a hot topic for your enjoyment
Umm... so yeah. I was reading a blog belonging to a friend of mine (Hilary, the one with the red hair who worked at LBE for awhile this summer). Anyway she wrote about a short story she'd read, one big theme being patriarchy, gender issues. Anyway, a dude commented, but I don't think he was very clear and honestly I wasn't sure where he stood by the end of reading the comment. Some of the things he mentioned included a number of acheivements men had to their credit, but then how women might have related to them and that women had done their 'duty' and et cetera. Also how the Bible describes a very patriarchal society. The point is I started writing and it got kind of epic so I figured you might want a shot at it. I didn't polish it as much as I usually do with such heavy stuff, so don't judge too harshly. Or do, whatever. :) DISCUSS.
Men have done lots of stuff first, including being made. If my brother is born first he has certain special rights but it doesn't make him better than me, nor imply that I couldn't handle those rights as well as he, or better even. It's just a way for society to be organized which some cultures rely on to keep order, while some cultures basically dispense with it entirely. It's not about 'wrong' or 'right', it's about what's best and how people want to live.
The Bible, our guide in life, depicts an extremely patriarchal society. It also depicts walled stone cities with flat roofs and other outdated concepts. Not to say patriarchal society is stupid or no longer relevant - far from it. There is still meant to be order in family as in the world, but what that means is as much up to those involved as it has ever been.
I don't want to own my wife, personally I have no desire for her to feel that she is beneath me in any way. I'm sure this is partly due to the modern culture I live in, but keep in mind why that modern culture has come to be that way. We are a very rich culture that values freedom highly. We have the power to make our lives how we want them. In this culture a boy doesn't go out at thirteen, find the prettiest girl in the market that day and tell his parents to help him marry her. That's a very extreme example, but the point is that cultures with less freedom require more stricture on relationships of all kinds, marriage included.
It's just like how an army requires a strict chain of command because it faces extreme adversity, and also because despite some unity of purpose, the people involved start off strangers. That chain is based on things like aptitude, experience and education. Men are stronger so it would make sense that they generally do more of the heavier work while women do more detail stuff. Women share a physical bond with their children so it makes sense they would better bond with them emotionally as well. If men are more educated they should make a better living. If they're more experienced they should make better decisions.
However, we no longer live in a world where that's always true. Men are still apt to be stronger physically, but far fewer of us do heavy labour anymore - in fact, given labour laws, there's no reason a woman couldn't do almost any job in Canada. Not to say they'd want to, but still. I think they're letting women into universities, too, nowadays.
Someday, I hope to fall in love and for us to be perfect for each other. Nothing will make me sacrifice that, unless God makes it clear I'm not meant to marry at all, or puts some other crazy spin on my life that I couldn't possibly predict right now. Sometimes we'll disagree of course, but we will decide how to live with love - discussion, logic and comprimise, not just tradition - because that's how I want it to be. In this culture, we can have that.
Patriarchy is just one of the nearly infinite social systems which governs humankind. Sometimes they definitely do create oppression and strife, but that's not why they're there. Order is generally better than anarchy, but it doesn't fix human nature, and people suffer under it as surely as they would suffer without it. What we need to do is discern how much order is best, and how God wants us to share it.
Men have done lots of stuff first, including being made. If my brother is born first he has certain special rights but it doesn't make him better than me, nor imply that I couldn't handle those rights as well as he, or better even. It's just a way for society to be organized which some cultures rely on to keep order, while some cultures basically dispense with it entirely. It's not about 'wrong' or 'right', it's about what's best and how people want to live.
The Bible, our guide in life, depicts an extremely patriarchal society. It also depicts walled stone cities with flat roofs and other outdated concepts. Not to say patriarchal society is stupid or no longer relevant - far from it. There is still meant to be order in family as in the world, but what that means is as much up to those involved as it has ever been.
I don't want to own my wife, personally I have no desire for her to feel that she is beneath me in any way. I'm sure this is partly due to the modern culture I live in, but keep in mind why that modern culture has come to be that way. We are a very rich culture that values freedom highly. We have the power to make our lives how we want them. In this culture a boy doesn't go out at thirteen, find the prettiest girl in the market that day and tell his parents to help him marry her. That's a very extreme example, but the point is that cultures with less freedom require more stricture on relationships of all kinds, marriage included.
It's just like how an army requires a strict chain of command because it faces extreme adversity, and also because despite some unity of purpose, the people involved start off strangers. That chain is based on things like aptitude, experience and education. Men are stronger so it would make sense that they generally do more of the heavier work while women do more detail stuff. Women share a physical bond with their children so it makes sense they would better bond with them emotionally as well. If men are more educated they should make a better living. If they're more experienced they should make better decisions.
However, we no longer live in a world where that's always true. Men are still apt to be stronger physically, but far fewer of us do heavy labour anymore - in fact, given labour laws, there's no reason a woman couldn't do almost any job in Canada. Not to say they'd want to, but still. I think they're letting women into universities, too, nowadays.
Someday, I hope to fall in love and for us to be perfect for each other. Nothing will make me sacrifice that, unless God makes it clear I'm not meant to marry at all, or puts some other crazy spin on my life that I couldn't possibly predict right now. Sometimes we'll disagree of course, but we will decide how to live with love - discussion, logic and comprimise, not just tradition - because that's how I want it to be. In this culture, we can have that.
Patriarchy is just one of the nearly infinite social systems which governs humankind. Sometimes they definitely do create oppression and strife, but that's not why they're there. Order is generally better than anarchy, but it doesn't fix human nature, and people suffer under it as surely as they would suffer without it. What we need to do is discern how much order is best, and how God wants us to share it.
posted by Tom | 11:26 p.m.
12 Comments:
Good thoughts here, Tom, as always. I've had my share of questions about the patriarchy as well. I agree that systems aren't bad perse, but the way people use systems often is as the enforcement of certain rules/guidelines comes more out of tradition than anything else. As a result I'm suspicious of systems. I've come to see systems that order society are as the result of our inability to live in right relation with God and others, but many are ones we've manufactured ourselves. I think systems need to be flexibile to allow for growth and new understandings and scrunitized by people.
wow, I agree with you entirely, Mike. weird.
another point - somewhat on topic - might be that Jesus himself was all about crossing social norms and messing with the 'natural' order of society...hanging out with the women and outcasts and such.
so perhaps that points to showing us that when we value people according to class, race, gender, etc. we're not being terribly Jesus-like.
I know that I try to live like Jesus byu hanging out with women and other outcasts.
i know you do. and I, as a recipient of this, appreciate you in your Jesus-like endevours....
K, I probably have a million things I could say to this... I've actually typed and erased a few things, cuz I could just go on and on. Let me pose this question. Is there gender equality, even in a perfect world, where everyone had appropriate understanding for the other gender, would there be equality?
I'll say what I think first, that is no. Now you
Type away! I love when people go on and on, it makes me feel less crazy for doing it all the time myself. Plus, that's kind of the point of this place, to stimulate discussion, right?
I think that your question rests on a number of definitions...
Equality. I take this to mean equal value.
Perfect world. I'm assuming a human world just like ours, except where everyone (as you say) has appropriate understanding and love for everyone else; ultimately I think this impossible scenario would also eliminate sin.
Taking these definitions, in a perfect human world I do think there would be equality between genders, even as far as equal rights. This is because I think that without sin, there would be no need for heirarchy: no rulers, no powers, no special rights for anyone. Kind of like how the Israelite community was ruled only by God before the monarchy, except we wouldn't need judges or priests if we were without sin, right? In that kind of world, I think that even the need for biblical male leadership (I use the term carefully...) would fall away. I can't know for sure, though... maybe our inherent differences would still produce that sort of concept as long as we were still here on earth.
I am confident, however, that there is a layer of soul beneath our bodies and brains that is more or less equivalent. My basis is Matthew 22 (the story is also in Mark and Luke), when Jesus says, "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." If we're not marrying anymore, that implies to me that the concept of gender has essentially fallen away. We'll still be us, you know, but different... anyway that's just my best guess I suppose.
I'm interested to hear exactly what you think, though! :)
Oh yeah, in Christ there is no male or female (Gal 3.27). We are intrinsically of equal value.
'I'm just saying is all'
that in this world there is a power imbalance and yeah because of the fallen state, it's going to exist. Often, physically and I find socially a bit, women are not necessarily weaker, but placed in a confusing and vulnerable position. If that makes sense.
I have heard that the male is to be the 'priest' of the home, lets say in a marriage or family. I heard this from someone I respect greatly and have probably learned the most about God and been most challenged by. Although the context in which it was said was in "this is who you should be looking for as someone to marry- someone who has authority in Christ and who will look to the Lord for guidance etc etc." Plus, he said that women have that role too, but should never marry someone who can not be a priest/prophet (ie. communicator with God, gifted in understanding).
Here's what I think he meant. If a female lacks the ability to communicate with God, she will not as strongly be able to bring the husband away from his strenght in that area, and he will likely lift her up in it. However, if the male lacks in that area, and the female is strong in it, she is maybe more easily weakened by his non-engagment in communication with God (and if she isn't there's going to be serious marital conflict), than if it were vice versa. This is not necessarily what I think is in every case the truth. It makes sense to me though, in observing the way women and men work in relationships. Also, I understand that we are all weak in communication with God. I'm measuring this by I guess desire and discipline.
Ummm I got off topic, so I'm stopping now
Doesn't this just further enforce the power imbalance? So, men who are naturally weak in this area can't marry anyone? Or women who are uber-strong in this area have to find someone even stronger and subordinate their strength to this other person?
I also have a hard time accepting the "that's just the way it is because we're fallen" arguments. I would like to believe that God gave us things that reason and compassion and the ability to grow. I'm not saying we'll ever get it perfect, but I do think we can improve.
That is an interesting set of words... I expect a person who doesn't understand or communicate with God at all wouldn't really be a Christian in the first place, though they might call themselves one. So no, not someone a woman would want to marry; not someone a man would want to marry either. Of course this guy was coming at it from the female perspective since he was talking to you...
It sounds a little like a fleshing out of the male leadership concept... if a man is taking a position as a leader, then I suppose a woman who is - weaker in faith? I dunno what to call that - would be less of a liability, since she would have lesser authority. That would be a pretty strong leadership role though. Also just in general, the whole scenario implies some seriously inequal yoking, which biblically would be unfortunate. Also there's this:
1 Cor. 7:14 - For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
It's not really talking about leadership in this passage, but it does seem to make clear that a believing wife does/should have plenty of authority to 'sanctify' the marriage. Given that this was written for the early church I think that would be even more true in modern times.
It's not definitively my view on the issue. Probably the best idea is to find someone on the same page as you, kinda thing.
I don't think he was saying that weak men can't marry, or that strong women can't marry. But that those two shouldn't marry each other.
You're right Tom, he was talking from a female perspective. It would be interesting to hear what he would say to a guy.
Yeah, I disagreed with chunks of that too...I assume you were talking about George? He’s always havin’ those conversations.
I’m thinking that the person who has the most ‘power’ in the relationship is not determined by gender so much as personality and familial/social background. Gender plays in because if you’ve been brought up to believe that men are where the power’s at, then that’s how it’ll be. But there are a whole heck of a lot of ‘weak’ men and women and a whole lot of ‘strong’ ones.
I think that even if a man is strong in his faith and he marries someone who doesn’t have a relationship with God, he can as easily be dragged down as a woman could in the reverse gender situation.
I guess I can see some of what you’re sayin’ – in social work especially you probably see a lot of women in unhealthy and imbalanced relationships, where they are fairly helpless. Is this part of what you mean? But even in those situations, aren’t there often other factors that play in – economic background, education, etc? In that case, it’s not purely a gender equality issue.
Now I’m not sure what I’m saying. Or if I’m adding anything valuable here. These conversations are so much clearer in person.
About the whole ‘no gender in heaven’ thing: I must say I’ll be a little disappointed if that’s the case. Perhaps there won’t be sex, but I feel like gender is a part of us – part of who we are on some basic level, and that it is good – God said so when he made us that way.
Genesis:
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them
and:
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
So he created man as male and female...in the image of God.
C S Lewis has a really interesting portrayal of God as both male and female and of different angels embodying either male or female....perhaps I’ll dig that up to share.
Perhaps it’s just a different understanding of male and female than we can really grasp in our imperfection.
‘nuff of that now.
Ok, here's what I meant about the power imbalance. Actually I have no idea what I meant, I'm pretty all over the place... AND I already got angry about being confused when I was writing a paper, so I'm not gonna let myself get all confused here.
I like what you said about the gender thing. good, good stuff zeb. Um, I basically have nothing to add.
Post a Comment
<< Home