“Male and Female” or “Masculine and Feminine”?
I don’t know about you, but I have all sorts of baggage associated with the very word “feminist”. Most, if not all of it, is unpleasant. See, I grew up in the era of the ERA (the Equal Rights Amendment), and, somehow, in my head I got it tied together with the whole Roe v. Wade thing. When my church talked about politics (which was, admittedly, not very often), these were often mentioned in the same breath and always in negative terms.
I vaguely remember Walter Cronkite introducing news footage of women carrying placards in Washington, DC. Being a shallow little ankle-biter, all I really remember is that none of the women they showed were pretty, and they all seemed angry with me for being a little boy instead of being a little girl.
Shall we just get this out of the way? The image that springs to mind when I hear the word “feminist” is of a Camille Paglia-reading, shorthaired woman, her thick ankles sprouting out of her sensible shoes, glasses edging down her nose, hands on hips, a scolding expression on her pinched face.
That is so politically incorrect, but I’m just being honest here.
The one other image that comes to mind when I hear that word – and I’m really not sure if this makes total sense or is utterly ridiculous – is that of Alan Alda.
Depending upon your politics, you may think Alan Alda is either the most enlightened man in modern history or the personification of everything that’s wrong with men these days. Personally, I’ve gone from one extreme to the other and finally settled somewhere in the middle.
I think.
Suffice to say, I am firmly situated in a particular cultural context. That culture has certain strong ideas of what constitutes masculine and feminine behavior.
The Bible tells us that God made us all — male and female — in his image. Does it also say anywhere that he made us masculine and feminine? Or are those words strictly defined by the culture in which we live? Is there such a thing as “biblical masculinity” and “biblical femininity”?
November 4th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
Well, I guess one thing to be said is that if we start off having bought into all the worst propaganda and stereotypes about feminism [born of the politics of destruction and without any real substantive value regarding the merits of gender equality], then we have nowhere to go but up in considering the matter.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
But you didn’t answer the questions on the table, Kirk. Were my impressions of feminism from childhood skewed? Of course they were — that’s kind of the point — are perceptions are all, to some extent, products of our environment. As we seek, however, to find truth amidst the propaganda and stereotypes, I wonder if it does much good to make pejorative pronouncements. Seems to me, it is far more productive to ask good questions, listen well and answer as honestly and thoughtfully as we can.
November 4th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
well, first, I don’t think one gets very far in answering the questions unless one is cognizant of the context in which those questions are asked.
Second, the only question that has practical value [the only "good question"] for me here is should women be valued equally with men and treated so both by the law and by us as individuals? And, while I respect your thoughtfulness and your process, I, personally, do not need to answer the questions you put on the table to get to the answer to mine.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Kirk,
I have confessed to being “firmly situated in a particular cultural context”. Having done so, I don’t think your one good question is in question at all. Every thoughtful person I know believes, as you do, that women should “be valued equally with men and treated so both by the law and by us as individuals”.
I do not know any thoughtful person who disagrees with this — certainly no one has expressed a contrary opinion on this blog or over on Facebook.
However, I believe there are other questions worth considering. For example, does equality mean identity (is equal the same as identical)? Does male mean masculine and female mean feminine? Are the different behavioral tendencies we traditionally have attributed as “masculine” and “feminine” biblically normative or cultural imposed?
Those are, in my opinion, good questions that have practical value for those who seek to live their lives in a God-honoring way. Furthermore, I believe it is only as we answer these questions that we will be able to practically apply what we have said we believe about that first question (your one good question).
November 4th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
JT you do realize that you are being very Paglia-like in these questions, right?
if I wanted to be REALLY snarky I’d do a short text analysis of biblical references a la the style of Camille Paglia. I believe she did exactly this, in fact, in part of SEXUAL PERSONAE.
ok ok snarkiness aside — there are fabulous examples of men and women doing outrageous things in the bible – starting with the creation story and on through the new testament stories. Depending on how you view the bible, these stories could suggest divine intent/perception of the “nature” of men and women.
the larger question: what impact does/should these stories have on our assesment/belief of what the divine may be saying/intimating, about the nature of men and women, or masculinity and femininity? does the reader take these stories to be the literal viewpoints/word(s) of the divine? or, something else?
I vote for something else. not sure what that is – and I do think it’s something the divine was involved in – BUT, ultimately, I believe the Bible is an important, inspiring, finite document created by men.
By MEN. sorry. the feminist in me had to go there.
I’m not a bible scholar and, as a literary analyst, I’m always hesitant to make analytical statements about a translated text…particularly in the case of the bible, where we’re looking at a text based on some earlier text – or series of texts….
Despite this, I personally would not use the Bible as a “source text,” in the manner in which you seem to suggest, to explore the divine’s intentions behind male and female.
November 4th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
I don’t see any “laws” in the Bible for your question. I think God looks at us as His children. The idea of sexes was for filling up His earth with us. I think culture has been the fly in the ointment. I think all the stipulations that the church populated by humans has about putting pecking order on us were put there by man not God.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:04 pm
If the Bible is a document created by mere MEN, then they were the most counter-cultural, enlightened men of their time. The Bible begins by affirming the equality of the sexes — right there in Genesis 1 — mentions midwives by name while neglecting to mention the name of the Egyptian Pharaoh, shows us a woman as Commander in Chief of the Israeli armies (Deborah), has a beauty contest winner save her entire race from a holocaust (Esther), has as its main character (Jesus) a guy who associated with, ate with, spoke to and taught women alongside men, shows women as the first witnesses and proclaimers of the resurrection, advocates just treatment for widows and instructs the early church “In Christ there is no Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female” (Gal. 3:28).
That’s a remarkable group of men — forward-thinking — some might even say “inspired”.
November 4th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Are we made masculine and feminine?
Maybe I am oversimplifying this, but how about the fact that women have breasts and a uterus? That makes us perfectly suited to nurturing tiny, helpless babies.
Men have test…osterone which makes them suited to defending nursing mothers and babies from savage beasts and marauding raiders.
Seems to me to be a match made in heaven. Oh, wait… it was.
November 4th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
I appreciate your positive reading of the text — i too try to hold a positive, open read of the text.
and I know that you also know, there are other readings of the bible that are not so generous.
As I said before, I don’t want to pretend to be a bible scholar – or a feminist scholar for that matter — but I personally have heard quoted to me, verses that (according to the quoter) signify that woman directly brought the downfall of man; that the bible calls for women to be subjects of their husbands, etc. You don’t need me to continue.
and also — as i noted, i do believe there’s been some sort of divine inspiration and interaction that informed the bible’s creation. but at the same time, men are finite, and fallible. i believe some of that finite-ness has been interwoven into this wonderful, frustrating text.
November 4th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Christie,
It is my opinion — and I share this opinion with the great majority of conservative Biblical scholars — one would have to do serious violence to the text in order to justify the position that women brought about the downfall of humanity. In fact, the New Testament teaches clearly that Adam was primarily responsible for the historical origin of sin (cf. Romans 5:12-20).
As for the notion of a wife being subject or in submission to her husband — that comes in the broader context of a conversation where the writer also commands the husband to love his wife as Christ loved the church — with a sacrificial, humble, selfless love. In the end the true command is for both parties to be in a state of mutual submission. Moreover, this is to be taken only in the context of a marriage — this is not a blanket statement that all women must be subject to all men.
The point I want to make really clear here is that you have to twist the text of the Bible if you want to make it misogynistic. There are other sacred writings (the Koran and the Talmud leap to mind here) which must be twisted in order to avoid discrimination against women.
November 4th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
My wife and I have counter-cultural roles – which I don’t think I would say are “counter-biblical”. She is a corporate executive and I am a stay at home dad. I worked as a physical therapist about 15 years before maturing into my stay at home role. I became a Christ follower in my mid-20’s a few years after being married. As we began having children (we have four…from 11-23 currently!) my wife and I saw a growing need and desire to have more impact/influence in their daily lives. This was also different in that we felt this desire as our two oldest children were entering their teen years. I truly felt this was what Christ was calling me (and us as a family) to do. My wife and I had great conversations about this change. Honestly I could not have done it if my identity wasn’t rooted in my relationship with Christ – and if my wife hadn’t been fully on board with the change. Lots more to the story and the transition but it really came down to what we felt was God’s will for our family. So often our identity comes from what we do rather than whom we follow and I would not have been able to make the transition to stay at home dad if my identity had been tied up soley in my job. My wife has also been uniquely positioned within her company, we believe, and she views this as part of the mission field God has called her to as well.
So – Biblical masculinity/feminity? Not so sure on that one other than pursuing your biblical “identity” in Jesus…abiding in Him….Him abiding in you. Striving as huband and wife to honor Jesus in the purposes He has prepared for us – and hoping we are good listeners to His spirit. (All of the above is said understanding that yes…indeed….men/woman are created/wired differently but each finds their unique identity in/through Christ.
Hmmm….lots there…don’t know if I truly expressed what I am feeling. : )
November 5th, 2009 at 7:09 am
JAT… “That’s a remarkable group of men — forward-thinking — some might even say “inspired”. In Christ there is no Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female” (Gal. 3:28).”
So why do women have such a second class role in most churches? And why do most men not care to change things to reflect a more Christlike approach to the role of women?
November 5th, 2009 at 7:14 am
JT if by your note you mean to say that the Bible is no longer used to prove a “natural order” of men’s superiority over women, I’m glad to hear it. Historically that has not been the case so that’s progress.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Wendy,
I can’t speak for the churches you’ve experienced. I have been part of churches where women are celebrated as equal to men, but it is, ironically, often women themselves who refuse to be elevated.
One of the things feminism has brought about is not only men rethinking the role and place of women in society (including church) but women thinking differently about themselves.
Prestonia Mann Martin, a leading opponent of the woman’s suffrage movement, in a book co-authored with her husband in 1916 expressed her belief that women were not merely the weaker sex, but that they were relatively “disabled” as a sex in comparison with men. Even disabled men, she argued, have a chance to recover, “but womanhood is an infirmity from which women rarely, if ever, recover.” Martin went on to warn women against getting involved in the legislative process, on the grounds that women “lack the aptitude either to make laws or to obey them.” Women should give up the attempt to change man’s world “because it is his world.”
That wasn’t even 100 years ago! She wasn’t coerced into writing that. She honestly believed it!
Women in general haven’t had a healthy view of their capabilities until fairly recently. This is one reason why we haven’t seen the kind of change we hope for.
I think another reason is b/c it hasn’t been an issue related to cultural apologetics. What I mean by that is people don’t often walk in, look at the platform and wonder, “Why aren’t there any women up front?” It hasn’t been seen as a barrier to people joining us.
This mindset, however, is changing — particularly in larger, more metropolitan places. As more and more people begin to view the role of women in church through a sociological lens and not simply a theological lens, I bet we’ll find more and more churches open to re-examining their thinking.
November 5th, 2009 at 9:47 am
Christie,
I would suggest exactly the opposite of your last sentence. Historically, the NT is among the most liberating, female-friendly texts of all time. I believe what you’re referring to (and I don’t mean to whitewash over church history — God knows there are skeletons in that closet!) is a parenthesis in history. The Christian Church began as a place where women were elevated above societal norms. The Christian Church became corrupted by societal pressure and demonstrated an oppressive patriarchal bent for a while. The Christian Church is rediscovering a more biblical perspective on women now. I’m not sure if I’d call it progress as much as restoration.