINIST “WARTIME MENTALITY”
Morse had a narrow and specific
subject in mind when critiquing Captain
Marvel: women fighting in the military. That was his one and only target.
Not all superhero movies starring women. Not an imaginary need for Marvel
movies to follow a Disney princess template. Just the issue of women on the
front lines of combat.
While women and men are equal in
dignity and worth, there are very real—and sometimes pronounced—differences
between the sexes that we ignore to our individual and collective detriment.
Ignoring those differences as it pertains to the battlefield was the concern
Morse specifically had in his article.
About halfway through his Captain Marvel piece, Morse wrote this:
Unquestionably, men ought support women’s desires to
be affirmed, respected, and honored. But indeed, few actions display our
resolve to honor our women more than excluding them from the carnage of the
battlefield. Where can we more clearly display our ultimate resolve to love our
women as queens than to step into hell on earth as sacrificial pawns in their
defense? Generation after generation has mobilized its men to be devoured —
that its women might not be.
Later, he added, “Protecting our
women with our very lives is not about their competency, but their value.”
One might disagree with Morse’s
conclusions about women in combat, and how we as a society can best honor women
who desire to serve in the military. One might even profess Scriptural grounds
for disagreeing with Morse. In any case, Morse’s intention was to address one
narrow topic of feminist thought. Because this intention wasn’t made more clearly,
the article came across more like a rhetorical shotgun shell (with a lot of
collateral damage) rather than a bullet shell (with a single and specific
focus).
OF KNIGHTS AND FAIR DISNEY MAIDENS
In support of his thesis, Morse
invoked the example of Disney princesses from decades passed. He mourned how
our society has abandoned the “traditional princess vibe.” He wrote, “How far
we’ve come since the days when we sought to protect and cherish our women.”
This comparison led many
readers—myself included—to assume that Morse was wistfully longing for the
“good old days” when things were ostensibly better. It seemed to me like a kind
of chronological snobbery (i.e., thinking the past is inherently better and
more virtuous than the present).
Morse emphatically denied this interpretation
in a follow-up
article:
[Is] the ideal of biblical
women to be found in 1950s classic Disney movies?
My response to these dear saints [asking the question]:
Unequivocally no.
I appreciated
this follow-up article (even if it was only tangentially related to the Captain Marvel piece). It extolled the
value and virtue of femininity, and it gave a better picture of just how much Morse
loves and cherishes the women in his life—and how much he respects women in
general. At the same time, the piece almost seemed to be written by a different
person. The tension between the apparently contradictory points of his two articles
was still palpable.
In my conversation with Morse about
his original article, I learned that his lament about “the days when we sought to protect and cherish our women” was, once again, designed for specific
application: the realm of the military. It was not designed as a blanket
statement about the 1950s in general. Unfortunately, this wasn’t completely
clear, and the ambiguity insinuated many negative implications that Morse did
not intend.
If anything, the Disney princess references served only to muddle Morse’s message. I think a large amount of the confusion would have been cleared up if such references had been completely eliminated.
If anything, the Disney princess references served only to muddle Morse’s message. I think a large amount of the confusion would have been cleared up if such references had been completely eliminated.
STICKS, STONES, AND WORDS
This whole
situation has been a sobering reminder to me of the power of words. And I’m not
even primarily thinking about the words of others. I’m thinking about my own
use of words.
In fact, I’m
thinking about my original critique of Greg Morse’s piece. One phrase I harped
on was “How far we’ve come since the days of Sleeping Beauty and Snow White”—a phrase
Morse edited out because he realized it was hurting, and not helping, his point.
And yet, because it proved an easier target, I resurrected it just so I could
chop its zombie head off and kill it again.
There have
been times when I have slightly altered the wording of one of my blog posts in order to eliminate
needlessly controversial rhetoric. Would I like it if someone came along and
critiqued one of those articles, based primarily on the language I had excised?
No, I would not. Such an approach would be uncharitable.
Providing
truly constructive, and truly Christlike, criticism necessitates the most charitable
stance toward the one being criticized. By going for the easier kill, I strayed
from that goal. As a professing follower of Christ, I must design my words, not
to serve as a shortcut to my desired rhetorical destination, but to serve as a
means of grace for my readers—both those who may agree with me and those who may not.
Because I believe Morse’s article, as it stands, deserves pushback, I will leave my original critiques up, with one exception: I have heavily edited them (especially the second entry) to eliminate any uncharitable language and judgments I originally made. The need to revise my own critiques also stands as a reminder to me that I need to be more careful and gracious in structuring my own words while evaluating the structure of someone else’s words.
Yes, our
words matter. They have the power to impart grace to others, and to impart
confusion and carelessness. With this power comes great responsibility.
My prayer
for myself, and for Greg Morse, and for anyone else with a public platform, large
or small, is that we can write clearly and compassionately, for the good of our
neighbor and the glory of God.
photo
credit: DAVID
HOLT via flickr,
CC