https://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/08/why-man-and-woman-are-not-equal
This is my response.
The argument for equality is not an argument for sameness. It is an argument for women to be fully feminine, by their own definition, and concurrently have access to equal rights that men currently take for granted.
Femininity by definition has nothing to do with men. It is the quality which makes women, women. Glenn Stanton has written a statement that women are trying to overcome their femininity, and his definition of femininity is centered around a woman's effect on men, family, and civilization.
Whether or not women have a civilizing effect on men, this is not the definition of femininity. This hijacks what women are, and makes femininity about the men around them - men's behavior, men's self control, men's sense of responsibility. Femininity, however, is an ontology. It cannot be about what men do with or about women. It is about what women do and are about. Stanton takes away a women's singularity of being, and makes her femininity about how men interact with her.
It is one thing to say, “You have made me a better person through your good influence”. It is quite another to say, “Your purpose is to influence me to make me better”. Stanton crosses this line.
The article tagline on Facebook is, "The first step in weakening her power is to convince her that she must overcome her femininity". Both clauses in this sentence need unpacking because they contain the essence of the author's thesis. I will start with second clause first: "To convince her that she must overcome her femininity".
I do wish he had clarified who exactly is convincing women to overcome their femininity. The sentence is ambiguous. In the context of the article, he may mean that someone is convincing women to stop marrying and having children. Stanton does not clarify how women are being convinced; he uses the power of the passive voice in his writing to his full advantage. The fact is that a woman cannot stop being "feminine" - she is that by her nature, married or not, mother or not, sister or not, daughter or not, nurturing or violent or simpering or weak or strong or selfish or sick or isolated or extroverted or sexy or dowdy or tall or short or virgin or slut or anything else.
He refers to feminism as the culprit. It doesn't make much sense; feminism by definition is: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." Christians in general ascribe the increase in working mothers and increase in the divorce rate (thus, the breakdown of the traditional family) to feminism, since these things have increased coincidentally over time. He doesn't say that he thinks this, but in the context this may be what he is getting at.
Let us discuss then the effects of feminism: How demanding the right to vote, personhood, equal rights under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, equal representation in the House of Commons, equal rights to property after divorce, equal pay, equal job opportunities, equal respect and equal social access has weakened women. Have these things weakened our power, weakened our voice, weakened our ability to fulfill our potential and be feminine? Or have they interfered with the goal of getting married, staying married, and raising children? I see no weakening - not for women. Of course, male power over politics, religion, social institutions, employment, business, property, and family life has weakened considerably as women have together said, "I'm not your bitch."
I am a reluctant feminist. But I am one because of this: I married young, to a strong Christian man, a leader in the church, gifted and liked. I submitted to his headship to the best of my ability - and to his neglect and abuse, enduring in prayer as I was supposed to, until my children's lives were in danger and I was left with no choice but to protect them. Without feminism, I would have had no options except these: Stay in an abusive marriage, kill myself to get out of it, or flee and leave my children behind to be abused and neglected. Without the legacy and power afforded to me by the feminists who fought for equal rights, I would not be able to work to support myself, have the right to half the marital property, or take the children with me. My experience of abuse is not uncommon. Domestic violence shelters are always full. The social services women rely on for basic necessities are always strained by demand.
The greatest danger to embracing the proposition that "Femininity equals Good Male Behavior", is that when the opposite happens - men behave cruelly - it puts the responsibility for that back on women. Whether you, the reader, accept this as valid or not, it is the next logical step. Consciously or unconsciously, many men embrace this and expect their wives to influence them to behave. They believe women who fail to make them behave deserve the behavior they get - the bruises, the erosion of self, the damage to the soul.
The final, and probably most insidious and devastating opinion in this piece is that he presents women as superior to men. He opens his article with sweeping, grandiose fawning and flattery. Women are so amazing, so powerful, so perfect, so incredible that they just keep all the badness of men in check. Not only is this contradictory to the teachings of the Bible, which states that all people are fallible, and it is the conscience which convicts us (not women!), but this false exaltation places shame on the women who fall short.
"Woman is the most powerful living force on the globe." Phrases like this pay lip-service to the value of women, while inequality is reinforced. At best this sentence is meaningless blather, insidious flattery - at worst it is used against women who want equality with men. "You are already powerful, why do you want equality?" is what it really says.
Women like me, who failed to make their men behave, even when they were consciously trying, are blamed. Women are shamed who fail to keep their marriages intact, their men interested (as if it were entirely up to the woman!), fail in the microcosm of their own lives, to live up to this grand ideal. Women have their own pastors question whether they were really trying, and question what they did to cause the breakdown of the marriage. Women are made to answer for their husband's bad behavior.
Are we, the failed women, actually feminine anymore? Not by Glenn Stanton's definition. We did not make our men behave. We do not have this formidable power of femininity which causes male capitulation. No, we hindered our ascendancy, so we were bruised and thrown and crushed and raped and damaged, and we deserved it.
Femininity is not servitude to male desires, needs, or behavior. Women are not accountable for men’s actions. Each of us must take responsibility for our own lives. Keep your soaring prose for something else, Stanton. Visit a domestic violence shelter, and taste and see whether this idealistic vision of "Femininity equals Good Male Behavior” works in the real world, in actual marriages and families.
I think you’ll identify a disconnect - and it won’t be a lack of Christian, anti-feminist victims of male violence.
I do wish he had clarified who exactly is convincing women to overcome their femininity. The sentence is ambiguous. In the context of the article, he may mean that someone is convincing women to stop marrying and having children. Stanton does not clarify how women are being convinced; he uses the power of the passive voice in his writing to his full advantage. The fact is that a woman cannot stop being "feminine" - she is that by her nature, married or not, mother or not, sister or not, daughter or not, nurturing or violent or simpering or weak or strong or selfish or sick or isolated or extroverted or sexy or dowdy or tall or short or virgin or slut or anything else.
He refers to feminism as the culprit. It doesn't make much sense; feminism by definition is: "the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men." Christians in general ascribe the increase in working mothers and increase in the divorce rate (thus, the breakdown of the traditional family) to feminism, since these things have increased coincidentally over time. He doesn't say that he thinks this, but in the context this may be what he is getting at.
Let us discuss then the effects of feminism: How demanding the right to vote, personhood, equal rights under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, equal representation in the House of Commons, equal rights to property after divorce, equal pay, equal job opportunities, equal respect and equal social access has weakened women. Have these things weakened our power, weakened our voice, weakened our ability to fulfill our potential and be feminine? Or have they interfered with the goal of getting married, staying married, and raising children? I see no weakening - not for women. Of course, male power over politics, religion, social institutions, employment, business, property, and family life has weakened considerably as women have together said, "I'm not your bitch."
I am a reluctant feminist. But I am one because of this: I married young, to a strong Christian man, a leader in the church, gifted and liked. I submitted to his headship to the best of my ability - and to his neglect and abuse, enduring in prayer as I was supposed to, until my children's lives were in danger and I was left with no choice but to protect them. Without feminism, I would have had no options except these: Stay in an abusive marriage, kill myself to get out of it, or flee and leave my children behind to be abused and neglected. Without the legacy and power afforded to me by the feminists who fought for equal rights, I would not be able to work to support myself, have the right to half the marital property, or take the children with me. My experience of abuse is not uncommon. Domestic violence shelters are always full. The social services women rely on for basic necessities are always strained by demand.
The greatest danger to embracing the proposition that "Femininity equals Good Male Behavior", is that when the opposite happens - men behave cruelly - it puts the responsibility for that back on women. Whether you, the reader, accept this as valid or not, it is the next logical step. Consciously or unconsciously, many men embrace this and expect their wives to influence them to behave. They believe women who fail to make them behave deserve the behavior they get - the bruises, the erosion of self, the damage to the soul.
The final, and probably most insidious and devastating opinion in this piece is that he presents women as superior to men. He opens his article with sweeping, grandiose fawning and flattery. Women are so amazing, so powerful, so perfect, so incredible that they just keep all the badness of men in check. Not only is this contradictory to the teachings of the Bible, which states that all people are fallible, and it is the conscience which convicts us (not women!), but this false exaltation places shame on the women who fall short.
"Woman is the most powerful living force on the globe." Phrases like this pay lip-service to the value of women, while inequality is reinforced. At best this sentence is meaningless blather, insidious flattery - at worst it is used against women who want equality with men. "You are already powerful, why do you want equality?" is what it really says.
Women like me, who failed to make their men behave, even when they were consciously trying, are blamed. Women are shamed who fail to keep their marriages intact, their men interested (as if it were entirely up to the woman!), fail in the microcosm of their own lives, to live up to this grand ideal. Women have their own pastors question whether they were really trying, and question what they did to cause the breakdown of the marriage. Women are made to answer for their husband's bad behavior.
Are we, the failed women, actually feminine anymore? Not by Glenn Stanton's definition. We did not make our men behave. We do not have this formidable power of femininity which causes male capitulation. No, we hindered our ascendancy, so we were bruised and thrown and crushed and raped and damaged, and we deserved it.
Femininity is not servitude to male desires, needs, or behavior. Women are not accountable for men’s actions. Each of us must take responsibility for our own lives. Keep your soaring prose for something else, Stanton. Visit a domestic violence shelter, and taste and see whether this idealistic vision of "Femininity equals Good Male Behavior” works in the real world, in actual marriages and families.
I think you’ll identify a disconnect - and it won’t be a lack of Christian, anti-feminist victims of male violence.
No comments:
Post a Comment