Sex Ed series

I've been thinking about sex ed lately, both because of my kids beginning to ask questions and because of issues that friends are dealing with. This was one of the areas in which my own parents were very weak, and one which my husband and I have intentionally worked at with our children. It is so important that we teach them the physical stuff, as well as the emotional/relational stuff, (disease prevention, biology, contraception, consent, respect, intimacy, etc) and that we avoid turning limits of morality into shame. I came across the following series on another blog, and I thought I'd share. I don't agree with every minute detail here, (there are areas in which this blogger is probably a bit more conservative than I am) and I don't agree with everything else on her blog or that she links to, in case anyone is wondering. However, I thought it was generally very good, very balanced, and well worth sharing.


http://dulcefamily.blogspot.com/search/label/sex%20ed%20in%20a%20Christian%20home

The above is a link to all the posts (they're generally quite short) in the series. A few quotes:


"Perhaps the biggest distortion I see is the idolization of virginity.  So many portray it as the be all end all standard of sexual purity.  First of all, I think that sexual purity is just as important after marriage as before, and in fact, more so.  Furthermore, sexual purity isn't just lack of vaginal intercourse.  Such a narrow focus on outward behavior causes us to lose sight of the heart issue.  Some wind up doing everything except for vaginal intercourse, and have no idea of the possible consequences of things like oral sex, pornography, and other forms of sexual activity.  Others who do have sex feel that they are forever "second hand goods".  Both are terrible distortions of what sexual purity really means."


"I also find the double standard with gender that many adopt to be deeply disturbing. Sexual purity is for men as well as women, and the stereotypes of men as slavering beasts and women as cold manipulators are both inaccurate and degrading.  Both men and women are created with a strong sex drive.  That is a good thing.  And both are capable of self control.  That is also a good thing.  Women should be able to be themselves and dress comfortably without being consumed with worry about "causing their brothers to stumble".  Guys shouldn't be automatically viewed as predators simply because they have a penis.  Sex should never be seen as a commodity to trade in exchange for emotional security, and women shouldn't feel ashamed of wanting sex."


"Romance novels and romantic comedies have been called “porn for women.” It’s not just because some of the scenes can get steamy, but because of the unrealistic expectations they set up. Just as all bodies are perfect or airbrushed and exaggerated in proportion in a girlie magazine, all life is unrealistically centered on romance in those entertainments. The souls and emotions of the people portrayed in the pages and on the screen are no more real than the bodies enhanced with silicone, makeup, lighting and digital wizardry in a pornographic image or film.

These are not the messages I want my daughter to grow up with.

Not only does it objectify the male gender as a means to fulfilling romantic dreams, but for me at least, it resulted in a limited understanding of my own value as a human being, and a reduced ability to trust God with my romantic future. "


We teach our children about gender stereotypes from our first observations.  Do our girls hear that they are strong and powerful?  Do our boys learn that we value tenderness and sensitivity?  Our society is so proficient at marketing gender roles that by age three, most girls and boys know that pink is a girl color, and blue is for boys, that girls are princesses (passive and prissy) and boys are tough and active.  As toddlers, my little girl loved blue and Spiderman, and my son loved dolls and sparkly clothes.  Within just a couple of years, though, they were telling each other that blue was for boys and dolls are for girls. I believe that colors are gender-neutral, and that both sons and daughters grow up to be parents.  But we must speak up if we don't want our children to think there is something wrong with them.

"We teach our children about body image through our own.  Do they hear us putting ourselves down and criticizing our own bodies?  Do we point out our flaws or gripe about our weight?  Do they hear us make comments about other people and laugh at their appearance?  Each word nails in deeper the truth about our values, and what their own bodies are worth.

We also teach them about sexuality when they first begin to say no.  Comments like, "Give grandma a kiss or she'll be sad!" teach them to ignore their own body boundaries and give feigned affection to placate adults.  Acknowledging and respecting their right to say no to unwanted touches is vital.  It may mean intervening when relatives or friends try to bully them with unwanted hugs, kisses or tickles.  The message we send about their right to say no is far more important than a miffed adult."

Nature and Essence, Applied To Marriage

To build on the last post- what is the nature and essence of marriage? It's a big question, and I'm not promising a complete answer in this little blog post, but I do have some ideas based on the ” universal/unique” qualifiers from the previous post.


First, to define nature- in this context, I'm not defining it as anything that comes naturally, anything that happens organically, intuitively, or with ease, or as a common characteristic. I'm using it synonymously with ”essence”- the defining characteristic of something, unique/universal predispositions- that sort of thing. Also by way of definition- I realize that marriage has not always been a single, uniform institution. When I reference marriage here, I am speaking of what would fall into legal/socially acceptable practice in America in the present day.


A brief re-cap- my perception of nature/essence is that, for an attribute to be a defining characteristic of an entity, that attribute must be both unique to that entity and universal in all like entities.


For example- a furry mane is part of the essence and nature of adult male lions, because a mane is both unique to adult male lions and universal among all adult male lions. In the same way, abstract thought is part of the essence of humanity, as it is unique, so far as  I know, to our species, and is universal among healthy, mature humans.

So- what things fall into to the "nature/essence of marriage" category?
1. Sex
I'd give this one a no, because sex is neither unique to marriage nor is it universal or requisite for marriage. Sex is a usual, common characteristic, but it does not meet my standards for essence. One could make the argument that sex would be a part of any healthy marriage of normal, healthy people, but even then, since sex is by no means limited to marriage, it fails the test.

2. Procreation/Co-parenting
No. Procreation, too, fails on both counts- it is not unique to marriage nor is it universal in all marriages.

3. Romantic Love
While it should be a characteristic of marriage, and I would hope would be universal within healthy marriages, it is not unique to marriage. It, too, fails.

4. Mutual Commitment based on an Ideal of Affection
While personal commitment can exist outside of marriage, long term legally and socially ratified commitment is both universal to marriages and unique to marriage. So, I would say that long term legal and social commitment is part of the essence of marriage.

5. Legal benefits/Tax status/next of kin rights/etc
Unique/universal? Yes. No other relationship or institution offers the same legal benefits in this country as does marriage.

6. Religious/Social benefits
Many religions offer benefits/considerations to married couples that they do not offer to the unmarried. Those benefits are universal to all married couples (such as allowing more public affection, endorsing sex and cohabitation, etc) and are uniquely offered to married couples. Here, again, I'd say yes, depending on the religious tradition. (Some treat married and unmarried people alike, but I think that that is not the norm) Likewise with various social groups.

7. Financial benefits (excluding taxes, which fall into number 5)
This would be a no, because cohabitation offers all of the same benefits as does marriage, outside of tax/legal benefits, for a reduction of expenses and the convenience of shared finances. (Unmarried people can share a home, bank accounts, etc)

8. Support of an equal partner/Independence mingled with deep community
While this should certainly be a part of any marriage, it is not unique to marriage

9. Friendship/Companionship
Universal, yes, unique, no.

10. Limited in number- only two people
Universal, yes, unique, no.


So..... it seems, outside of matrimony based on biblical dictates, that the defining characteristics of marriage are legal, socially recognized commitment, presumably springing from affection for the other party, various legal benefits, and various social/religious benefits. Additional characteristics which should be part of marriage but are not central to its definition include sex, financial benefits, friendship/companionship, romantic love, and the option of procreation/co-parenting. Thus, in our society, marriage is a legal, social, and if applicable religious contract/commitment, based on assumed romantic affection between two parties. This is what sets marriage apart from cohabitation or platonic friendship, and this is what we should focus on when we talk about what is or is not ok in the context of legalizing same-sex marriage, for example. With the definition above, gender and sexual orientation does not even play a role, outside of the religious aspect of the contract.

Nature and Essence

I've been reflecting recently on created natures, essences, and definitions of things. I often hear people speak of the ” essence” or ” nature” of a gender, or a species, or a subculture, and when I do, there are many different opinions about what constitutes nature and essence. What does this mean? How am I going to define the nature and essence of anything, gender-related or otherwise?
After some thought, I have decided upon two litmus tests which must in my opinion be present if an attribute is to be considered the essence or nature of a thing, though their presence does not necessarily dictate said attribute as essence or nature.


The two litmus tests are:

1. Is this attribute unique to this entity, and

2. Is this attribute universal for all entities of this type.


If it does not meet these two tests, then I would classify it as a characteristic, not an essence/definition or nature. (an attribute could be natural to an entity, and generally present, without being unique to that entity, but if that is the case then I would hesitate to use that attribute to define the essence of what makes that entity itself)


For example, monkeys generally like bananas. But....do all monkeys like bananas? Maybe. I honestly have no idea. Is banana liking unique to monkeys? Absolutely not! Therefore, while monkeys may love bananas, I could not say that the essence of a monkey, as opposed to a bird or a fly or a human, say, is liking bananas.


I should add that I'm assuming health and normally in entities- there are some humans who, due to mental and physical illness/abnormality, do not demonstrate some of the essential qualities of humanity, but this makes them no less human. For example, I would list a basic capacity for abstract thought as an essential quality of humans, because it is both unique and universal to healthy, mature humans. Some people are born with severe mental deformities which prevent them from having this ability, but they are still human and because they do not fall into the healthy/mature category they need not negate the quantifying of humanity in general.


As to gender roles- if something is the essence of masculinity or femininity, it should be both unique to and universal within that gender. None of the social traits like aggressive, nurturing, emotional, logical, stoic, or attributes/behaviors like providing, protecting, submitting, and supporting can be essential to a gender based on the above two tests, because none of them are both unique to only one gender and universal within it.


Thus, I would say that there is no masculine or feminine ” nature” apart from the biological/reproductive/chromosomal. We can make generalizations, but even if every stereotype/generalization was 90 prevent accurate, and none of them are, they will never apply universally and should never, ever be seen as prescriptive.  Social science supports some social/behavioral statistical differentiation between genders, but it supports such diversity within genders as well, to an even greater degree.


Universal. Unique. So long as I retain those two tests, I can never be a gender essentialist.

Book review: Dance of the Dissident Daughter

This book was recommended to me by a friend recently, and while I don't relate to/agree with everything in it, I think it's worth reading.

The author, Sue Monk Kidd, is a one-time christian inspirational writer-turned-novelist, and is also the author of The Secret Life of Bees.

The general subject of the book is the importance of the Sacred Feminine in the spiritual and physical lives of women and those who love them, and it is the story of the author's journey from a more traditional, patriarchy-based understanding of God and spirituality to an understanding that includes both Sacred Masculine and Sacred Feminine, among other things. One of the aspects of her journey to which I cannot really relate is her leaving of the church entirely, not just certain churches or denominations, and her elevation of her own experience past the the point I'd peg as healthy. Unlike Ms. Kidd, I believe that a woman can find a balanced understanding of a genderless God within the Christian Church, and that she can find the closest possible relationship with God through a focus on the gospel and the teachings of Christ and with a community of christians to support her.

First, the writing- the book is divided into four sections- Awakening, Initiation, Grounding, and Empowerment. The chronology jumps around- the story is told in many smaller stories, and there is no organizational structure such as thesis points, a chronological timeline, or really any division between the stories, except for her own four general categories. The story is a progression, but not a strictly linear one. For this reason the style doesn't appeal to me and made the book difficult to finish; that's more a statement of preference than an evaluative judgement. If you like to segue between stories more than you like following a concept down a linear progression, Ms. Kid's style will probably appeal to you.

Ms. Kidd writes that her process of "awakening to her feminine self" began with a vivid dream, in which she gave birth to a daughter who was also herself. She says "For years I had written down my dreams, believing, as I still do, that one of the purest sources of knowledge about our lives comes from the symbols and images deep within." This reverence for individual truth and personal feeling is a recurring theme throughout the book. While I think that being knowledgeable and aware of oneself and in tune with feelings and reactions is important, I tend to elevate Truth that exists outside of myself as a litmus test by which to evaluate and quantify personal feelings, so this is not a theme I particularly relate to. I do think that it could be an important point for a person who is not self-aware, or is accustomed to being dismissed, ignored, or minimized; we should not dismiss or ignore, except perhaps temporarily so that we deal with them on our terms, our feelings and reactions. What a person believes about themselves has an enormous impact on themselves and the people around them, and self-knowledge is always healthy and necessary; I do think that this can be taken too far when people blindly accept their feelings as true, as the opposite extreme to repression and self-depreciation.

Ms. Kidd speaks of a gradual awakening to things she had seen all her life but never noticed, and a gradual process of a distinctly feminine self-actualization. This brings me to my main issue with her perspective- she is far, far more of a gender essentialist than I am, and some of her statements seem oddly reminiscent of gender-based statements I have seen in fundamentalist literature from the opposite perspective. Part of her perspective I find beautiful and true- namely, the ideas that a woman experiences spirituality in a deeper way and/or accepts her life as female with more passion and contentment when all holiness and deity is not exclusively male, and that women need strength and autonomy. I don't make the same correlations between women's biological ability to nurture life and a unique feminine propensity for relational nurturing as does Ms. Kidd. But more on that later.

Ms Kidd, who loves the christian monastic and contemplative sides, describes the pivotal experiences she had in monastic retreats, experiences which propelled her into an understanding of God as both Father and Mother, and she describes the dissonance between her growing need to identify with the feminine aspect of God and her attendance at a traditional Southern Baptist church. She remembers the messages both she and her own daughter received as children, messages of male headship and a limitation of certain levels of spiritual service to males. These experiences, along with any harassment and dismissal she experienced, she labels part of something called the Feminine Wound. Ms. Kidd writes that for the first part of her life, she had been asleep as a woman, and unaware of the injustices which she experienced as a female. She had been operating, unbeknownst to herself, in a paradigm which placed a man at the center of woman's existence, and put any personal goals, desires, or development secondary to the wishes and needs of the man. As her awakening progressed, she found herself realizing and recognizing unhealthy patterns and inequalities in her most basic relationships. I relate to this part of her experience- being naturally aggressive and independent, I assume that I have succeeded in overcoming stereotypes and co-dependencies, only to find another root of harmful philosophy that I never knew was a part of me.

Ms. Kidd describes something which she feels every woman should embrace- a uniquely feminine soul; a sense of the relational and interconnected, and the guiding force and power of women. Here I disagree with her, as I don't think souls are gendered, nor do I believe that every woman has a deep internal connection to a relational, earthy, nurturing, inner self. She goes on to say that women have been underrepresented in the historical naming and quantifying of spiritual truth- this I can believe, at least in the official sense. The basic orthodoxy we hold dear was, largely, codified by men, and I can certainly admit the plausibility of her assertion that this fact is responsible for the demise of the sacred feminine within Christianity. I agree with Ms. Kidd on the importance of the sacred feminine to women, in the sense that if God is both feminine and masculine, the idea of both genders as equally divine image bearers becomes more difficult to undermine.

Ms. Kidd describes our culture, even our faith culture, as anesthetizing the feminine spirit, and she quotes Clarissa Pinkola Estes, a quote which I loved:

When a woman is exhorted to be compliant, cooperative, and quiet, to not make upset or go against the old guard, she is pressed into living a most unnatural life- a life that is self-blinding.....without innovation. The world-wide issue for women is that under such conditions they are not only silenced, they are put to sleep. Their concerns, their viewpoints, their own truths are vaporized.

I'd like to think that in the years since Ms. Kidd was young, some of the ways in which she describes females being silenced, minimized, or objectified are no longer as prevalent, but I do think that such things still exist, whether in tempered form, in pockets of religious fundamentalism, or in other places around the world. The condition of women in other places ranges from equality or very near, in some western countries, to the most terrible slavery and oppression in places like the Middle East, parts of Asia, and parts of Africa. I wish I could say that my country was free from the oppressing and silencing of women, but there are echos of it here to varying degrees, more in certain sub-cultures than in others. Whenever I hear people blame a rape victim, or act as if a woman matters nothing if she is not beautiful, or deny higher education to a daughter because of her gender, or exclude women from equal participation in worship, I cringe, thinking of all the steps, all too few, between such polite oppression and the more serious forms of oppression in other parts of the world.

Ms. Kidd describes the course of her life prior to her feminine awakening as filled with attempts to fit external ideals of Christian Womanhood which she had internalized from church and society. She lists several archetypes which describe the good daughter of patriarchy she used to be- the Gracious Lady, that archetype of southern charm, sophistication, and reserve, the Favored Daughter, with all her compliance and man- pleasing and perfectionism, the Secondary Partner, with all her self-effacing and self-sacrificing, and the Silent Woman, with her repression and anger and desperation to be heard. I relate to this as well, knowing the pressure to conform to an ideal of feminine reality and the frustration of being deemed unfeminine because I cannot.

Throughout the book, Ms. Kidd describes various experiences in which she found the Sacred Feminine- dancing with her friends on the beach, experiences in nature, and study of and visiting sacred places of the Sacred Feminine. Many of her examples of the sacred feminine in early religions were new to me, and this aspect of the book was a catalyst for much enjoyable further study. She relates some of her experiences as a metaphor to the story of Ariadne, and the back-and-forth between this story and her own was interesting.

Ms. Kidd does not denigrate men, but respects and loves her husband, which I appreciate. All too often, I see the stereotype of the independent "feminist" woman inextricably linked in people's minds with a "bad wife", or a distant, disrespectful, or inattentive woman. Not so- I was never a better wife than I am now, in all my feminist glory. :) It's funny how a push for honesty, equality, and mutual love and respect actually doesn't ruin a relationship.....

Throughout this book, Ms. Kidd references many religions having to do with the Sacred Feminine, and seems to appreciate that aspect of their spirituality. In my own belief, while the only complete Truth is found in Christ, other religions can certainly have good mixed in with the not-so-good, and can be a source of revelation, as can many non-religious things. Ms. Kidd mentions the sacred feminine symbology of the serpent several times, which I find interesting considering its biblical symbology... which in turn simply reminds us of the fluid nature and limited empiricism of symbology. :) When drawing from many eras and cultures, it is wholly possible that multiple symbologies for the same object or idea can arise, and vice versa. It is also possible that multiple symbologies per the same object may exist within the Bible, and that other, later philosophies which were antithetical to feminine wisdom and equality may have tainted our perception of some of those passages.

I like Ms. Kidd's focus, too, on moving past anger and channeling emotion and energy into action. This is a concept which we'd all do well to imitate. She also acknowledges the importance of allowing for diversity and solidarity between women, and realizes that we are not all the same person with a different shell. All in all, I enjoyed the book and found value in it, though I do not agree with everything within it and though I relate more to the general concepts than to Ms. Kidd's specific experience.

Cross-posting at CBE

One of my past posts on Femininity is at Christians For Biblical Equality today. Check them out- they're on my blogroll, and they have some great articles in their archives.

http://blog.cbeinternational.org/2013/07/femininity/

Modesty, Part 3- Other Perspectives

Starting with Jonalyn of Soulation's response to Jessica Rey's talk, here are some other really good posts/series on the issue of modesty, specifically female modesty from a christian perspective.

http://soulation.org/jonalynblog/2013/06/is-itsy-bitsy-wrong-bikinis-and-modesty.html


http://soulation.org/jonalynblog/2012/08/modesty-is-a-chameleon.html#comment-905366910


http://www.fromtwotoone.com/2012/05/recap-modesty-myth.html


http://www.churchleaders.com/pastors/pastor-articles/164005-emily-maynard-modesty-rules-is-a-woman-responsible-lust.html?p=1



http://www.qideas.org/blog/modesty-i-dont-think-it-means-what-you-think-it-means.aspx

Modesty, Part 2- effacement of the female form

Another issue I have with modesty doctrines (besides the impossibility of defining modesty and the rapey ickiness of holding women responsible for someone else's behavior) is the seeming preoccupation with hiding the female form. Modesty rules look a little different for the fuller figured among us than for the more willowy types! It seems to me that some modesty teaching is all about hiding anything overtly feminine- a curve, a bit of skin, or anything else that screams "woman" as opposed to "man" or "child." If I had a nickel for every time I heard "oh, she can wear that- she's so skinny, her curves will never show" I'd be.... well, a little richer. (I'm not decrying my more athletically built sisters here- as long as you do it healthily, and love the body you have, there's nothing wrong with being skinny, or flat-chested, etc. Genuineness and good health should be the goal, and beyond that enjoyment of our diversity) It is extremely difficult, though, to hide a curvy figure and to find stylish clothes which fit well and mask curves- well, impossible really, because "fitting well" and "masking curves" should probably be seen as mutually exclusive. :) It's as though anything overtly feminine, or suggestive of feminine power or feminine sexuality, is inherently negative. When young women are told that they need to "find shirts that don't accentuate the bust" or "make sure everything is loose" or "only wear pants (if you must wear pants) which billow loosely down from your waist so as to not outline your derriere", they hear "don't accentuate your body- hide it!" and it sends the message that our bodies are something to be ashamed of, something to hide, something to be afraid of. This, of course, is untrue. I think it would be difficult to raise a daughter to wear loose clothing and "dress modestly" for fear of inciting lust or whatever without also raising her to have a very unhealthy body image.



The female form, or the male form for that matter, :) is nothing to be ashamed of. It is a gift from God for us to enjoy. Yes, there are ways in which we reserve enjoyment for ourselves and our spouse, but there are also ways in which it is completely appropriate to share our physical form with others. To see beauty and appreciate it is not, in my mind, synonymous with lust. If I'm dressed in nice jeans and a cute shirt and I'm happy and my eyes are sparkling and my face is animated and my hair is soft and shiny and yes, maybe I'm showing a socially acceptable amount of decolletage, it is perfectly appropriate for someone to see me and see in me a happy and beautiful woman and enjoy the sight of my beauty as the artwork of my Creator. I am a female, both biologically and culturally, and there is no innate holiness in obscuring that fact. My female personhood should not bar me from worship, from leadership, from respect, from admiration, or from anything that I am gifted and skilled to do. When women are arbitrarily banned from certain roles in the church or from authority or power because of our female personhood, it sends the same message- "to get ahead, be holy, whatever, obscure your femaleness."



When women are told that their bodies are something which must be hidden to avoid inciting lust in men, a part of them can begin to believe that there is something bad, dangerous, or wicked about not only their bodies, but about themselves. They can try to purposely obscure their beauty by unhealthy behaviors to either end of the weight spectrum, or they can become overly focused on trying to please others with the way they present themselves or their bodies. I truly believe that modesty, taught from a perspective of "do this so men won't see you and lust for you or objectify you" destroys healthy confidence and body image. That's a sad, sad thing.

Modesty, Part 1.- revealing our dignity?

"Modesty is about revealing our dignity."

~ Jessica Rey

The above video is of a talk given by Jessica Rey, a swimsuit designer (who does a fabulous job of promoting her business, by the way- I just wish she didn't use such poor logic to do it!) and modern proponent of "modest" swimwear for women. She basically argues that men objectify women who wear bikinis, as opposed to more "modest" (that term is never defined) swimwear, and that women showing skin is an invention of the modern fashion world. She says that "modesty" is about revealing dignity and being seen as people, rather than attractive bodies.



Normally, I think it is a mistake to judge an argument by its source. This time, I think the correlations between and origins of this argument and a very, very similar one are significant, simply because of the implications for the status of women in a society which adopts them.



"In the ’80′s, most of the religious rhetoric about hijab that I was exposed to stressed religious obligation, as well as women’s dignity. Supposedly, hijab would protect our dignity, by focusing (male) attention on us as believing women, rather than on us as female bodies."
(http://sobersecondlook.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/hijab-empowerment-and-choice-the-darker-side/)


Substitute modesty for the word hijab, and you have Ms. Rey's argument. The only difference is the definition of modesty. The only difference between requiring women to wear full-coverage, one piece swimsuits to "avoid objectification by males"  and requiring them to wear full hijab or even a burqa is one of degrees. The same logic that holds women accountable for rape, even in some cases punishing them as adulteresses if they file rape charges, the same logic that excuses honor crimes and forced marriages and domestic violence, is the same logic that the evangelical Christian world is using to regulate the dress and behavior of women. This should be a sobering thought to those Christians who in all other respects decry the mistreatment of and sidelining of women by Muslims.



Now, to unpack the other ideas here- Ms Rey cites a study, done at Princeton, as evidence for males' inherent tendency to objectify women who are wearing bikinis. For a more in-depth look at the study, try this post. Suffice it to say that this study was of a limited number of male college students. Also, the pictures they were shown were not only women in bikinis, but headless women in bikinis. The only thing the participants could see, unlike real life, was the woman's body. Even if the data from these students led to Ms. Rey's conclusions, (and I do not believe it does) this proves nothing about other demographics, other times, other cultures, or any person who has not been socialized into thinking that an attractive woman in a bikini is an object and fair game. She assumes that the reaction to the bikini is an inherent one in all males, rather than a socially conditioned one, and one which reflects ideas about women and their bodies which may not, in fact be universal. Not all men see a woman in a bikini and immediately turn her into an object. Some men see a woman who is beautiful and exposed in her beauty as the sacred living art of the Creator and as an actual person, with needs, goals, talents, and a mind.


Another thing- women can be, and are, ogled by pervs no matter what we wear. Even if all reasoning for modesty rules was legitimate- folks, it doesn't work. Whether or not I get leered at depends, not on what I wear, but on who I'm around. That's a fact. Those guys in the grocery store who were making catcalls? They would have done so no matter what I was wearing. (A loose tshirt and jeans at the time) The guys who treated me with respect and conversed with my face, not my boobs, or else ignored me altogether, when I was in a two piece swimsuit at my college gym, treated me as they did because they were decent humans, not because I was covered up. When I am objectified, it;s not my form that's at fault- it's the pervs who are viewing me as an object created for their pleasure.

What exactly is modesty, and who gets to define it? Modesty, being completely a function of cultural expectations and norms, is relative. What would be "modest" in Papua New Guinea and what would be "modest" in Norway and what would be "modest" in Lancaster county, PA are all totally different. Modesty varies from occasion to occasion, place to place, and time to time. Women showing skin is nothing new. Belly dancing costumes are little more than bikinis, and they have been around for longer than this country. In Japan, it's weird to wear anything when you go to the hot tub, no matter the company. I could name quite a few societies in which clothes were/are limited or optional for some or all normal occasions. Making the history of modern, western culture perennially normative when it comes to this or any other issue is a mistake- at best, we end up with a very limited perspective, and at worst, incorrect conclusions. I would contend that "appropriate modesty" is synonymous with practicality, a total lack of misplaced shame, and general social acceptability. The most stereotypically "modest" (covered) swimsuit won't be appropriate for a funeral, and long pants and a shirt will be horribly impractical at the beach. In a historical context, I think it's a mistake to glorify the fashion of days gone by- yes, in modern history, women were (a couple of hundred years ago) more covered in general. But- why is that automatically a good thing? Were women more respected, did we have more rights and freedoms, and was our equality more a given then? Did men objectify less, respect more, and treat us as holy sisters, or as valuable persons equal to themselves? Not exactly! I cannot think of another age since perhaps the Minoan or Natchez societies in which women have been as close (we're still not 100% there yet) to equality as in our own.

Gender Representatives

My husband and I were talking yesterday, and I expressed chagrin at feeling like I had "something to prove" every time I ventured outside the stereotypical behavior for my gender, and at feeling sometimes like any misstep I made was going to be attributed to my gender as a whole, not to my bad day, or flawed humanness, or specific ineptitude. More specifically, in my observation women, particularly those who either call themselves feminists or egalitarians or who want to be socially and professionally on an equal footing with men, are under a good deal of pressure. If a man does something illogical, people say "wow, he did something illogical." If a woman does something illogical, people say "wow, women are illogical." As a woman, I am very uncomfortable expressing certain emotions or opinions in public because to do so would earn me a pat on the head and a "well, women are just like that. What do you do?" I really, really hate being patronized or having my gender as a whole dismissed because I, only one of millions of different incarnations of my gender, said a certain thing or behaved a certain way. Then, of course, if I appear too cold and calculating, people are turned off and repulsed by me because I am flouting an order of gender roles people find familiar and comforting, and in some cases a prerequisite for True Christian Womanhood. So, I feel that I must always be perfectly logical, correct in my opinions, in complete control of my emotions, sensible, rational, and measured in everything I do or say- (Which is really what I tend to be anyway, being as INTJ as I am; I don't like being put in a box, though!) and also nice, charming, and non-confrontational. What's a girl to do? :)



My husband, I learned as we chatted, often feels the same way, though in different areas. People expect him to dump a lot of the childcare on me, to need an excuse when he wants to hang out with his friends, (he doesn't- if he wants to play poker with the guys, he'll say "Hey, babe, I'd like to hang with the guys. Do you have to work that night/do we have any prior plans I'm forgetting? No? Ok, cool. I'll be back later." You know, like two grownups who love each other and want each other to pursue friends and interests outside our marriage would normally talk to each other.) want time away from me, be terrible at housework, and generally incapable domestically. Well...... that's just not my husband, and I love that about him. I love that I can take a flying trip or a weekend gig out of town, leaving him to parent solo, and not worry about the kids being neglected or the house getting totally trashed. Also, my husband feels the same sort of pressure I mentioned above when he steps out of his traditional role- when he is the one to cook a dessert for an extended family potluck, or bake a wedding cake, or when he's the one who has more culinary skill than I do and I defer to him, in public, in kitchen-related things. When he cooks or bakes, it has to be just right- if a woman bakes a cake and messes something up, it's because she had an off day or whatever, but if he messes up a dish, well..... "men are just not as good at/geared towards that."



I really, really wish our society could find it in our collective hearts to end this "divinely created gender role" nonsense, once and for all. It doesn't help those who fit the stereotypes, and it hurts those who do not. God did not use two cookie cutters, one blue and one pink, to create humanity. God made us like snowflakes- no two exactly alike. Can we generalize, based on physiology or hormones or statistical tendencies? Sure..... but 1. I question the accuracy of much non-physiological data, because it is so hard to define, report, and accurately quantify, and 2. A statistical probability does not equal a moral certainty or even a scientifically provable norm. I, at 5'2" and not terribly athletic, absolutely fit the "physically weaker than men" stereotype. But.... guess what? I am not pursuing a career in the military, security, or as an athlete. This does not mean that my gender is incapable of those things- it means that I am incapable of those things, or at least not geared towards them. I am generally a rational, logistically proficient, practical person. That does not mean that all women are that way, or that all men are and I'm a factory reject as a woman and less of a woman because of those traits, or that all cats are pink or that testosterone makes you turn orange or any other inaccurate statement of causality. Really, when we as Christians or as American society in general check our critical thinking and data evaluation skills, unpleasant things happen. Simple, predictable causal relationships and easy lists to check off simply aren't reality, and that's a fantasy we should really collectively retire.

Great Series on Breadwinning WIves

Recently, Mary Kassian posted a rather disturbing article on working women who make more than their husbands, which you can read here. It's sad, really.

Anyway, in trolling the internets, I came upon a really fantastic response by From Two To One- it's a four post series, actually. http://www.fromtwotoone.com/2013/06/breadwinning-part-iv.html

Here's an excerpt from the response:

A husband is not less of a man if his wife earns more than he does, just as a wife is not more of a woman if her husband earns more than she does. Kassian’s view turns marriage into a power struggle between men and women, which is deemed God-honoring only when the husband wins.

As much as complementarians like Kassian want to label their vision for the world as “biblical” or “true,” what she does in this post is one of the least biblical, least true approaches to marriage: Kassian treats marriage as a transaction rather than a sacred union of two people becoming one. Taken to its logical end, Kassian’s argument that it’s the “man’s responsibility to be the provider for his family” because they are “wired to bear the primary weight of that responsibility” and “women aren’t,” a marriage in which the male is the primary breadwinner and the female the primary keeper of the home (even if she works or contributes in some way), is essentially transactional more than relational. He provides; she receives.

Kassian’s dichotomization of man/provider and woman/recipient essentially reduces the marital relationship between husband and wife to prostitution: the man provides money to the woman in exchange for sexual and domestic services. 

The logic end of this grossly oversimplified dichotomization is a sexual economics and ethics based on power differentials rooted in money. Since money is a proxy and conduit of power in most, if not all, societies, whoever controls the money has the ability to have more power in the relationship. Of course, this is absolutely not a necessity, and there are many, many relationships that fit a traditional male provider/female caregiver role that do not fall into this transactional trap. But this sexual economics essentially is a religiously and legally condoned framework in which husbands are granted access to their wives' bodies and labor in return for economic provision.

This is not what God intended when proclaiming that the two will become one. 

Marriage is not meant to be a transaction, a hierarchy of he provides and she receives. It is meant to be a relationship of mutual love, affection, and commitment. Marriage is a sacred union if you’re a Christian, a sacrament if you’re Catholic. From this Christian perspective, who brings home the bacon is less of an issue since both husband and wife are providing for each other and the family.

Chivalry and Honor Codes

I grew up reading stories of brave, martial men and steadfast women. I was fascinated with Ivanhoe and G.A.Henty, with stories of knights and honor and the best and bravest of men. My parents tried to teach my brothers to be men of honor, and I try to instill a sense of honor in my children. However- not all chivalry is equal, and not all stereotypical expressions of the honorable man or woman are compatible with the realities of our culture and the dictates of scripture as I read it. (And for the record, I am well aware that the version of "chivalry" that is taught in the whitewashed and idealized books we read as children was not generally an accurate depiction of the societies represented by the stories. "Courtly love?" "Knightly chivalry" a la the Eroll Flynn Robin Hood? Yes..... I'm not sure that ever existed outside Hollywood. But that's another story for another time.) There is much good in having a code of honor, and in maintaining personal standards and convictions and taking responsibility for our actions. There is also danger in blindly accepting a code of honor from generations or cultures past, with all its accompanying ideological assumptions, without some careful scrutiny. 



What is a code of honor? As I understand it, it is a set of ideals and philosophies, and the rules and assumptions one chooses to live by. By implication, transgression of one's honor code will result in some form of consequence, be it a personal feeling of shame or failure or some sort of social stigma or in some cases even legal/criminal consequences. Honor codes, real or fictitious, vary immensely with location, time and culture- from the honor codes of fictional pirates or cowboys to the honor codes of historic American pioneers to the honor code of a traditional muslim family in Saudi Arabia. One dictionary defines "Honor Code" as " A code of integrity, dignity, and pride, chiefly among men, that was maintained in some societies, as in feudal Europe, by force of arms" According to Wiki, "An honor code or honor system is a set of rules or ethical principles governing a community based on ideals that define what constitutes honorable behavior within that community. The use of an honor code depends on the notion that people (at least within the community) can be trusted to act honorably. Those who are in violation of the honor code can be subject to various sanctions, including expulsion from the institution." There is a code of honorable behavior here in America as well, though it is not legally enforced or universally adhered to by any means; it is what was taught to my spouse, my siblings, my self, and many of our young friends as children to help us understand how to be a person of reliable, excellent character.



The first thing that comes to mind when I think about a code of honor in a positive (and very general) sense is a passion for truth and justice, even at the expense of personal comfort or inclination. This is one I'll keep, and teach to my children; it is completely and repeatedly compatible with the teachings of Scripture. That, and it builds an unselfish and responsible character and its widespread existence would lead to a free and safe society. When I think about honor, I also think of the "golden rule"- treating others as we would like to be treated, regardless of their status or ours, and considering the effects of an action, not only on ourselves, but also on others, before we undertake it. The "honor code" I'll teach my children, in a nutshell, is justice, mercy, kindness, unselfishness, a love for truth and goodness, and both a sense of our personal responsibility for our actions and the effects of our actions on others and our responsibility to consider those effects. Too often, in our American society, children are raised with an inflated idea of their own importance and a feeling that they are entitled to various things. My goal, with my own children, is to fight the sense of entitlement and imbue them in its place with a careful consideration for others and a passion for justice and truth.



More specifically, we were taught that honorable men and women would not break a verbal contract, would not lie, and/or would be committed to being truthful and keeping agreements even at personal cost. This is a very positive thing, in my estimation- imagine how pleasant society would be if you could depend on people's truthfulness and reliability in general.... this idea of truthfulness/clarity/reliability, too, is a part of the teachings of scripture, the following of which is synonymous with my Christian faith.



Other specifics I think of when I think of honorable behavior include things like deferring to/assisting those weaker than yourself, E.G. holding a door for an elderly person, (some would say for women) a person with a heavy load, or giving your seat to a such a person in a crowded place, etc. Honesty in romantic relationships is another example- for instance, an honorable person will not lead a suitor on, implying more investment or feeling than is accurate for the sake of any personal benefits they might gain, and an honorable person will be decisive about whether they do or do not want a relationship, and will be willing to define both their feelings to the degree that they can and to share their goals and intentions for the relationship in an honest and forthright way.


Now, the negative- because the teachings on honor and chivalry I've heard generally originated in a culture and generation in which gender equality was not a widely accepted concept and gender roles were more rigid and static, some of the "honorable behavior" code promotes inaccurate and harmful assumptions and behavior. For example, take some of the rules on men relating to women in public: not sitting when there are women standing, holding the door for women, men paying for their female companions, etc. These rules assume that men are stronger, and women weaker, and thus men deferring to women in these conventions is conflated with the idea of the strong protecting the weak. The ideal of the strong protecting the weak is very, very good, but in our society it does not make sense to apply it strictly along gender lines. Any person should be willing to  hold the door, give up their seat, or physically assist a person who is weaker than they or who is dealing with heavy loads, cumbersome strollers, or vivacious young children. Sometimes, this ethic will lead to men holding doors for women; sometimes it will not. When I am out with my elderly grandfather, I hold the door for him. When my husband is carrying our youngest, who at 11 months is, together with his carseat, quite heavy, I hold the door for him. (my husband, at 6'8", is far stronger than I am in my 5'2", un-athletic self; in this case it makes perfect sense for him to do the heavy lifting. Thanks, babe! :) )When I see a man pushing a stroller or carrying bags, I hold the door for him. To be clear, I don't mind guys holding doors or giving their seats for me; no, not at all. I do think, however, that while those actions are nice and well-intentioned we should make every effort to separate a convention that a person may enjoy retaining from the flawed ideological assumption that may have originated it.




When it comes to the man paying for the lady, I think it is logical to assume that this came from a time when women were far less likely to have self-supporting careers, or even to be employed and earning wages, than their male counterparts, and so males were naturally left with a degree of fiscal responsibility that is thankfully unnecessary today.




Which brings me to my next point- male responsibility. One of the most negative aspects of the code of honorable male behavior I've observed in my culture is the idea that the husband/father bears ultimate responsibility, not only for children he may father, but for his wife/girlfriend as well. For example, the unequal alimony laws in some states still reflect this idea, as well as the assumption that the male will be more able to fiscally provide for the support of a family. (I'm not denigrating fatherhood or a male's reproductive or familial responsibility here- I'm simply saying that a man/husband/father does not have more responsibility than a woman/wife/mother. They are equally responsible.) This inflated idea of responsibility can be an unnecessary weight when a man's wife or adult children are not being great people and he must deal with feeling responsible, even though he cannot, and as per their adulthood should not, change them or manage their behavior. It can lead to a man, who is married to a woman who is mired in learned helplessness, feeling responsible for her welfare to a degree that he should not and putting up with more in his marriage than he should because he fears that to stand up to abusive, manipulative, etc behavior is somehow failing in a sacred manly duty. By holding males to a different standard, this hurts men and women both- men, because it binds them to situations to which they should not be bound, and women, because their voices are not valued to the same degree because of their reduced perceived responsibility. For example- if a man marries an adult woman with little to no education or job skills, and finds that he has also married a poor mother and a manipulative, emotionally abusive wife, he may hesitate to take steps to protect himself or his children because he feels responsible for his wife and her future welfare, even though she is a mentally capable adult. Then, too, a man may feel pressure to control his wife since he considers himself responsible for her; this can lead to very, very unhealthy relational power dynamics. Additionally, if a woman is raised to believe that she has/needs a man to be responsible for her, she may well not be as motivated to acquire the education or job skills that make such responsibility fiscally unnecessary, or she may remain in an almost childlike state, incapable of independence, lacking the mental independence and informed mind that make dependence on the responsibility of males unnecessary or even untenable.



Personal responsibility is a great thing, and teaching our kids to take responsibility for themselves, their choices, and their children is critical. But that responsibility should not be gender based, and when we decide to take responsibility for someone else, whether it's because they are mentally incapable, or our beloved parents or grandparents who can no longer be independent, or adorable little humans that we made, that responsibility should be thoughtful, intentional, and- again- not gender based. While many people fail to take enough responsibility for themselves, some people tend to feel responsible for others when they shouldn't, especially males, older siblings, and people with "care taking" personalities, from my observation. (older sibs and caretakers generally for very different reasons.)


Basically, I think that some of the ideas of honorable behavior, particularly for males, would be great if they were not based on gender and were regulated with common sense. The concept of honor, responsibility, altruism, etc is great, but it should be gender neutral. Every time.

A Libertarian Conversation on Same Sex Marriage, Part 5: Religion in Politics and Legislating Morality

There are three preliminary conclusions which influence everything else I believe on this subject, (the role of religious law and belief in civil government) and  without agreement on which I couldn't really debate it. They are:




 1. Involuntary acts mean nothing in terms of morality.


While actions may be good for us and good for society and generally a good idea, no action pleases God unless it is done with the right motive and is voluntary. If you treat people kindly because someone's going to hurt you if you don't, it's still treating people kindly,  which is an inherently positive thing, but it is very different than treating people kindly because you love God and you view that as part of your faith in action. In both cases you have done something good, but doing it because you choose to is different from doing it because you're forced to. God wants love and unbounded choice to do good, not just lip service and exterior forms of godliness.




2. We cannot, and we should not, try to coerce conversion or religious belief.

To do so would be morally wrong. We are to witness with service, example, and sharing/teaching, but we are not to bully or shame. Ever.




3. It is not the government's job to legislate morality or to shepherd the faith of its people

.
It is the government's job to protect the freedoms and general of its people, to enforce the rule of law, and to facilitate infrastructure in as local as way as is feasible.


That said, I absolutely think Christians have a responsibility to be involved in our government at all levels, in the arts, and/or in whatever ways we have been gifted and enabled to charge our world for the better. Part of our mandate as Christians is to release the captives, comfort the mourning, and bring justice to the oppressed. We can do this through politics, and as it is my belief that a free society is most conducive to this, working for a just and free community can be a big part of fulfilling that mandate. We may also have opportunities to share our faith with those who ask and who we would not have met otherwise, and to witness by our example of service to our communities. Working in politics to make our home free, prosperous, and friendly to the free exercise of our religion is a great and noble work. However, this does not mean that our laws should conform to any specific set of religious dictums. As I mentioned in a previous post, there are many problems inherent in an ecclesiocracy/theocracy, such as lack of agreement within faiths, a substitution of rule books for divine relationship, etc. As a Christian, I believe I have a responsibility to foster a political environment that is friendly to my faith and does not prohibit it, but also does not mandate it or interfere with it unless it harms others or endangers their basic freedoms. I view separation of the state from any one church as an inherently good thing. Of course, the state will be influenced by the faiths and churches of the people who comprise it; after all, what is government but the people to we elect to do the jobs we cannot or do not wish to do? But- to call ourselves a "Christian Nation" can be a bit problematic. What does that mean, exactly? With which flavor of Christianity would we be identifying? Southern Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, Mennonite? If by Christian Nation we mean a place where Christians and other can freely practice their religions with a few caveats, or a place where the basic values taught by Christ in the beatitudes are a fundamental part of the legal foundation, then I think we can proudly own the term. But if that means that being an American is synonymous with being a member of the Christian faith then I think I'd rather call it (and I can't at this time, not completely) a nation of Religious Freedom, and a nation whose people take responsibility for it. 


 All that said- what should be our foundation for law? Our constitution is based on a value for liberty and human life, and on justice and general ontological equality. I cannot think of a better starting point. Those things are also part of the Christian faith, but are not necessarily unique to it; many atheists would hold them as a positive foundation for a legal system as well. To hold up such a standard does not interfere with religious freedom, as our constitution is not part of any religion. It contains theistic statements, but I think it is generally understood that theism is not required for citizenship or to uphold the values set out in our founding documents. There are some things required of certain religions which violate our basic legal framework, and that is where religious freedom should end- take honor killings, forced marriages, or state punishment of consensual adult sexual behaviors such as adultery, premarital sex, or homosexuality, for example. We could always privilege the Christian faith, but that would be almost impossible due to the diversity within it. I firmly believe that the basic values of our constitution are thus a better framework for our government, and will more likely create a state of religious freedom, than any strictly religious law (Levitical, or Sharia, et c) or religiously mandated form of government.


The fact that our faith requires a position or behavior from us is not sufficient to legislate it for those who do not share that faith. Most of the dictates of the Christian faith are within the "value for liberty and human life, and on justice and general ontological equality" category, and thus are law not because they are in the bible, but because they reflect our basic legal ideas. Everything from insurance fraud to murder to the abortion debate can be traced back to those basic things. There are, of course, some things that many Christians believe to be morally wrong that do not fall within the confines of proper governmental jurisdiction. Adultery and Homosexuality come to mind- we do not throw people in jail for either one, nor should we. The state is not our parent, and we are not its child; consensual behavior between adults does not negatively affect the general population in a way that merits government interference, and all moral and religious implications are the purview of the parties involved, their church, and their God. There may be consequences- in the name of justice, a spouse may seek a divorce when adultery comes to light, and because marriage involves a contract which in such a case was broken, the offended party may be entitled to a distribution of assets that reflects this. This is very different from jailing the offending parties for their moral sin, however.



There is no reason for the state to discriminate based upon a religious rule that is not necessary under the ideals of the constitution. For example- many Christians believe homosexuality is morally wrong. Still, the state recognizes heterosexual spouses and parents regardless of qualification, and does not (and should not) require that homosexual couples should have to prove their fitness to acquire children any more than should heterosexual couples.

(Also, as a matter of consistency- it makes no sense, biblically, to limit homosexual marriage any more than we limit adulterous marriage. Let's be consistent- if LGBT folk can't really be married, then neither can people in polyamorous relationships or people who cheat on each other. Not the government's business, you say? Mmmm..... exactly.)


If we wish to make a law prohibiting marriage between gay couples, it is then inconsistent to use religious or biblical grounds to do so. If we desire such a law, we should first determine whether same sex marriage violates the principles of liberty, respect for life, justice, and equality. If same sex marriage is not counterintuitive to those things, then we ought to ask whether or not it does quantifiable harm to people outside the relationship and infringes on the rights of others. If it does not, then, irrespective and regardless of its morality, I question the legal justification for such a law.


Because involuntary morality does not count towards true holiness, we are doing our society and the people in it no favors when we legislate religious observance. Making laws which render our home freer and safer is wonderful, but legislating religious morality or observance of biblical law which falls outside of our constitutional purview simply puts our people in a place of observing law from fear of punishment, rather than because they are attempting to love God more fully. (I am in no way saying that I believe Christians are bound by the Levitical law, by the way. I'm just using it here as an example of an extra-constitutional morality code that we could, but should not, adopt.) I can see no end to such a course but useless bondage.


Some may argue that allowing same sex marriage necessitates a fundamental redefinition of marriage. To that, I'd say- 1, that depends upon your definition of marriage, and 2, the definition of marriage is not specified and hallowed in our constitution as are other issues.   Marriage, while it has historically been heterosexual, has not historically been a Christ-honoring, mutual, monogamous relationship, even within the church. There are exceptions, of course, but unless we're going back to the garden of Eden before misogyny reared its ugly head, then we're dealing with a mixed bag that includes a healthy dose of polygamy and a heaping cup of gender inequality. I really see no problem with clarifying its legal definition to include committed monogamous relationships between any two humans.


Then, of course, there is the issue of civil vs. religious marriage- I would support a state-recognized civil union between any two people, and the idea of leaving the religious end of marriage the purview of individuals and churches. That's a rabbit trail for another time, though.

Love and Freedom

I saw a woman sleeping. In her

sleep she dreamt Life stood

before her, and held in each

hand a gift—in the one Love,

in the other Freedom. And she 

said to the woman, ‘Choose!’

And the woman waited long:

and she said, ‘Freedom!’

And life said, ‘Thou hast

well chosen. If thou hadst said,

“Love,” I would have given

thee that thou didst ask for;

and I would have gone from thee no

more. Now, the day will come

when I shall return. In that 

day I shall bear both gifts in

one hand.’

I heard the woman laugh in

her sleep.

~ Olive Schreiner

I don't think I could ever live with a love that did not include my individual freedom. I tried, once, and it did not build my love; it nearly destroyed it. I have both now, and each one makes the other sweeter. I am not with my husband because I must be, or because I am told to be; I am with him because I choose to be, and both our lives are better for it. We walk hand in hand, side by side, not in any particular order but what is natural and convenient at the time, and that is fluid and ever changing. (and a life constricted into roles and symbologies or dictated by convention or the wishes of another is not merely restrictive or indicative of one gender; the issue is truly genderless.)

As in the poem, it is possible for some people to choose love without personal freedom, whether from a mistaken idea of moral or religious imperatives, a sense of honor which considers mistakes irretrievable, or from a predilection to constrictingly safe structure. Once that sort of love is chosen, it is static; to add freedom to a love not built on it may destroy the love or the life that it is predicated on. (In my case it did not; a long push for freedom within existing love ended with freedom for both lovers and a love intact. I am very blessed, and I realize the improbability of such a beneficial outcome) However, if freedom is maintained as a priority, love can enter and coexist peaceably with it.

I do not know how the total openness and vulnerability that I consider a hallmark of a great love can coexist within a hierarchy or authority structure, even a hierarchy of a generally theoretical and meta-practiced sort. I am far more comfortable sharing my innermost self with someone who does not consider themselves responsible for my orthodoxy or orthopraxy. My beloved husband is supportive of me, validating of my work and my dreams, (indeed he dreams them with me) and this, I hope, is mutual.We are simply the best of friends, sharing and growing and moving on together.

My heart hurts, sometimes, when I see a dear friend or two in a love that binds and pulls down and squelches good things. I wish that they were free to choose their love, but they do not choose to have that choice. I may disagree with their determination to shoulder on, however I cannot but respect and admire the strength required to know that they are not free but choose to remain in their love nonetheless. They are doing something that I could not, and are thus stronger than I. I can only pray that they will make their choices with both eyes open, and not from fear of other losses or a much-mistaken idea of their sacred duty.

Every love is different, and I would not clone mine for the use of the general public, but I do wish that everyone I know and love could know the deep and fulfilling joy of a happy choice, whether that were single freedom or the freedom of a great love. Such love is a wonderful thing, and I am ever grateful for it. 

Christian Egalitarianism

I assumed until recently that most of my acquaintance were familiar with egalitarianism/complementarianism, (which descriptors I don't care for, since they are not defined in common usage as their linguistic parts suggest they should be, but I digress) but recent conversations have led me to believe otherwise. I think it would be helpful for me to elaborate on what Egalitarianism means to me and why I embrace it; an understanding of my views on this issue is really foundational to interpreting my statements on many things.



Another way to phrase egalitarianism is biblical or moral equality. The christian egalitarian position maintains that all humans were made in the image of our Creator God, and are equal in intrinsic worth, dignity, and personhood. God did not make "seconds" or "mistakes," but fearfully and wonderfully made each of us as unique and creative expressions of the Imago Dei. Egalitarians believe that God does not dole out gifts in different "levels" based on characteristics such as race or gender.



One misconception I have encountered is the idea that egalitarians believe, not just in moral equality, but in the sameness of all people. This, of course, is ridiculous; God gave us different and unique gifts, and yes, some people have far greater capacity in various areas than do others. We are not all Michael Jordans, or Bachs, or Einsteins. Since egalitarians emphasize the uniqueness of the individual, rather than the individual as a representation of a group such as men, women, hetersexuals, caucasians, et c. we actually have more respect, not less, for the differing ways in which God has gifted and called us. I believe that God gives gifts of talents, capacity, et c. without regard to unchangeables such as race or gender, and so I believe that "roles" or "positions" in the church, home, and secular community should be based on ability and inclination, not arbitrary and unchangeable characteristics.



No, we are not all gifted alike. But to bind people to little boxes that we deem appropriately representative of their demographic does not enable them to exercise their God-given gifts; quite the reverse. It squelches the natural strengths of those who don't fit the "box", and instills false confidence in those who do naturally fall within the "box" and may hinder their future growth.



As to gender roles: instead of seeing men and women as typifications of a gender, into whose stereotypes they may or may not fit, I prefer to see them as unique people. The world is not Battlestar Gallactica, with synthetic humans of only a few types and which are all alike within their types. The world is full of unique individuals, and they are as unique from those within their gender as they are from those outside it. Egalitarianism does not suppose any functional, non-physical inequalities between the sexes, nor does it assume that any giftings or roles are based on gender. If a woman and a man have the same abilities and inclinations, they will be fitted for the same "role." In reality, I dislike the term "role" as it brings to my mind a picture of an actor playing a part, not an authentic follower of Christ who follows the Holy Spirit and the gifts God has placed within them to serve and do and be whatever and whenever they are needed and called. We should not be actors in a play; we should be real, living people, not bound to live out a certain symbology but rather following Christ as ourselves in an exhilarating, never-ending quest for Truth and deeper Dive Relationship. Every believer, of any tribe, nation or language or gender or orientation, is a child of God whose first priority should be knowing Christ, doing justice, loving mercy, walking humbly, and sharing the glorious gospel of a risen Savior in whatever way we are fitted, be that in preaching, art, business, or whatever.

Gender Differences

I think it would be helpful, in light of topics I've written about recently, to define my perceptions of the differences between the genders. I've had people assume that, because I am a feminist and an egalitarian, I don't believe in any gender differences. That is not correct. According to my perception, gender differences fall into several categories, with varying degrees of sexual dimorphism present in each one.


1. Basic Plumbing
Men's and women's reproductive equipment are different. Women can nurse and gestate children; men cannot gestate children and generally, with rare exception, do not lactate. Plumbing differences are universal apart from genetic deformities and are constant within the genders but exclusive to one or the other.


2. Other physical differences
In general, men have more upper body strength, more endurance, and are taller than women. They also have different hormone levels and their brains look a bit different. However..... this is a generalization and isn't true in every case. While men are on average consistently and substantially stronger and taller than women, some women are stronger and taller than some men. There is also the issue of degrees- unlike basic plumbing, not all women are consistent nor are all men. Then, too, physical training and hormone therapy can greatly affect results. If men and women had the same training, nutrition, et c usually the men would be able to do things the women could not, (though not always, and the modern availability of hormone therapy is another possible equalizer) but a well-trained woman can often best an untrained man. As to brains, we can make generalizations, but they will not be universally accurate as every brain is different and brains vary widely within the subsets of women and men. In summary, the non-reproductive physical differences between the genders hold true as a generality, but are not exactly as universal and consistent as the reproductive differences.



3. Social/Behavioral differences
These are more subjective, and more an issue of degrees, than the distinctions in the previous categories. They are things like nurturing, relational, logical, emotional, competitive, passive, aggressive, et c. Here there are differences between the average man and the average woman, but those differences pale in comparison to differences between two people of different cultures, backgrounds, or personalities. Take logical vs. emotion-driven, for example. On a straight line, completely logical will be at one end and completely emotional at the other. The average (mean) woman and the average man will fall somewhere in the middle. (see this study) However, since this is the mean of a very diverse gender, the chances that any particular female or male will match the average designation for their gender are really miniscule. Then, too, the spread between "men" and "women" is not usually that large. There are both women and men who fall on every point of the spectrum. So, while there may be more women on one side and more men on the other, there can be, and often is, as much or more difference between two random women as there is between two random men. A woman with a certain personality will, in my experience, have more in common with a man of the same personality than with a woman of a different personality. For example- recently some friends and I took personality inventories for fun. The person whose personality was the most like mine was male, and the person whose personality was least like mine was female. We can say that "the average man is more aggressive(or less empathetic, or whatever) " than the average woman, but 1. This does not mean that all females are less aggressive or more enotional than all males, 2. This does not mean that the vast majority of females/males, or any particular female/male, are/is any more than slightly statistically likely to exhibit the traits associated with their gender more than the traits associated with the opposite gender. 3. This does not differentiate between innate and socially conditioned traits. Unlike reproductive/biological traits, social/personality traits have a great deal to do with environment and socialization. I really don't think it's possible to prove exactly what is nature and what is nurture, as they say. But ever assuming all present traits to be naturally innate, sexual dimorphism on a social, psychological, or non-physical level is a game of statistics, and really does not accurately predict the traits of individuals. In summary, yes, there are differences between the average man and the average woman. But they are not universal, not uniform, certainly not prescriptive, and gender can no more accurately predict innate traits than can culture, environment, and personality. 


So, we really can't say that "women are like x" or "men enjoy z" with any certainty. We can guess, but we may not want to lay a great deal of money on the results.

God made us unique and valuable, and that includes our personalities and social traits. A slight statistical probability, if that, does not mean that a trait is God's design for me, or for my husband.

Femininity, Part 2

A reader of the first post on this subject this evening, and trusted friend of mine, brought to my attention that my definition of femininity could use some expanding and clarifying. :) Hence, the following:

Femininity can be defined one of three ways. In the first, it is equated with femaleness, eg. the sacred feminine. In the second, for example in secular circles, it is defined as a set of qualities, behaviors, or external features that comprise the current cultural picture of ideal womanhood, and/or the stereotypical picture of culturally based female behavior, appearance, et c. The third definition, synonymous with the picture of the "godly christian woman" is defined as adherence to a set of predetermined criteria and the exhibition of traits which are necessary to the "godly woman" label, and which, though sometimes considered inherently and intrinsically female, are not.

The first, physical femaleness, cannot be an issue of degrees. The second is very much an issue of degrees, is neither universal nor prescriptive, and is more a picture of the culture and currently acceptable socialized behavior than a timeless ideal of what a Christian female should look like. I would contend that much of the third, while masquerading as absolute and intrinsic, is actually not, but is as relative as the second. I would contend that the only version which is absolute and intrinsic is the physical femaleness.

Women's personalities, looks, mannerisms, social traits, gifts, et c vary widely and overlap those of men far more than they differ from them; their chromosomes and physical makeup are generally consistent within the gender. So, any time we define femininity as something other than femaleness, we are, according to the the preliminary conclusions upon which my ideas here are based, defining it as NOT universal, NOT intrinsic, and NOT limited to females. If it is based on traits that can also be found in males, traits that are not naturally present in every female across times and cultures, and traits that can be developed or repressed and exist naturally in varying degrees, then it must not be exclusive and intrinsic to females. My primary assertion in the first post was that to tell women that a certain picture of "godly womanhood" is intrinsic to their gender when in fact it is relative and not at all universal is a negative thing. For instance- some believe that a love of children over a love of a competitive workplace is an intrinsic part of christian femaleness. Thus, if a woman does not adore every baby she sees, and express a desire to be a mom instead of have a busy career, she must be an either a defective or an incomplete woman. She must not be feminine. (I realize that's an incomplete example; a woman may of course like both, as do I, and have both, though not perhaps at the same time.) In reality, a desire for motherhood is not present in every woman, and thus cannot be intrinsic to femaleness. Of course a desire for parenthood is perfectly natural in both genders, but it is not universally represented in or exclusive to females.




This idea, the idea that a female already has every intrinsic quality which makes her truly female and is not in need of any external standards conformation to which is indicative of Godly Femininity, is based on the idea that God did not make females who are not real, true, genuine, authentic females, and that the created nature of every female is as God intended; there are no "seconds" or "mistakes." (Of course we are flawed by sin, but I'm speaking of our unique personalities, gifts, et c) While there are women who are abused and brutalized to the point of being a mere shadow of themselves, women who have deep psychological issues, or women who have various mental disorders, a simple deviation from accepted norms of expected behavior (not talking about sin here- that would be an unacceptable deviation and is not gender-related) does not constitute an abnormal or defective female. It should be the reality of the natures and qualities of real females who define what is feminine. (which ends up not appreciably different from the expression of maleness, except in a physical sense, because of the great diversity within the group Actual Females) not an external standard of what is feminine into which females must fit themselves to be considered properly feminine females. This also assumes (as a preliminary conclusion upon which other ideas are based) that there are not separate qualities (different from those for males) that a christian female must exhibit in order to be a proper christian female. A christian female is simply a female who is her authentic self, under the lordship of and in divine relationship with Christ; the same would be true for males. A female need not be overly emotional, nurturing, empathetic, soft, responsive, want a family, want leadership from her husband, et c. to be a proper christian female, though she may be/want any or all of those things.
Instead of focusing on telling women to be feminine in a subjective sense, i.e. exhibit certain traits, we should be telling them to be Christlike. If a any person is following Christ, and doing what they are uniquely gifted and called to do, I fail to see how trying to squeeze them into a gender role would ever be a good thing. If they are following Christ, and doing what they are uniquely gifted and called to do, they will be doing exactly what they should be doing and they will be impacting the lives of those around them in glorious, Christ-honoring ways.

Redundancy

One thing I've asked myself, being now in an ecclesial tradition fairly well removed from some of the more "fundamentalist" aspects of Christianity with which I am familiar, is this: Should I continue to study and talk about things like gender equality, patriarchy, the appropriateness of women in ministry, authority structure, et c? They aren't something I run into much in my current church; one of our pastors is female, our music leader is female, and this is considered the norm. My answer, though, would have to be yes- because I still have many, many people about whom I care deeply who are deeply rooted in patriarchy, in "complementarianism", and in harmful ideas about women and their roles and places in home, life, and ministry. So- I apologize if it seems redundant sometimes; like, as Husband would say, "beating a dead horse." But- I think it's still necessary, and will remain so as long as insidious theology and gender ideology continues to permeate the people, churches, and evangelical Church I love.

Femininity

I am female. This should, by virtue of my profile pic, bio, et c. be self-evident. I cannot become "more female". Unless I were in the process of gender reassignment or was afflicted with a rare chromosomal abnormality, my gender is not a graded scale; it is a black and white, only-two-options phenomena, determined by my chromosomes. So- if I am as "female" as I am ever going to be, why would I waste time trying to be more female, or more "feminine?" It would seem rather silly, unless of course I equated "truly feminine" with an external checklist of subjective or objective qualities and attributes my adherence to which determined my femininity. I do not make such an equation, because I do not believe that there is a list which defines "true femininity", or "godly femininity", or "attractive femininity", et c.   Of course, there are external things which identify me as female in my culture. (My hairstyle, the cut of my clothes, wearing makeup, and so on) These things, however, are completely culturally relative (much like wearing one's hair up or down or wearing head coverings in the culture of Paul's letters to the Corinthians) and thus a matter of personal choice, never morally prescriptive, and not indicative of any internal gender identity. For example, I would not cease to be a woman, nor would I begin to feel male, if I buzzed my hair into a high-and-tight. (think short, stereotypically male military haircut) It would not necessarily be the traditional hairstyle for females in my culture, but that alone will probably not make anyone think I am male. I don't believe that the Bible endorses purposeful gender androgyny, or attempts to impersonate or become the opposite gender, but it's rather difficult to do that without a great deal of conscious effort. I really doubt there's anything I could do, wear, et c. on any given day that would make people wonder about my gender.




Having said all that, it troubles me that christian culture in general makes such a big deal about women being "feminine." We have "feminine" hairstyles, "feminine" souls, "feminine" colors, "feminine" ways of speaking and relating to men, "feminine" ways of sitting, standing, walking.... it seems there's a "feminine" way to do pretty much everything. I'm not trying to say that doing or wearing or exhibiting much of the typical cultural trappings of femaleness is a negative; there's nothing wrong with proclaiming oneself culturally female. Some of these cultural trappings I enjoy myself; I watch Downton Abbey, I love chocolate, I like scented bath products, and I get my hair cut at a nice spa, complete with relaxing music and complimentary wine. The problem comes when we take things that are amoral, culturally-dependent expressions of gender and make them a prescriptive requirement to embody that gender,  when we define "biblical" or "appropriate" femininity by external qualities that must be studied and adhered to, and when we hold women's female identity hostage to a standard of gender roles and expected codes of behavior; when we tell women that they aren't real women, or they aren't womanly, unless they subscribe to our idea of what they should be. Being feminine isn't something I must endeavor to do; it is something that I inherently am. I do not need to live up to anyone's definition of feminine; by virtue of being a female, I define feminine. I. Define. Feminine. Not the other way around. Yes, there are ways to be more culturally, stereotypically feminine. But those things are external, relative, and generally optional.



What happens when we make cultural externals the measure of "godly femininity?" We tell some women that their natural, God-given expression of the female personhood isn't right, isn't good enough, needs a tweak or a tweeze or a wax here and there. We teach women that don't like makeup, don't go crazy for every baby in sight, don't like to spend hours on their hair, don't like to giggle or paint their nails or shop or do brunch, don't like romantic books or movies, don't cross their ankles, don't act reserved and understated enough around men, like hunting or guns or fishing or serious physical challenges, or have serious professional and intellectual goals that may supercede their desires for immediate motherhood or wifehood, that their expression of femininity is somehow inferior to the women who adore babies, shopping, shoes, and taking a backstage role in conversation. The truth is, neither one is better or worse. Some women are bent to nurturing and emotional empathy; some are not. Some women delight in intellectual analysis of any sort; some do not. Some care whether their hair is done and their nails manicured; some do not. When we teach women that there is only one way to be a godly woman, we rob the women who do not fit that stereotype of living their calling to their fullest potential and being the best and most effective version of themselves. 



Being culturally female, and the ways that the female gender is culturally expressed, have changed drastically through the ages. Being a woman, and more importantly a person, has not. I think it's very, very important to separate the cultural externals that we sometimes use to define femininity from those things that actually make a Godly Christian Woman. Mercifully, that list is short: Be a follower of Christ. Preach the gospel, in whatever way you are best equipped to do that. Love God. Obey God, and follow the gifts and callings that God has put within you. Love your neighbor. If you are married, love your spouse. If you are a parent, love your children. Be chaste, be rational, be faithful, be humble, be merciful, be just. And yes, that list can be applied to either gender. Funny thing- being a Godly Christian Man requires pretty much the same stuff as being a Godly Christian Woman. (Yes, there are some social differences between the genders. But they are not uniform, universal, or prescriptive, and they pale in comparison to differences in background, culture, and personality type.) The most important feature of Godly Christian Womanhood isn't having a family, or being a wife, or anything else. It's being an authentic follower of Christ.