Comments on: Mrs. Unitarian

By: Scott Wells

Scott Wells — Fri, 02 May 2008 13:17:32 +0000

Believe what you will: I’ve made my case already. But think also that your definition of spiritual utility has a Colbertian ring of “truthiness”.

By: shaktinah

shaktinah — Fri, 02 May 2008 09:59:58 +0000

If something has spiritual utility then it is “true” regardless of whether it is factual.

Point taken on the imposition. Tho I still can’t help but get the sense from your OP that part of the offense is in thinking that “female/feeling” is somehow “less.”

By: Scott Wells

Scott Wells — Fri, 02 May 2008 00:47:59 +0000

It’s insulting because it’s an idea about Universalism that was imposed upon Universalism, particularly by Unitarians. The vast majority of Universalist writers would have seen themselves as learned, even heady, and if not schooled then rational. Even if it has utility, it’s based on falsehood.

By: shaktinah

shaktinah — Thu, 01 May 2008 20:09:27 +0000

I agree that there is something to the notion that Unitarianism is seen as “male”/intellectual and Universalism is seen as “female”/feeling. And it may well be that it’s inaccurate. Certainly, despite my femaleness I am more comfortable in my intellect than in my emotions. And I know that Universalists such as Hosea Ballou were every bit as rational as Unitarians such as Channing.

I don’t, however, see why this “myth” should be considered insulting to Universalism. To take offense at this presumes that intellect is superior to compassion and that male is superior to female. And actually, I see some utility in this myth (which may be why it’s so prevalent and oft repeated) in that it emphasizes the need for balance between the two. They are equally important.

By: Philocrites

Philocrites — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:12:34 +0000

Here’s the post Scott is responding to.