What if pity is actually a good strategy?

And what if pity reveals a bit of God’s heart too?

Let me tell you about something that blew my mind yesterday, and I was dreaming about all night. I saw a reel last night where Jameela Jamil was talking about our reaction to men creating deep fake porn videos of women–superimposing another woman’s face onto someone else’s body.

Usually our reaction is rage and humiliation and violation–all of which are completely normal and justified. Yep. Absolutely.

But she turned it around and asked, “what if we approached it instead with pity?”

Remember, she said, that in most cases sexual violations are about power more than sex. The man derives sexual pleasure from humiliating or hurting a woman, and making her feel “less than.” But if we feel pity for the man, we turn that power dynamic on its head.

She said (and I’m paraphrasing):

I think she’s right.

This applies to debates over complementarianism as well.

And this is something that Keith has been repeatedly trying to say when he’s on the podcast: How pathetic are these men that are so scared of strong women? How pathetic are these men who write in marriage books that women need to initiate sex, even during the postpartum period, because otherwise men are climbing the walls? How pathetic is it when these men say that men have fragile egos (as Emerson Eggerichs insists) and can’t handle a woman giving feedback?

Like what is wrong with these men that they are so scared of strong women?

That’s the vibe we were partially going for in our video docuseries of Love & Respect. Like of course the whole premise is infuriating and hurts real people. But also–how pathetic is it that men want to create a marriage where they are insulated from ever having to respond to a woman’s needs, and they get to label any uncomfortable feeling they have as her disrespecting him? How pathetic is it that they are running away from true intimacy?

Things can be both enraging and pathetic at the same time

It’s enraging because we know the damage that this does to real marriages. We know that women who desperately want to follow God are reading these books and internalizing the messages and getting hurt. We know that women are experiencing more abuse, more sexual pain disorders, more conflict in their marriages because of this, and their self-esteem is suffering and their relationship with God is suffering. We know that there is tremendous hurt.

But also–it’s super pathetic to teach that men can’t handle true intimacy and have to be coddled. It’s super pathetic to believe that a woman speaking truthfully about what she is thinking, feeling, and experiencing can “emasculate” a man. What is your view of manhood if it is that fragile?

Both things can be true at once.

What if both responses are useful for different things?

Anger is the appropriate response when we’re talking to a generation that has been hurt, and needs to know that God sees their hurt, that justice should come, and that none of this is okay. When you’ve been hurt, and people near you have been hurt, you need that anger, that flipping of tables. That’s what’s been fuelling me for  years.

But what if you’ve never been actually hurt, and we want to innoculate people against these terrible teachings? In that case, pity may be a more appropriate emotion. Because once you see someone through the eyes of pity, and realize how pathetic these teachings really are, there’s no way that person will ever be enticed by them.

To be frank, it’s one reason we talk about the wet towel incident in Love & Respect so much–it’s such an easy thing to remember and take hold of, and it’s so extremely pathetic. Once you start realizing that the love & respect message leads to the wet towel episode, it’s really hard to ever be convinced that love & respect has merit.

On our team, I think Rebecca and Keith have been more inclined to go for the pity/pathetic take on many of these teachings, and Joanna and I have been more inclined to go towards the anger/justice side of it. And again, I think both are merited.

But when it comes to the younger generation, I think pathetic/pity may be something that we should pivot to a bit more. Because young people are more instinctively egalitarian. They know that women are fully capable of leading and participating. They know that men and women can have open and honest dialogue. They’re more inclined to understand what real intimacy and emotional health looks like. And so to be honest with them and talk about how pathetic it is that these pastors and authors are teaching such a low view of men–that they are incapable of seeing women as anything but sex objects, for instance–will resonate.

And often it will resonate more than anger, because they don’t have the baggage of being hurt themselves.

Perhaps pity is also a way to heal from anger?

That’s what struck me about Jameela’s reel. A natural response to being violated is to get angry. No one is denying that. But if we can pair it with also seeing how absolutely pathetic this is–perhaps that can also help us heal? This person whom we are so angry at is actually living such a pathetic, small life. When you see that, it’s easier to move on. (And compassion may be an even better word here, and more in line with how Jesus sees them! Both with anger and compassion).

That’s an insight that has been really healing for me personally. I used to get really angry at different pastors I’ve had who diminished the women around them, and really angry at the authors who refused to admit how much they were hurting people. But when you realize that these pastors and authors live such smaller lives than you do; that they could never handle being out in the wider world because they wouldn’t even be able to interact with the women around them–well, the anger dissipates a bit.

You just feel, “wow, they live such small lives.” And they live very insular lives, where they can continue to rage against uppity women, but meanwhile the women they’re angry at are ignoring them and just getting on with things. The women are getting things done while they’re busy crafting sermons and writing books about how strong men are and how women aren’t meant to do stuff.

If we want to reach the wider world, perhaps pity is a good start

When I try to explain what I do to people who have no idea about the inner workings of evangelicalism, they’re just stunned. They can’t believe that stuff like this is still being taught (mind you, I’m in Canada, and we don’t have the same political issues as the US does). And if we’re going to reach that world with Jesus, then presenting these beliefs as pathetic rather than enraging, and presenting Jesus as the antidote to them, is likely wise.

I think pity falls into the “shake the dust off your feet” instruction too that Jesus gave. Like, if people refuse to hear, move on, because that little community can continue to argue amongst themselves, and set themselves up in opposition to God, but you’re moving on because there’s no point in arguing with crazy.

Anyway, I’m still formulating my thoughts on this, and I definitely don’t think it’s an either/or, but rather a both/and. I want to have anger when I’m writing to women who have been hurt, and showing them what hurt them, why they’ve had these negative outcomes, and what they can do now (and more on that is coming in my next book Fawn: How a Trauma Response Became Biblical Womanhood.) But the evangelical bubble is so small and often so toxic, and if we’re going to get healthy, we may need to move outside of it to bring Jesus to the world.

Anger sets people free who are in the middle of active harm; pity helps innoculate those outside of the bubble from being sucked in, while relieving us of the emotional turmoil of some of the anger.

So that’s where I’m at. I’m eager to hear what you think, and if I’m on to something!