I won't be able to be part of the discussion because of travel, but I would also love to hear you speak on the deeply gendered way that we moderns use the word 'shameless.' Meaning using the word in reference to men tends to evoke the dictator image that you referenced--a certain twisted and unassailable idea of power. Use the word in reference to a woman, however, and you have images not of dictatorship, but of harlotry. Especially as this relates to your broader topic, I'd love to hear you discuss this more.
Gosh, that is so true, as soon as you name it. I need to reflect on that more. But certainly, right away, my instinct is to say this is misogynistic and more an abusive appropriation of the word "shameless." Calling someone shameless can be a way to cast shame on them when they are actually just living shame-free. In other words, in this case, a woman who simply lives in her body with dignity and empowerment might be called shameless for carrying herself with confidence or dignity. Her freedom might be attacked as being "shameless" when it's simply living free of shame. Casting shame on women's bodies and sexuality is such a common form of misogyny. Even some of the early church father's did it. Freedom from shame has the power to move people and certain men especially feel threatened by that power in a woman and want to shut it down. SUCH a good question, Tara! I will think more on this and speak to it in the recording.
Good stuff Sam! I would like to join the conversation, but in case I can't make it - I would like to offer up a thought. In Adam Young's series on "How to engage someone who's harmed you" he mentions that the response to a "wicked person" is to shame them (I think he gets this idea from Allender's Bold Love). Curious to know your thoughts on that. Would you say that the "shameless" person = "wicked" person and the loving thing to do is to jolt that person into feeling shame and rejoining relationship? Or....?
Eric! Hey man, I hope you can join us with this question! It's a great one. I would say a shameless person would be anyone who withholds vulnerability, whether for a moment or as a way of life, like an evil person, or even just on and off, like a fool. Adam's category of the "wicked" is Allender's category of "the fool." A fool is a person who flirts with vulnerability one moment but never fully commits another, back and forth, open and closed. Its madness! Allender does describe the process of "exposing" a fool, which is a little different I would say than outright shaming him. As you could guess, I would never say it's good to shame anyone. But exposing a fool in his folly is important. Exposing is really the act of "seeing" a fool for his folly, his trickery, his strategy with life. Catching them in the act is really letting him trip on his own feet or fall on his own sword. It's an art to do this well.
I won't be able to be part of the discussion because of travel, but I would also love to hear you speak on the deeply gendered way that we moderns use the word 'shameless.' Meaning using the word in reference to men tends to evoke the dictator image that you referenced--a certain twisted and unassailable idea of power. Use the word in reference to a woman, however, and you have images not of dictatorship, but of harlotry. Especially as this relates to your broader topic, I'd love to hear you discuss this more.
Gosh, that is so true, as soon as you name it. I need to reflect on that more. But certainly, right away, my instinct is to say this is misogynistic and more an abusive appropriation of the word "shameless." Calling someone shameless can be a way to cast shame on them when they are actually just living shame-free. In other words, in this case, a woman who simply lives in her body with dignity and empowerment might be called shameless for carrying herself with confidence or dignity. Her freedom might be attacked as being "shameless" when it's simply living free of shame. Casting shame on women's bodies and sexuality is such a common form of misogyny. Even some of the early church father's did it. Freedom from shame has the power to move people and certain men especially feel threatened by that power in a woman and want to shut it down. SUCH a good question, Tara! I will think more on this and speak to it in the recording.
Good stuff Sam! I would like to join the conversation, but in case I can't make it - I would like to offer up a thought. In Adam Young's series on "How to engage someone who's harmed you" he mentions that the response to a "wicked person" is to shame them (I think he gets this idea from Allender's Bold Love). Curious to know your thoughts on that. Would you say that the "shameless" person = "wicked" person and the loving thing to do is to jolt that person into feeling shame and rejoining relationship? Or....?
Eric! Hey man, I hope you can join us with this question! It's a great one. I would say a shameless person would be anyone who withholds vulnerability, whether for a moment or as a way of life, like an evil person, or even just on and off, like a fool. Adam's category of the "wicked" is Allender's category of "the fool." A fool is a person who flirts with vulnerability one moment but never fully commits another, back and forth, open and closed. Its madness! Allender does describe the process of "exposing" a fool, which is a little different I would say than outright shaming him. As you could guess, I would never say it's good to shame anyone. But exposing a fool in his folly is important. Exposing is really the act of "seeing" a fool for his folly, his trickery, his strategy with life. Catching them in the act is really letting him trip on his own feet or fall on his own sword. It's an art to do this well.
You are welcome! Thanks for reading.