[Vision2020] Doug Wilson Interview

[Chasuk]

Last year, I interviewed Doug Wilson to discover for myself whether he
was really a  bogeyman.  What did I discover?  Briefly, I concluded
that he wasn't a bogeyman.  We disagreed on many particulars, but Doug
was guilty largely of being passionate and articulate, and not of
being evil incarnate, as he is often depicted on Vision2020.  This
realization caused me problems, because I knew that I would now be in
a position of defending a man with whom I was often profoundly at
loggerheads, a man whom many of my Vision2020 friends devoted a
considerable amount of energy opposing.  Hence I delayed the
publication of my interview. The longer I delayed, the easier it
became to prolong that delay, until it became obvious even to myself
that my actual intent was to postpone publication forever.

If you are passionate, articulate, and the focus of public attention
(which unarguably describes Doug Wilson),  you will inevitably say
things that make people mad.  The exceptions to this are the overly
political, insincere bootlickers whose only goal is to curry
adulation.  Doug Wilson is is neither insincere nor a bootlicker.  I
know, this defense makes me sound like a Doug Wilson fanboy, perhaps
an acolyte.  All I can say is, t'aint true.

I am presenting today the first of several excerpts from the Doug
Wilson interview.  They are unexpurgated, unedited, verbatim, but
presented piecemeal because I want each portion to be debated
separately, and not have any one part become chewed over excessively
while ignoring the rest.  Unfortunately, I've witnessed this behavior
too many times on Vision2020.  While I do acknowledge that it also
happens elsewhere, it is Vision2020 that I am concerned about, because
Vision2020 is an important microcosm of the community that I have made
my home.

I know that some of you consider Doug Wilson the enemy.  Maybe he is;
I am certainly sympathetic to those who advance that argument.
However, at the end of the day, I don't think that it makes any
difference, and that we harm ourselves by standing on opposite sides
of an imaginary line shouting epithets.  We don't need to get in bed
with our enemies, but we do need to intelligently negotiate with them.
 Sikhs, Jews, Muslims need to interoperate peaceably, despite their
private differences.  Baptists and Methodists need to tolerate
Mormons, Catholics, and even Calvinists.

Below, find my first tiny excerpt (which I immodestly hope will aid in
my proposed remediation):

"Despite not wanting to blur things, they get blurred anyway, at least
in the minds of the public."

"My marriage is based on mutual giving.  Nancy, my wife, is my full
equal, with different roles, different spheres."

"Submission does not equal inequality."

"Authority is assumed by sacrifice and love."

One of my big tasks is to socialize men, to civilize men, to impose
some social constraint for a man to be a gentleman to a woman, to be
honorable to a woman."

"Men should be channeled because men are so dangerous when they aren't."

"What happens when the masculine sensibilities are subordinated to the
feminine?  Civilization."

"When men do what they would do without restraint, things fall apart."

"Reality is not optional.  Men are like a lit stick of dynamite."

-
"Intolerance betrays want of faith in one's cause." -- Mahatma Gandhi