« On lutes and literary things... | Main | If I Had to Do it Again, I Wouldn't »

Taking It To The Culture

Up to this time I mostly have dealt with ideas of women, their roles, etc. in terms of the Church. But I read this post tonight,and I wanted to bring it here for discussion. What about the new double standard described by Cassandra? Read the entire article for much more to talk about. I'm sure we will make our way back to the issues of women in the Church along the way. This is an extremely interesting view of gender and its crisis in the culture, IMHO.

Villainous Company: A Question Of Balance

The Greeks used the term thumos to denote the bristling, spirited element shared by human beings and animals that makes them fight back when threatened. It causes dogs to defend their turf; it makes human beings stand up for their kin, their religion, their country, their principles. "Just as a dog defends its master," writes Mansfield, "so the doggish part of the human soul defends human ends higher than itself."

Every human being possesses thumos. But those who are manly possess it in abundance, and sometimes in excess. The manly man is not satisfied to let things be as they are, and he makes sure everyone knows it. He invests his perception of injustice with cosmic importance.

Manliness can be noble and heroic, like the men on the Titanic; but it can also be foolish, stubborn, and violent. Achilles, Brutus, and Sir Lancelot exemplify the glory of manliness, but also its darker sides. Theodore Roosevelt was manly; so was Harry "The Buck Stops Here" Truman. Manly men are confident in risky situations. Manliness can be pathological, as in gangsters and terrorists.

Manliness, says Mansfield, thrives on drama, conflict, risk, and exploits: "War is hell but men like it." Manliness is often aggressive, but when the aggression is tied to the concept of honor, it transcends mere animal spiritedness. Allied with reason, as in Socrates, manliness finds its highest expression.

Marine Corps training doesn't crush thumos. It finds a proper outlet for that energy and aggression and channels them. And it's no accident that a warrior culture is a highly structured and disciplined one beset with rules and regulations. Only in such a well regulated environment can so many highly charged individuals get along without killing each other. They co-exist peacefully because they willingly submit to authority and yet few, looking at a base full of Marines, would describe them as wimpy or feminized. This is why society bids men shave, wear neckties, and follow seemingly meaningless social conventions. These things are symbols; tokens of conformity - a voluntary willingness to submit to the often capricious dictates of the social contract; to harness that boundless energy and aggression in service to something larger than themselves. Yet, in just the last few decades a fairly remarkable thing has happened.

Women, whose similarly bridled femininity had been tightly constrained by a stifling set of societal mores, discovered feminism. And suddenly all bets were off.

Now, in the workplace and in the home both men and women are getting mixed messages. In many offices men are still being told they must wear ties and watch their language for signs of sexist thoughts or pronouns. Yet when I open up a fashion magazine, I see women who are definitely not typing pool material wearing low cut tops and extremely short or revealing skirts to the office. Years ago, such attire would have violated any number of office dress codes, not to mention torpedoing ones chances of promotion. Now such unbridled feminine sexuality in the workplace is considered "sophisticated". What kind of message is that sending to men: "Here I am, but don't you dare notice me as a sexual being because if you do, you're objectifying me?" O-kay.

Submission. What a stale, moldy, outdated, concept. I cringe, even while I'm typing it because I'm sure it will bring the wrath of God down on my poor head for daring even to suggest that I agree wholeheartedly, unreservedly, with the author on this score.

And here is where it comes back for us, doesn't it? To define and communicate to the culture, even to those with whom we are on the same page...just what we, or more importantly the Lord, means when we say "submission".

Comments

I seem to have been a feminist from birth until the time of my conversion at 30. Sexual freedom was a core part of my belief system. At a young age I associated being a woman and especially a liberated woman, with being sexual. There was pornography in my home that I stumbled across at about 8 years of age, a family member frequently made sexual jokes. At 10, that member asked me if I would want to be a Playboy bunny when I grew up. Virginity was a burden to be rid of as soon as I could find the "right" guy. I took all of that in and associated it with what it meant to be a woman and especially a liberated modern woman. I believed the way to having power over men was by using sex, either through the act or through the tease of being provacative. How deceived I was. In my opinion anyone who said otherwise was an oppressor of women.

To me, though quite sad, it is no surprise the mistaken direction so many women and girls have taken. Sex continues to be flaunted everywhere and the message I got as a child is broadcast even louder. If you want to be a woman of power and dominate men, sexuality is the way to get you there. It is a constant push against the tide to show our girls how perfect God's plan is for men and women and that the way to have a life that is truly satisfying is His way and not what seems right to the world around us.

Posted by: Patti at January 4, 2007 9:56 AM

In a way, it is an old message that resurfaced with a new set of clothes. If you think of the French Demi-Monde or of the Courtesans of various cultures, those of Renaissance Venice for example...you see women whose only real mode of power was their use of sexuality. They exchanged it for place and priviledge in their culture for as long as it was allowed. There were always backlash and they never could be sure of when they would get caught by that. Think of the Geisha houses of Japan. Eventually immorality is an unwelcome burden on society. It is basically parasitical.

This piggybacked on feminism until the advent of AIDS which sort of shut down the whole scene that you describe.

But I think that Cassandra in this article has highlighted something we don't really look at. Our society has been playing this game of telling women - through media and other means, that there are no rules for them. Eventually though the rules that are in place, though unspoken, will surface and women - like the Courtesan community of old- they are going to get caught , and left powerless.

Even if they dress seductively in the work environment and seem to get away with with it- I think there are hidden costs that they pay. Less respect, etc. It reminds me of that Apprentice show. Does anyone remember it? Where the girl team had to sell lemonade or something, and they used their sexuality, but it eventually even brought some censure from the likes of Trump ( who is well known for his predilection for just such women). But it pretends there are no rules, when society , and the men of it, know that such boundaries are necessary. On some level at least.

What I wonder about- in your own and many storiies that could be told is ...where is the standard of Christian women? Why is there no..."Well, the Christian way of submission is what I want" No one really knows what the Christian woman defines as submission because the definition is dependent upon arbitrary scales of "depends what group you are in". That means there is no articulation of the basic standard.

I felt that Villanous Company described what many of us know to be Christian submission, but we are not giving that as our message. Instead we serve up the old warmed over Fifty's sit-com tradition. The kind that she describes as unsavory. And it is - it is decayed leftovers instead of the fresh bread of the Word.

I'm sorry - but that is the message and it is unseemly for the gospel. That is why lots of us have major apologetic work to do in this area.

Posted by: ilona at January 4, 2007 11:36 AM

Ilona, the way I approach the notion of submission is, first, Scriptural references and then, basically, by attitude of humility and respect. Humility and respect will solve all the other problems! But when you enter a situation rather "cluelessly," i.e., with basic humility and respect as driving forces, you run into all the already-erected and arbitrarily constructed standards and definitions as to what constitutes appearance of respect -- in essense, symbolism over substance. (I just love that phrase, coined by Rush Limbaugh.)

Patti, you've made a very good point -- women most definitely use their sexuality for power. And all sorts of other things (ugh). And I think it's this abuse of sex by both women and men that has led to the difficulty we (Christians in general) now have in even acknowledging that unbridled sexual expression is to be encouraged and celebrated in marriage, as something deeply constructive rather a tool to use for manipulation. And this is really too bad!

Posted by: Bonnie at January 5, 2007 1:02 AM

If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.

About

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.