On and off over the past month, I’ve been making my way through W. Bradley Wilcox’s Soft Patriarchs, New Men: How Christianity Shapes Husbands and Fathers. It’s gotten quite a bit of attention this year from conservative Christians and family sociologists.
I confess, for someone who wasn’t trained formally as a sociologist/psychologist, the statistical analyses are a bit baffling. What, I wonder, am I to do with a table called "Odds Ratios from Logistic Regressions on Theological Conservatism of Married Men with Children". I mean, I think I might be interested in the data, if only I could learn how to interpret it. As a lover of Auden, I have honored too well his warning: Do not sit with statisticians, or commit a social science!
Anyhoo, what I can understand of Wilcox’s work is fascinating. Wilcox is a Christian social conservative teaching sociology at the University of Virginia. "Soft Patriarchs" is gently non-polemical, but the rest of his work is not. Check out this article he wrote for Touchstone Magazine earlier this year: The Facts of Life and Marriage: Social Science and the Vindication of Christian Moral Teaching. I’ll get to that article another time.
In his book, Wilcox compares the views of mainline and evangelical Protestant men on issues such as marriage, fatherhood, the feminist movement, premarital sex, and divorce. He also examines and contrasts the parenting and "husbanding" styles of these men, with some remarkable conclusions. Here are a few things that struck me:
Theologically conservative fathers are… more likely to spank their children than are theological liberals and moderates.
I could have guessed that. But how ’bout this:
Married fathers who are theologically conservative are more likely to praise and hug their children very often than fathers who are not.
Or this:
…conservative Protestant fathers are less likely to yell at their children than mainline Protestant fathers.
Wilcox theorizes that since the 1970s, religious conservatives in this country have done a remarkably good job of instilling what he calls "neotraditional" attitudes towards marriage and parenting among their male followers. The "traditional" aspect includes the persistent view that male and female "spheres" ought to be at least somewhat separate, and in many denominations, that the man is the "head" of the household. The "neo" part lies in the fact that much of the language of secular family psychology has been adopted by evangelical conservatives, often with beneficial results. After all, James Dobson, the head of the enormously important –and very conservative — Focus on the Family, doesn’t have a theological degree; he has a Ph.D. in child development from right here at USC. Wilcox describes Dobson thus:
…this leading Christian family expert seems to think that the best answer to the challenges that beset contemporary marriage is a more expressive (male) ethic centered around positive emotion work. Dobson devotes comparatively little attention to the role of faith and virtue in fostering good marriages.
Groups like Promise Keepers have emphasized the importance of being a loving husband and a devoted father over the demands of career. The evangelical magazine "New Man" regularly runs articles for evangelical Protestant men on how to improve their family relationships. (See this touching story about a Dad taking his child off to kindergarten in this month’s issue.)
This "neotraditionalism" shows up in Wilcox’s findings around household chores. (In this regard, he plays great tribute to the pioneering work of Arlie Hochschild.) This might well be expected:
…conservative Protestant married men with children perform a slightly smaller share of household labor than their unaffiliated peers… mainline Protestant married men with children perform a slightly larger share…
Yup, that’s we Episcopalians, folding laundry.
But Wilcox notes that there’s more to the story of domestic relations than the division of labor. He has a large section entitled Wives’ Reports that Household Labor is Appreciated. He notes that the wives of theological conservatives may end up doing more of the work, but they feel more appreciated for it:
…the family-centered theologically conservative worldview promoted by conservative Protestant institutions seems to be linked to higher displays of gratitude for household labor among married men with children.
Men in these families may have what Wilcox calls "symbolic patriarchy", but as he puts it, they have paid for it with "the currency of heightened levels of emotion work." Here’s an excerpt from his conclusion:
Churchgoing conservative Protestant men are "soft patriarchs." Contrary to the assertions of feminists, many family scholars, and public critics, these men cannot be unfairly described as "abusive" and "authoritarian" family men wedded to "stereotypical forms of masculinity." They outpace mainline Protestant and unaffiliated family men in their emotional and practical dedication to their children and their wives…
In sum, then conservative Protestantism clearly has played a role in slowing the gender revolution; nevertheless, given its attentiveness to the emotional domain of family life, its role has been a curious one in that the women most affected by its traditional influence seem to be enchanted, rather than alienated, by their encounter with this family strategy.
Enchanted rather than alienated. Comments, folks?
As always, let me conclude this in personal terms. The fact that I did laundry and dishes did not end up saving any one of my three failed marriages. Raised with at least some feminist principles, I always made an effort to take on household chores — with mixed success, I might add. I am not suggesting that in my future marriage I intend to do less work; indeed, I am learning how to cook more and more interesting meals all the time. But I have learned the hard way that "positive emotion work" is more essential than a scrupulously equal division of household labor. And I am grateful that much of what I have been learning about what it will take to be a good and devoted husband in this final marriage has come from some unexpected and surprising sources, including the teachings and experiences of married men far more conservative and traditional than myself.
Thanks for posting this, Hugo. I’ll have to read a bit more of the links you cited.
I like this “Soft Patriarch” approach. I agree that it is the appreciate for work done that makes the work more enjoyable. One personal example is cooking. I always loved cooking when I was growing up and when I went to college. Everyone loved my cooking, so I loved to cook for them. When I married my first husband, the food I cooked was never good enough, wasn’t like his mother did it. I grew to dislike cooking. I got to where I’d cook “plain-jane” meals when he was home and cook really nice meals (scampi, etc) when it was just our son and me. (Our son loves my cooking.)
My husband loves my cooking, too, so I’m re-learning to love to cook. We can no longer eat things like biscuits and gravy or pizza at restaurants because the family likes what I make from scratch much better than what we can get elsewhere. Whenever we go anywhere for dinner, we’re always comparing the rolls, steaks, etc to mine or to my grandmother’s. It really ruins the experience of going out, unless you’ve chosen a REALLY good restaurant. (Our budget truly appreciates this, though.)
Because of this, the joy of cooking for my family has return – because my efforts are appreciated.
I think this is key for all of us, though. It is easier for my husband to go to a job he doesn’t really like if he feels that I appreciate his effort. It’s easier for our children to do their chores and do them well if they feel they are appreciated for it. Our 17yo has become so much easier to live with as he’s realized how much everyone appreciates the effort he puts into being a decent person. If a person’s efforts aren’t appreciated, the human nature tendency is to say, “Why bother?”
As soon as I have some time to blog about some of the things I’ve found while preparing for my upcoming couples communications workshop, I’ll link it here. Some of it ties into what you’ve posted today.
Well I sure feel alienated, not enchanted – but I’m hardly one of the women “most affected” by conservative Protestantism.
I’m disturbed by the implicit assumption that we must make trade-offs between an egalitarian household and an emotionally positive one. Theoconservatives may not be bothered by an “either/or” approach but I’m sticking firmly to “both/and” on this one!
Yami, I’m not prescribing these tradeoffs, and neither is Wilcox — these are the results of surveys as to how things ARE, not, perhaps, as they ought to be.
Caitriona, your affirmation is critical here — I was hoping you’d respond!
As you might expect, this reminds me of the book I just read and blogged about (James Ault’s Spirit and Flesh). The part about spanking and hugging actually makes me think of a point that I didn’t blog, which is how much more intimacy there generally is in the fundamentalist community Ault studied than in the more liberal societies Ault was used to. There wasn’t the same expectation that people would mind their own business and “respect your space,” which sometimes could be intrusive but also meant there was a lot more nurturant attention supplied to everybody. In fact, Ault says after a while he found his visits to the place “healing” because he would be folded into the community’s personal interest and care even though he was not a believer. The fact that this type of interaction is assumed more than explicitly stated makes conservative rhetoric sound like they’re into distant authoritarian fathers, but that does not seem to be the case.
Yami & Hugo,
I’ll try to write on these points in a few hours. I’ve been surfing around for contacts to help place a cyclist, a triathlete, and a drummer this morning, as well as pulling up TX regs on homeschooling for a friend who is withdrawing her daughter from school today. (Apparently in at least one school, doing a “silent protest” is reason for suspension.)
Camassia, darn you, you’ve added another book to my reading list. You are the reigning queen of blogging good books in my world.
Cait, wow. Sounds like you’ve got a whole blog worth of stuff on your hands…
Statistics and social science are hard yes. But I wouldn’t believe a single one oh his correlations until they were controlled for income.
Tony, they are. When you get a copy, read the tables in the back. I don’t understand how to interpret them, but income is factored into every one of his tables.
Like yami, there is absolutely no way I would ever be “enchanted” by that way of life; it’s too foreign to me. But then again, I’m an old school, blue-collar, liberal Catholic, so what do I know?
I’d also like to say that something I find completely alienating in the writings and speech of conservative, evangelical Protestants is their definition of “liberal”, which is radically different from the definition I have, and from the background I grew up in.
With that said, I followed the link to the “Facts of Life and Marriage”, and have several critiques. First, the “sexual revolution” was thoroughly critiqued by feminists, beginning in the sixties. Remember the “who pays for all the free love” commentary? For a lot of women in the sixties, the “counterculture” was pretty damn traditional. Women instantly recognized the patriarchy behind all that paisley.
And damn, doesn’t anyone talk to old people anymore? My grandmothers had several children, and they would have loved to use birth control. They were not thrilled with all that “natural” wear-and-tear of birth and miscarriage. To say that women started using birth control at the behest of men is terribly reductive, and sexist to boot.
The families of yesteryear may have had more children, but they were hardly “child-centered”. That’s a far more recent development. Children were expected to be very independent at an early age, and spent scads of time unsupervised by any adults (when they weren’t performing the required chores, that is). Both my parents were the eldest in their families, and were expected to perform a helluva lot of child-care for their younger siblings (some of whom they are old enough to be the parents of!). Shoot, I was expected to walk myself back-and-forth to kindergarten by the second semester, and I had more supervision than my parents generation! The ahistorical perspective just astounds me.
Children born out of wedlock (can we just rid ourselves of the term “illegitimacy” right now?! My daughter is every damn bit as “legitimate” as anyone else’s child! “Illegitimate” is at least as offensive as “bastard”.)….why are there more children born out of wedlock? Well, for one, feminist advances around education and jobs for women mean that many more of us aren’t choosing abortion. Knowing that we are legally protected from the kind of pregnancy discrimination that was routine in the past is slowing the lines at abortion clinics. Conservatives who call for a return to the stigma of unwed pregnancy need to recognize that stigma creates a strong demand for abortion, legal or not. And it’s maddening how phrases like “threat of childbearing” and “threat of pregnancy” are used. Very telling. You cannot believe that children are a blessing, while continuing to view pregnancy and childbirth as being a “threat” to keep men in line, or an atrocity in the lives of unmarried women. As a mother, I can’t help but see that language as indicative of a certain amount of dislike for children and the women who give birth to them.
And finally, the old canard of men being savage, uncivilized barbarians if not “domesticated” by marriage. Geez, doesn’t sound like the guy likes men much either!
Hugo, I’m not qualified to make a judgement call on how evangelical Protestants run their lives. It takes all kinds to make this world go around. But I won’t be signing on for any of that “Soft Patriarchy”, just like I won’t be taking “soft drugs” as opposed to narcotics! It’s all unhealthy to me!
One can, of course, construct studies to show pretty much whatever you want. I’m sure my husband would be one of those not showing gratitude for my doing housework because he damn well knows (after 33 years of marriage) that housework isn’t in anything other than a necessary chore to me and he’s not going to get anywhere trying to trade gratitude and appreciation for actual participation.
And what’s more, the ‘you do the housework and I’ll love you for it’ pretty follows the party line of wives submitting to husbands who will love and honor them for it. So why how is any of this surprising? Now if these ‘soft patriarchs’ are equally supportive when the wife and kids do something that might be seen as challenging to that patriarchy, then that would be the surprising news.
Who the hell did this guy survey? I grew up fundagelical, as did a number of my friends, and I do not know one who would agree with the results of this survey. Not one of my female friends finds the conservative evangelical/fundamentalist concept of male headship “enchanting.” In the words of my brother, “If you are dating some guy, and he starts talking about submission or headship – run!” It is not “enchanting” to be told that it is wrong for you to have a job outside the home if you have children. It is not “enchanting” to be told that you have no place in the church outside of women’s or children’s ministry. It is not “enchanting” to listen to multiple sermons on “submission.”
I work for an evangelical Christian college, and when I interview my students, I ask about their family background. This is an admittedly non-scientific survey, but family dysfunction is about the same in Christians and non-Christian families, and while there are some conservative evangelical men who are excellent, loving fathers, father issues abound in the evangelical world – and everywhere else for that matter.
Men who are highly committed conservative Christians do seem to be less likely to leave their families, but there’s a lot of stuff happening under the surface of “good Christian homes.”
Christy:
Wilcox used the following:
The General Social Survey, the National Survey of Families and Households, and the Survey of Adults and Youth. The “GSS” — which asked over 30,000 adults in America about all sorts of topics related to his research — was his biggest source. He interpreted data that others had collected.
Back for just a bit, got the homeschooling info delivered. Sorry, Hugo. This turned out longer than I intended.
I think the “soft patriarchy” is being confused with the old stereotype of patriarchy. Of course, it may well be that I’m misreading the definition, too, and putting my own interpretation on it.
I’d pretty well classify my maternal grandparents marriage as a “soft patriarchy.” My grandmother’s description was, “Your Pawpaw is the head of the house, and I’m the neck that turns the head.” IOW, it was her job to insure that everything was taken into consideration before any decisions were made. As far as responsibilities went, Pawpaw was in charge of anything outside the house, Mammaw is in charge of everything inside the house. What she says goes. (My grandmother is a bit matriarchal.) My paternal grandparents, however, had the type of marriage that I refuse to have (jump/how high).
My husband and I started with more of an egalitarian relationship. I’d say it’s still pretty egalitarian, but we’ve also felt out where our strengths and weaknesses lie. We work together to enhance each other’s strengths and to support each other in areas of weakness. How that plays out for us:
He works outside the home (until I can figure a way we can afford for him not to), and he is responsible for most of the things outside the house – farm, animals, fencing, etc.
I work at home and on my cell phone (high school student exchange program), homeschool our kids, provide chauffeur service for the kids (until at least one of them has a license!), ref youth rec soccer, work on figuring out financing so that we can make all the necessary repairs and improvements to the farm, make sure the kids do the cleaning around the house, cook the meals (homemade pizza served every Wednesday), and run errands for the entire family.
We’re trying to work a garden and some sewing in there somewhere.
Now, for the following statements:
“The “traditional” aspect includes the persistent view that male and female “spheres” ought to be at least somewhat separate, and in many denominations, that the man is the “head” of the household. The “neo” part lies in the fact that much of the language of secular family psychology has been adopted by evangelical conservatives, often with beneficial results.”
Male and females spheres being seperate: News flash! Men and women are DIFFERENT! We have different skills and abilities, different strengths and weaknesses. God made us that way. Sure, I’ve known a few women who worked in the log woods and did other “men’s work.” And I’ve known men who were good at doing traditionally “women’s work.” But each of us is still different.
When you put together a basketball team, you find the people who will be best for each position. You don’t usually play your best forwards as centers, but on occasion you can switch things up as needed. Marriage has the same basic principle – find what each partner is good at, overlap where necessary, let the one who is best at certain jobs do those jobs. What’s so hard about that?
My husband is a wonderful, extremely knowledgeable man. He used to read books on quantum physics for fun. But I’m the better teacher. It’s what I’ve always done, since before 1st grade. It’s who I am. So I’m the primary teacher for our children.
He’s a great programmer, but I’m better at customer support. He’s stronger, but I can handle the come-along if needed when he’s putting in fence.
And as far as women in the military are concerned, this is probably going to really tick a few folks off, but I’ve always liked one of my husband’s statements – “I always thought women were too smart to go to war.”
the man is the “head” of the household:
This can be tricky. Too many people take this too far. A man being the head of the household doesn’t mean a jump/how high relationship exists, nor does it mean the wife can’t think for herself. Look at the woman described in Proverbs 31. Just reading everything listed there exhausts me! It means that the man has the responsibility to be the spiritual guide for the family. This has nothing whatsoever to do with division of labor.
The “neo” part lies in the fact that much of the language of secular family psychology has been adopted by evangelical conservatives, often with beneficial results: IOW, people started paying attention to Jesus’ teachings and to the parenting guidelines given in the Bible. “Fathers, provoke not your children to anger” is pretty strong, but it doesn’t get nearly as much attention as “Honor thy father and thy mother.”
My husband became a Christian only two-and-a-half years ago, although he was raised in the Episcopal church. As he has studied and learned more about following Jesus’ walk, he has become an increasingly better husband and father. As I study and learn more, I become a better wife and mother. As the old saying goes, the proof is in the pudding. You can see the evidence of our personal growth in the way our children have changed and matured, in the way they take more time to understand others before reacting, in how they deal with others. Recalling where they were 3 years ago and looking at where they are now always amazes me.
It’s all because my husband and I each changed ourselves, focusing more on seeking God’s guidance in how we deal with issues that arise. We deal with teenagers on a daily basis. Many people find that overwhelmingly difficult. For us, the job is no longer overwhelming, because we are no longer relying on our own strength to get through, but are relying on God and on each other.
Do I defer to my husband on decisions? Depends on the decision. If it’s within my realm of responsibility (extra teens spending the night, exchange students staying here temporarily, etc), no. I make the decision and tell him later. If it’s a major money issue or something to do with his realm of responsibility, yes, I defer to him. (Except that I’d have sold the ram the other day without talking to him first if the friend wanting it had had cash on hand, since we’d been discussing whether or not to sell off the sheep.) Some decisions need to be made on the spur of the moment, others need thought and discussion. We each trust the other to determine which.
Soft patriarchy isn’t about women giving up their power. It’s about men and women each being free to exercise their own power without being bogged down by things outside their expertise. It’s about lifting each other up, supporting each other, insuring that your children know they are loved and you are there for them.
I’ll write more in a bit. The neighbor I was supposed to help with chemistry fell asleep on the couch. It’s time for me to go pick up the boys from town. Hopefully, the neighbor will be rested enough to take them to soccer practice, since I have a 6pm conference call. I’m hoping I hear back about the two girls I may have in a dual placement before 6.
Caitriona, your penultimate paragraph is spot on.
I’ll have to blog this on mine instead of using up your bandwidth.
Waiting for my conference call now.
But if “It’s about men and women each being free to exercise their own power…”, then it isn’t *patriarchy*, is it? Am I misinterpreting a Christian term of art here?
‘Course, I also don’t understand why “It means that the man has the responsibility to be the spiritual guide for the family.” I can’t grok that at all. What is it about testicles that makes one more qualified to be a Christian “spiritual guide”?
Hugo, I should have made it more clear that my criticisms are directed at the “soft patriarchy” movement in general, not you in particular! And I’m not in a position to judge Wilcox. Focus on the Family, on the other hand… eek.
Many advocates of “soft patriarchy” place the emphases on “soft”, others place it on “patriarchy”. I’m not knowledgeable enough to speculate on how these positions work out in the real world. But I have heard serious arguments to the effect that a truly positive emotional environment cannot happen without male headship, and they pretty much always make my head explode…
Caitriona, I agree with about 90% of what you’ve just said (modulo my own atheism) but the other 10% is potentially a doozy.
I am enchanted by the idea that you “find what each partner is good at, overlap where necessary, let the one who is best at certain jobs do those jobs”. I’m alienated by the idea that we can use gender as a way to make assumptions about a given person’s skills and abilities; people on average might find their interests aligned with traditional gender roles, but the differences between men and women are vastly swamped by the differences between individuals!
If soft patriarchy is only about two partners “each being free to exercise their own power without being bogged down by things outside their expertise…lifting each other up, supporting each other, insuring that your children know they are loved and you are there for them” – then why call it patriarchy?
The patriarchy comes in when you follow the spiritual headship. It’s not saying that men are more qualified than women, it’s just that men are different and have different roles. Men THINK differently than women do, their focus is different.
Men being the spiritual head of the family is Biblical, so it is very difficult for anyone who doesn’t place faith in the Bible (or the Torah, for that matter) to comprehend, I suppose. I know it’s very difficult even for modern Christians. We have so much history of the abuse of the concept that it is hard to seperate the twisted forms from that which follows Biblical guidelines.
It’s a bit like racism or sexism. I went to school where there were very few blacks, and none in our school district. One of my classmates was very racist because when he was tiny, his family had lived in a predominantly black neighborhood in St. Louis, where he’d been harassed by several of the black kids. In his mind, anyone who wasn’t white was like those kids who’d harassed him. This isn’t a logical conclusion to make, but logic had nothing to do with it.
I find that most of us have the same type of reaction to patriarchy. I’ve struggled for years with my desire to follow Biblical guidelines vs my fear that I would wind up in a relationship such as my paternal grandparents had. Somehow, my husband and I have been able to find our way to a path that seems to be leading us to the Biblical ideal.
I can’t find the link again, but I’ll post something I printed out from Proverbs31 Magazine’s website, from their radio offers (#67).
“A truly fulfilling marriage involves two people focusing on each other’s needs rather than on their own. Remember, having a great marriage takes time, creativity, and willingness.
“Here’s how husbands need their wives to love them: 1) Support them spiritually, 2) Encourage them emotionally, 3) Enjoy them sexually, 4) Appreciate them vocally, 5) Engage them intellectually, 6) Connect with them relationally, 7) Affirm them physically, and
Stand by them permanently.
“Here’s how wives need their husbands to love them: 1) Be the spiritual leader of the home, 2) Be their teammate in raising kids, 3) Treat them as a princess, 4) Listen, 5) Allow her time with her friends, 6) Encourage her with appreciation, affirmation, and admiration, 7) Provide emotional fulfillment before sexual desires, and
Learn what makes women different from men.”
See? Nothing about controlling, manipulating, or any of the other negative connotations we all have from the twisted versions we’ve all seen of patriarchy. It’s about the physical equivalent to our spiritual relationship with Christ. We as humans TRY to be independent of God and of Christ, but IME, things would better when we stop trying to be independent and start working TOGETHER, each doing that for which we were created.
oops! “Things WORK better when we stop trying to be independent”
Caitriona: I hope this won’t come off as insulting or anything — I feel a little ill at ease about “horning in” given that I haven’t ever commented on this blog before. What does your religious tradition do with women who tend to think in ways that are traditionally considered male (and vice versa), or folks (like myself) who match the popular conceptions in some ways and defy them in others? I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen a woman read a book that generalizes along gender lines (like “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus”) and wryly say, “Obviously I’m a man.” Are they to fall into proscribed roles, or can they create new roles for themselves in the context of their own relationship?
I think the kind of “separate but equal” you describe is inherently problematic, even if equal is really equal. It does wrong to those who are more suited for the other gender’s path – and human variation is such that such people/couples are inevitable. Presumably the Biblical position would be that such couples don’t exist, or if there seem to be such couples it’s an illusion born of stubborn pride or other nefarious causes…? If that were the case, then sure, gender-role spirituality would do no harm; I just happen to think the Bible is wrong on that point.
You’re right, though, that this is hard for nonbelievers to understand. I have particular trouble envisioning how spiritual headship would work without the patriarchy spilling over into the rest of life. Maybe you could write, sometime, about how you and your husband’s spiritual followership/headship manifests itself in your daily lives?
(sorry about the spelling up front, but I’m not gonna worry about it today)
The conclusions you highlighted about soft patriarchy ring true to me and my Conservative Mormon upbringing. I was spanked and hugged by my father who was very involved in the family, very appreciative of my mother, and the symbolic head of the household. And most the families I know work this way, and most of the mothers I know are enchanted by their role. Very happy in their lives of submission to husbands who never ask them to submit except in theory. Very focused on family, if you will.
And I live this traditional life too, in just about every way, except there’s no head in my house, and I’m NOT enchanted by the idea of there being one. Neither is the dh, so it works out well for us both.
There is so much I love about the “soft patriarical” men in my life. Very good fathers and husbands and all that, but also, and this is subtle, a egotism and sense of entitlement that really pisses me off sometimes.
While I’d never submit to a man, no matter how biblical or traditional it may be, I certainly have sympathy for my mother, sisters, friends, who do choose this. It’s such a cushy nice place to submit, and really there isn’t any much submitting involved, and even that is subtle.
I think that’s what I mean to say, maybe not, my brain is soft.
What a fascinating post. I frequently listen to James Dobson’s “Focus on the Family” broadcast on the way to work in the morning; while I think he is an effective advocate for his worldviews, I dislike or disagree with about 95% of what he says.
Three (off the cuff and hurried) observations:
1) Dobson definitely stresses the importance of “positive emotion work” — i.e. the expression of kindness and appreciation by the male head of the household for his wife. But because he holds to the view that the man is the head of the household, this kindness and appreciation strikes me as inherently patronizing and condescending. It reminds me of slave owners in the Antebellum South who used to say things like, “We love our slaves and they love us,” — to which the response of course is, yeah but even if they are happy and well fed, they are still slaves.
2) One common explanation I have encountered of the concept of male leadership in the family among Christian conservatives is that husbands and wives are to try to reach a consensus on most things, but if there is a deadlock, the man’s decision prevails. The man, of course, has an obligation to act fairly and take his wife’s needs and wishes to account; he, however, is charged with making the decision that is best for the family. It is not my place to tell a woman that she is wrong for agreeing to such a relationship, but I cannot fathom why anyone would want to take a life-long subordinate role in making decisions that affect the course of her life. It’s kind of like not wanting to agree to a dictatorship even if the dictatorship were to be run by a benevolent and wise philosopher-king; most of us would object to such a dictatorship on principle. I adore my husband but I cannot imagine allowing him to have the automatic final power in our major life decisions.
3) Finally, in response to Caitriona’s statement that “men and women are different,” with different, skills, and interests,etc.- I don’t necessarily buy it. Obviously, we are sexually and reproductively different, but do we really have different skills and interests? I think that such generalizations tend to be overstated and overblown to the detriment of women; after all, I and thousands of my female colleagues are thriving in the field of litigation which seems to require all sorts of traditionally masculine qualities. I am a very aggressive and effective litigator, and while my style of self-presentation and communication are very feminine, my interests, skills, and approach are traditionally masculine; it hurts me professionally however when people assume that I may be more timid than my male counterparts because “men and women are different.”
Caitriona, like yami, Erin, and cmc, I don’t believe skills, talents and interests are handed out on the basis of gender. If you don’t hold that men and women are all that different, you’re probably not going to dig patriarchy in any way shape or form. I don’t object to the patriarchy because of the abuses (I think patriarchy itself is dysfunctional and flawed, and that’s a whole ‘nother ballgame); my prime objection is that I have had such a positive experience of my own skills, talents, powers and intellect. I don’t see where I should have to reduce those positive traits, nor do I see the necessity of carving off huge swathes of my abilities or personality because I don’t fit what someone else has arbitrarily declared to be a “feminine” mold. We all have our differences; to reduce those differences to gender is an oversimplification of the complexity of humanity.
That, and the “patriarchy is Biblical”. I hope I don’t say this the wrong way (I find it hard to “modify” language through print to sound less hostile; I rely a lot on facial expressions, vocal tone, and hand signals—now there’s a stereotype I conform to, LOL!), but I find that dismissive. And I don’t mean that personally, to you, but when I engage in these discussions with Protestant folks, this inevitably comes up, and I feel like I’m being shut down—like “well, you’re not a real believer, like I am”. And it’s not personal on their part either; they truly believe that it’s not just me at fault, but my entire religious background! I’m not just being reproached for not being “Christian” enough, by not believing in patriarchy, but for my (and my people’s) approach to religion; how we experience God. And I don’t think that’s something a fellow human has the right to intrude on, no matter how well-meaning, is how I experience God.
I’ve only a small bit of time this morning. I’m going to try to answer all the responses to my comments, but no promises. Another rushed day. My youngest is arriving home from his visitation with his father. YEAH!! It will be nice to have him home again.
First Erin: “What does your religious tradition do with women who tend to think in ways that are traditionally considered male (and vice versa), or folks (like myself) who match the popular conceptions in some ways and defy them in others? Are they to fall into proscribed roles, or can they create new roles for themselves in the context of their own relationship?”
Good questions. I am very much like you in not allowing people to “pigeon-hole” me. In high school, I was in basketball, choir, FHA, Beta Club, and French club. All my classmates were puzzled by me because, as we all know, jocks aren’t supposed to be academically gifted, too.
It is the same for me in all aspects of my life, including religion.
The Mennonite church has a strong history of always questioning, always re-evaluating, in community, to insure that we are evaluating Biblical text as it should be evaluated for the particular community. Liberal and conservative really don’t work for a radical Christian community, but I’m going to attempt to use them to convey how the Anabaptist church functions in respect to day-to-day things.
On the conservative end, you have the Old Order Mennonites, Old Order Amish, and others living in a similar style. These are the ones who [typically] drive buggies, wear headcoverings, have no electricity, etc – the ones people think of when they think Amish. The thing is, they aren’t always what people assume. They decide about electricity, telephones, etc as pertains to how these things will affect their particular community. (If you have a phone, you’ll call your sister instead of walking over to spend time with her, etc.) Some of these churches have stronger gender-based roles than do others. On the liberal end, you have “Liberal Mennonites,” who have no specific dress code, many are suspicious of headcoverings, etc. My husband and I are on the more conservative end of an urban liberal Mennonite church, if that makes sense.
I’m the only woman in our church who [often] wears a headcovering – my choice to do so after much reading, prayer, and contemplation. It’s an individual choice. A friend of ours in the church won’t ever wear a headcovering because it was a requirement, not a choice, for her family when she was growing up. We are the only family in our church who have a farm, although many come from farming families. Each of member of our church finds his/her place within the church and within their personal relationships, including marriage, based on where they feel God is leading them personally. The marital roles I see in our church are partnerships where one partner takes the lead in certain types of situations and the other takes the lead in others. It’s based on individual strengths and weaknesses.
I hate to make this seem like a pile-on, but I gotta say how glad I am that Erin and others have brought up the fallibility of gender roles. I’m one of those girls Erin mentioned who reads about the Mars/Venus business and comes to the conclusion that she must somehow have been a man all this time and never noticed. I’m aggressive, I don’t feel particularly drawn to submissive or nurturing roles, I don’t particularly enjoy the company of or want to have babies/children, I’m inclined to “solving” rather than “listening,” etc. etc. Sure, you could dismiss me as anecdotal evidence or a freak exception and continue being essentialist, but Erin brings up a good point– does religion make room for these “exceptions”? Everything I’ve heard says no– it’s sinful and abnormal for a woman to “try to be a man,” and only through accepting her “natural” feminine role can she find salvation.
I find that pretty unfair; sure, it’s great for those who do happen to fit that “natural feminine role,” but it seems like those who don’t are being punished for something they didn’t actively choose (whether you think it’s biological or environmental, I think we can mostly agree that as individuals we don’t sit down and consciously cherry-pick our personality traits). Would women like me, if we chose to be active members of the church, have to essentially hide our true selves in order to be accepted? (And what of men who aren’t comfortable with the role of “patriarch,” even softly, for that matter?)
Also, on a tangentially related note, being agnostic I’ve never quite understood some things about believers. One of those things is the willingness to accept behavioral imperatives that are only qualified by their presence in the Bible, and that cannot be effectively argued in terms of secular logic. I don’t mean at all to mock or deny anyone else’s experiences– I’m just honestly curious about this. Maybe this is just me and my skepticism, but if I was at all inclined to follow a deity, I’d just like to think that said deity wouldn’t tell me to do anything that didn’t make sense within the realm of concrete human experience. If the most convincing argument in favor of men as spiritual guides is “because it’s in the Bible,” I not only see how it’s unconvincing to non-believers, but I’m not entirely certain why believers put up with it either. (The essentialism argument doesn’t even make much sense in this context– I thought the classic dichotomy was that women were spiritual/emotional and men were concrete/physical?)
To me, it sounds uncomfortably like another example of Biblical misogyny– the idea of flawed, spiritually “impure” women (going all the way back to Eve) needing men to help them overcome their naturally sinful selves. I don’t really want to get into a theological debate, because I’m sure I’d come up short in terms of knowledge, but I have a really hard time understanding the whole “the Bible is completely infallible and we cannot question it in any way” idea in light of all the pretty bad (or at least badly interpreted) stuff in there.
Great discussion. In Caitriona’s list of qualities, I found myseld agreeing with the wives list and disagreeing with the husbands. I don’t think it is for me to ‘allow’ my bethrothed anything; certainly not time with her friends. And outside of traditional christianity, it appear to me that as many or more women do spiritual work, so I think the leadership on that in a family can and should come from either/both partners. Like several of the women here, my attributes are a mixture of masculine and feminine. I’ve known this since HS, but it took much longer to really be OK with it. My hope for children is for them to have an easier time developing thier full range of abilities and personality.
I don’t mean to imply critisism of any individual decesions here. There is much to learn from affectionate, communicative families. I’m just a little off-put by the assumptions of what roles goes to what gender by default.
yami: “Maybe you could write, sometime, about how you and your husband’s spiritual followership/headship manifests itself in your daily lives?”
This is difficult, but I’ll try. My comments are in no way meant to say that our path is better than anyone else’s. This is simply the path to which we’ve been led.
I’m the one who’s been a Christian the longest, having made my profession of faith at 7yo and spending the next year convincing my pastor that I knew what I was talking about. Since 7yo is far younger than most think you can be aware of spiritual matters, it took quite a few discussions. Thanks to teenage angst, depression, and a few other things, I wandered from the path a bit and for a few years, but the call has always been strong.
My husband, on the other hand, made his profession of faith around his 46th birthday. He took the long, circuitous route.
This was after a three-and-a-half years of us discussing the differences between what he believed and what I believed, and each of us trying to find ways to explain to the other why we believed as we did. There was no trying to change the other, just a trying to understand each other better. But I really needed him to be the spiritual head of our home, so I hoped our discussions would eventually lead to that, and they did.
How that manifests itself in our daily lives? I have to think a bit to try to seperate it out and put it into words. His focus is primary on the “practical” things, mine is more on the emotional end. His prayers tend to be along the lines of us seeking God’s guidance in what we say and do, mine tend to be seeking God’s help in understanding how our words and actions affect those around us and in better understanding the actions/words of others. The two work together.
Our discussions of spiritual matters tend to be the same. He tends to look at how the spiritual manifests itself in the physical, day-to-day interactions with others, while I tend to look at how it manifests itself in emotional interactions. By talking these things out, we get a clearer picture of the reality of things. This helps us when we need to come to an agreement of how to approach an issue.
There are instances where one or the other of us will flat out tell the other we think a certain approach being taken is wrong. In those instances, it is usually needed. I don’t always handle things well, and neither does he. We try to respect each other enough to listen and take the other’s comments to heart, but we don’t always do it. When we don’t, we tend to create an escalating problem. So we’re trying to learn the wisdom of listening to each other.
Leadership based on Christ’s teachings is that of a servant-leader, a leader who serves those he leads rather than expecting them to serve him. Christ continually taught and healed, even beyond the point of his physical exhaustion. He fed the 5,000 instead of expecting them to feed him. He washed the feet of his disciples, an act of submission and servitude. He did all this with love and affection. This is the example he set for us. The directions he gave went even further into serving others.
In following this example, my husband works at a job he doesn’t really like so that we can pay for our farm, so that we can work to develop a way to provide natural, nutritious food to our community at an affordable price. (I know Hugo’s brought up before the discrepancy between the prices and availability of healthy natural food and the prices and availability of artificial junk.) I work to support him in his efforts. We work together to provide our children with the basics they need and a few extra things they enjoy, as well as to teach them to have a “servant’s heart,” a desire to help others.
I’m not sure if this answer is what you were looking for. If not, I’ll try to clarify sometime tomorrow – after soccer and the Bluebonnet Festival. Our Ukrainian son (exchange student) wants to go see the air show at the festival, the rest of the kids just want to go to the festival.
I’ll have to get back to this later. Time to head into town. Lots of driving today.
BTW, I can understand where people get the feeling that I’m saying that women sit back and don’t agressively approach anything. But that’s not quite right. There’s no way that we could successfully raise teenagers in a blended family with my husband being gone 10+ hours a day if I was a shrinking violet.
My Scots-Irish-Cherokee ancestors would roll in their graves. Neither could I be a ref for U-18 rec soccer if I didn’t know how to be aggressive and forceful when needed.
It’s not about the males being the aggressors and the females submissively accepting whatever happens. But more on that later. I’ll be running late if I keep writing.
One more comment: Those “lists of qualities” are awfully telling, particularly when you look at what’s on each list that’s not on the other (and even putting aside the spiritual leader stuff for now). It’s nice that both spouses are supposed to encourage and support each other, but why is intellectual engagement only on the male list? Women don’t need their minds stimulated? (I know I do– I’d better check again and make sure I’m not really male…)
Similarly, why does the male list focus on physical/sexual needs while the female list focuses on emotional needs– doesn’t each partner need all of those needs fulfilled? Sorry, but I’m suspicious. (Suspicious of the idea that this is some kind of universal law, that is, not of the fact that it works for individual couples– that’s none of my business.)
I think I tend to be pretty girly — have a strong maternal instinct, enjoy a lot of relational talk, spend too much time thinking about clothes and celebrity gossip, — but I find the description of how husbands need their wives to love them a pretty accurate description of how I would need a life partner to love me. The description of how wives need their husbands to love them strikes me as a pretty good description (with the exception of #2 and 7) of how I would expect parents to love their children.
“Here’s how husbands need their wives to love them: 1) Support them spiritually, 2) Encourage them emotionally, 3) Enjoy them sexually, 4) Appreciate them vocally, 5) Engage them intellectually, 6) Connect with them relationally, 7) Affirm them physically, and
Stand by them permanently.
“Here’s how wives need their husbands to love them: 1) Be the spiritual leader of the home, 2) Be their teammate in raising kids, 3) Treat them as a princess, 4) Listen, 5) Allow her time with her friends, 6) Encourage her with appreciation, affirmation, and admiration, 7) Provide emotional fulfillment before sexual desires, and
Learn what makes women different from men.”
Keri,
I’m pasting in a couple of things you said to which I want to respond.
“Erin brings up a good point– does religion make room for these “exceptions”? Everything I’ve heard says no– it’s sinful and abnormal for a woman to “try to be a man,” and only through accepting her “natural” feminine role can she find salvation.”
The problem is that a lot of times with “religion,” *people* forget about women such as Debra, who was a judge and a general of the Israelite people. They forget Hannah, who is noted in the concordance of my Bible as being the first preacher of the Gospel. (She’s the one who saw Christ as an infant and began proclaiming that the Messiah had arrived. I got into an online discussion once with a woman who was not happy that I pointed out that the Biblical scholars who wrote my concordance noted her as a preacher.) They forget all the women who were strong in what many of us perceive as “non-traditional” ways. People tend to focus on Mary and Ruth, with occasional references to Esther.
“Maybe this is just me and my skepticism, but if I was at all inclined to follow a deity, I’d just like to think that said deity wouldn’t tell me to do anything that didn’t make sense within the realm of concrete human experience.”
The more I see of the world, the more sense the Biblical directives make to me. What doesn’t make sense to me are many of the twists of Biblical directives that people have applied and proclaimed as Gospel. (BTW, “God helps those who help themselves” is NOT Biblical, although many think it is.)
“To me, it sounds uncomfortably like another example of Biblical misogyny– the idea of flawed, spiritually “impure” women (going all the way back to Eve) needing men to help them overcome their naturally sinful selves.”
I know many people have that interpretation, but I’ve heard many older male preachers point out that it was Adam who had instruction directly from God, and Eve only had Adam’s say as to what they were supposed to do. These gentlemen point out that Adam chose to knowingly disobey a directive he’d received straight from God. They also tend to feel that it is the job of women to help men leave behind sinful ways and draw nearer to God, not the other way around. An interesting little point – Because Jesus was the completion of all things foretold in the Old Testament, including the “curse” on women, the curse is completed, fini.
I wonder how the stats break down in terms of denominations? Warm, involved, non-rigid fathers don’t seem to be the norm for a lot of white conservative denominations in the South and South/Midwest. Mormon dads and any black-dominant denomination (eg, African Methodist-Episcopal, to name the oldest one) dads seem to fit the warm, involved mold better than some of the So. Baptist and conservative non-denominational and Assembly of God types.
Ron, just to touch briefly on your comments:
“I don’t think it is for me to ‘allow’ my bethrothed anything; certainly not time with her friends.”
When life gets busy, you find that each of you will certainly need to find ways to “allow” the other to do things, such as spend time with friends. I was always one of those women who said that I wasn’t going to have a man who “allowed” or disallowed me to do anything. But I find now that it is a necessary thing. My husband doesn’t give me permission to spend time with friends or doing things I enjoy. AAMOF, he is usually telling me I need to spend more time on myself. But for me to be able to do that, he has to help by covering for me from time-to-time. [And usually *insisting* that I get out and do something for myself. I wonder where the kids get it.
] It’s *that* type of allowing, the making it possible rather than the giving permission.
“outside of traditional christianity, it appear to me that as many or more women do spiritual work, so I think the leadership on that in a family can and should come from either/both partners.”
INSIDE traditional Christianity, IME, women do more of the spiritual work as well. That was one of the things all the women in the church where I grew up, with help from the pastor, were trying to rectify. The women were tired of having to take on that responsibility and were beginning to insist that their husbands step up to the plate. This was part of the basis for the beginnings of PromiseKeepers, at least in the area where I grew up.
For too many years, we had too many men who were satisfied to go to work, then go home and relax, while their wives were doing all the child-rearing. These men tended to not attend church with their families, leaving that responsibility up to their wives as well. It wasn’t good for the children nor for the families. I enjoy seeing more men taking on the spiritual responsibility for their families. It’s been greatly needed.
Keri, in response to your questions:
“why is intellectual engagement only on the male list? Women don’t need their minds stimulated? … Similarly, why does the male list focus on physical/sexual needs while the female list focuses on emotional needs– doesn’t each partner need all of those needs fulfilled?”
Your questions are very close to the ones my husband and I had when I first found that list last week. When we started talking about it and he started asking his yabbuts, I started looking more closely at how the lists are delineated. The lists are actually very much alike, just delineated differently.
Let’s look at #2 for the men, “Encourage them emotionally.” Women need emotional encouragement, too. But if you look at #’s 2-8 on the women’s list, you’ll see things that *are* emotional encouragement for many women. It needed to be broken down into specifics. There are times where emotional encouragement means he listens to me telling him about an issue that came up with the kids that I’ve already handled. Sometimes it’s him taking over and dealing with a situation. Sometimes it’s just listening. Sometimes it’s a hug that’s needed.
#3 for men is “Enjoy them sexually.” Yes, sexual enjoyment is just as important for women. But what’s that old saying? “90% of sex takes place between the ears?” Women need #2-6 done in order for sex to be anything more than just a physical act. I don’t know about you, but for me it’s a definite turn-off if I’m thinking about problems with the kids, one of the kids being a putz an hour ago, my husband not listening to me when I needed to talk, my husband not appreciating me, etc. I have to be emotionally balanced in order to experience true sexual *fulfillment.*
#4 on the men’s list – “Appreciate them vocationally.” I know a LOT of men who need to hear their wives say how much the wives appreciate their husbands’ work, as well as their husbands going to work, especially if the husbands don’t really like their jobs or if they feel insecure about their jobs. And I know that I feel much better emotionally and mentally if I feel that my husband appreciates what I do.
Men’s list #5 – Yes, women need intellectual stimulation just as much as men do. However, I don’t know about you, but around here, not only do I need intellectual stimulation, but I need to SLOW DOWN enough to have intellectual discussions with my husband. He gets home at what seems to be the busiest time of day for our household. Not only that, but we’re thinking of different things, our minds on different tracks. We have to take the time to sit down and talk. I have to make my mind slow down and not go over everything I need to do for the next two days, planning out how I’m going to coordinate everything I need to do with everything everyone else needs to do. Part of this could definitely be my ADHD, but some days it takes WORK to slow my brain down and have an intellectual discussion. Written medium is sooo much easier for me!
#6 on the men’s list – “Connect with them relationally.” For women, isn’t that what #2-8 is all about? These are things that develop relationships. Everything that’s written out on the women’s list so that men can see the specifics corresponds to everything on the men’s list. The same for men’s list #7, “affirm them physically.” Everyone needs to know that their SO finds them attractive and physically desirable. If my husband is taking time to treat me well, is listening to me, is letting me know that he appreciates me, is affirming my decisions and the things I do, is admiring me, and is taking the time to learn about our differences, I feel affirmed physically. If he didn’t find me attractive and physically desirable, would he take the time to do all that? It all works together.
#8 on the men’s list – “stand by them permanently.” My husband KNOWS I’m here for him permanently, but he still needs to hear it from my mouth every so often. Part of this has to do with this being his 5th marriage, but a huge part has to do with the fact that he just needs to *hear* it. I haven’t known a man yet who didn’t need to hear occasionally that his wife/girlfriend/friend was going to be there for him through thick and thin.
Thanks for the clarifications, everybody.
PS I’m a female programmer who tests out as male on every gender test I’ve found online. Oh, and an atheist. So I feel like I’m trying to understand an alien species…
Caitriona, you sound just like 99% of the women I know. Personally, I gave up the course you take, for me, believing in the patriarchy took too much mental gymnastics. Not that it can’t make for a very happy life, because it can and does all the time. But in my opinion, that still doen’t make it right.
Someone above, I forget who, mentioned that they just don’t get how any woman would willingly sign on to submit. I guess I’m qualified to expain since I’ve been there. You do it because you think that’s what good women do. You do because you want to make your family proud. You do because it’a all you’ve ever known. You do because it seems to work well and the disadvantages are theoretical or so subtle you miss them. You do because other models don’t seem to work as well for the life you want.
But no matter why women agree to it, and lots of smart assertive strong women do (every woman in my family), I still think at it’s heart it’s a flawed system that harms women and men.
I think there are ways to get the advantages of soft patriarchy with out the patriarchy. I’d say my marriage is like that. No patriarchy, but all of the benifits.
Caitriona: I see where you’re coming from, but I still find the idea of separate lists problematic because I simply don’t agree or identify with gender essentialism. I don’t, for instance, think it’s possible to generalize that women naturally need more of a mental/emotional component to sex than men do, nor do I think you’ve really justified the omission of “intellectual stimulation” from the wives’ list (men can be too busy and stressed for deep conversations as well, after all). That one bothers me more than any other, really– it just smacks of the stereotype that men want wives who are smart enough to utter complete sentences and such, but not smart enough to pose any actual threat to their great male intellect.
You even say yourself, with regards to #4 and #7, that you find yourself needing some of the things that are only on the male list (unless I really stretch the meaning, I don’t see anything about vocational or physical appreciation on the female list). Assuming that you are, in fact, female, why aren’t they on both? (Same with #8– I think wanting reassurance from time to time as to the fidelity and loyalty of our partners is a universal thing, not a male thing. I’ve certainly experienced it.) I hate to harp on this subject, but I haven’t yet heard a convincing argument as to why we need to approach marital relations from the perspective that men and women want separate and different things, when both sides really seem to boil down to appreciation, support and trust.
Also? I really, really don’t want to be “treated like a princess.” Yuck. Sure, I like it when my partner does nice things for me, but I don’t want it to be out of some messed-up sense of medieval chivalry– I want it to be because we both care for each other and want to treat each other well. I’m not delicate and fragile and incapable of doing anything except sitting around looking pretty, and I don’t want to be treated as if I am.
Keri: Yeah, I don’t want to be treated like a princess either. Princesses may be regarded as pretty, and put on a pedestal, but “princess” to my mind conjures up images of shallowness, fragility, and incapability. The fawning over princesses doesn’t last; folks don’t really respect princesses. And if there is one fundamental, essential trait I want in a relationship, it’s respect. A level of respect that is not compatible with patriarchy.
La Lubu,
I think that your perception and definition of patriarchy and mine are vastly different. What I’m talking about *requires* respect. It can’t function without it. And FWIW, I kinda like being treated as if my husband thinks I’m the most special woman on earth. Not only that, but I want my husband to tell me, when he’s in his late 80′s and I’m in my late 70′s, that he still thinks I’m the most beautiful woman on earth.
My maternal grandparents were still holding hands as they walked when Mamma was in her early 70′s and Pawpaw in his early 80′s. In his mid-80′s, Pawpaw suffered the first of several strokes and couldn’t communicate very well. Mammaw took care of him at home his last 4 years because he had always said he didn’t want to go to a nursing home. Just before he lost all ability to speak, he said one word to Mammaw that touched her, and me, to the core. He simply reached up to her and said, “Pretty.”
In the years that my mother and her siblings were growing up, and in the years that my siblings and I were growing up, Mammaw and Pawpaw were a team. Pawpaw may have been the head of the house, but he always looked to Mammaw for guidance and to help him stay on the necessary path. The few times that Pawpaw chose to spank, he watched for Mammaw to tell him, “That’s enough.” (She tended to be the one dishing out punishment when needed, as she was able to keep anger and irritation out of it.) She took care of the finances, she took an at-home nursing course because the farm was so far away from town (20 miles from the county seat, 4 miles from the town where I went to school). It was a blending of a very strong man and a very strong woman, to the benefit of the family. They supported and focused on each other’s strengths and worked together to overcome the weaknesses.
That is the marriage my husband and I are striving to attain. We’ve both seen the harsher side of life and don’t want our children to finish growing up with that. We’ve both been custodial single parents, having to handle everything. We’ve helped our children move from young children with huge abandonment and anger issues to healthy teens whom everyone in the community admires. We saw the most healing in our children when we began working on ourselves and on the way our marriage functions.
I’ll admit that there are times when I need an intellectual discussion with my husband about a topic that’s on my mind, and his mind is off elsewhere. There are times that I feel that my husband doesn’t appreciate what I do. But those aren’t because of the “soft patriarchy” toward which we are growing. It’s because of our baggage from the past that we’re still working to get rid of. As we grow more toward “soft patriarchy,” he listens more when I need him to, and he lets me know that he appreciates me and what I do. He’s realizing that there are occasions I need to hear that more often, especially if old ghosts from past abuses come back to haunt me. And I’m learning to tell when his old ghosts are haunting him. It’s a growing together and learning to nurture each other.
And I agree that men need just as much of a mental/emotional component to sex as women do, but they approach it differently. I’ve yet to meet a man who interprets words and actions the same way a woman does. Of course, I grew up around Tom Sawyers, loggers, cowboys, and rednecks. (My two favorite great-uncles made Tom and Huck look like choir boys.)
It’s taken a while for my former-city-boy-former-Marine-turned-Mennonite-cowboy and me to begin the process of learning to understand each other and to work effectively together. For us, the growth toward “soft patriarchy” began with me standing between him and the children, telling him that our house was not boot camp and that neither the children nor I signed on with the Marines. The path to where we are now hasn’t been an easy one. We all have many scars and much baggage from prior relationships. It took lots of strength and lots of hard work from all of us.
As Lisa said, “It’s such a cushy nice place to submit, and really there isn’t any much submitting involved, and even that is subtle.” Truth be told, my husband and children say that I’m the heart of our family. But, to me, heart isn’t enough. As strong as that is, my husband’s strength is vital to keeping us all going. But in order for us to get where we are, it required every ounce of Scots-Irish stubbornness and determination in both of us. I am happy with the healing environment this path has given us.
Keri wrote: “I haven’t yet heard a convincing argument as to why we need to approach marital relations from the perspective that men and women want separate and different things”
I find it important to remember that different *people* want different things, and that absent discussion, trying to fulfill a partner’s needs along gender lines may hit the target in some cases, or for some people, but at other times blind a person to what their partner wants and values as an individual.
Erin,
I find that it puts you in the general ballpark. From that, it’s the individual communication and knowing your partner that’s mandatory. An example: My kids and I have learned that if my husband is snapping everyone’s heads off, he’s either in pain or worried about something. If he’s yelling at one of us for something we’ve done, he’s usually worried about us and/or our health. Realizing this actually helps us work with him on whatever it is rather than escalating matters.
Caitriona:
You’ve written a lot about interdependence, but very little about how that interdependence is gendered. You’ve said that it isn’t about the “traditional” gender roles we’ve brought up, and you’ve said that men and women think/process things differently. But I’m still not entirely sure HOW you think that difference works in general, even as I am beginning to understand how it functions for your family in particular. I’m also not sure how you would advise those who feel they are outliers.
Can you think of examples where you might say/feel to/about someone, “You’re following a path that is meant for the other gender”?
For the most part, there aren’t any gender-specific jobs that I can really think of, so long as the person is actually qualified for the job. My husband and I both have problems with women who get hired for things like the fire dept just because they’re women, but no problem with women firefighters who can do the job. (I spent 2 yrs on our local fire dept and only quit because it kept me away from the kids too much.)
I’ll have to think about this a bit. I’ll try to respond this evening. I just got in from soccer. Ref’ed 3 games. The two U-11 games were good. The U-18 game was SOOO much better today, even if some of the parents didn’t think so. :-/
We only have 2 U-18 teams. One team has had good teamwork all season; the other has had no teamwork. Today, there was very little grousing from the one team (which has yet to win a game). Thanks to their improved attitudes, the game was extremely good, with a score of 2-1.
I get to ref the U-18′s because my most experienced ref refuses to do that age group, my father-daughter team has a sibling on one of the U-18 teams, and my other ref is out of town. I have kids on both of the U-18 teams and half the other kids are kinda “my kids,” so I can’t get out of it because of my kids playing that division. Ah, well. So goes the life of ref commissioner. lol
Now we’re off to the Bluebonnet Festival. Have a great weekend!
Much as I enjoy sitting around reading blogs, I’d much rather be outside than stuck in the office tending to the computers and running my model – the festival sounds fun. Anyway, just wanted to say that I appreciate your frank and thoughtful responses.
Yami wrote: “Anyway, just wanted to say that I appreciate your frank and thoughtful responses.
”
Yes, same here — thank you, Caitriona!
Instead of coming directly home from the festival, we decided to take the kids to see a little of this and this. I can’t find any pics of the closing event – wild steer saddling.
It’s nearly midnight, and we’ve an early day tomorrow. ‘Night, folks.
Just a quick post before we head off to church. I received this in my daily “inspiration” email from the BlendedFamiliesforChrist e-list I’m on. It pertains to the discussion we’ve been having. Also, I’ve been talking with my husband about this discussion. Yesterday, as the two of us were talking without children present, he had a sort of epiphany on the topic, but now we’re trying to remember just exactly what it was that he said at that point. :-/ As soon as he’s figured it out, he’ll write about it.
Here’s the email I received, from The Generous Wife:
“Sunday is PRAYER day.
Pray for favor with your husband. A wife should have a special spot in her husband’s heart. He should be able to love and cherish her. He should be able to be tender toward her. This can take time, forgiveness, healing, or just the understanding that a wife needs this special position in his heart.
The heart of her husband safely trusts her … Proverbs 31:11a NKJV
But wouldn’t it make sense that the women who are happy with “soft patriarchy” in these surveys are the girlie-girls who actually enjoy doing “feminine” things? Of course they’d be happy with this sort of arrangement! And yes, the division of labor would be effecient (and I’m big on efficiency).
But I don’t think women with “male” brains would be very happy with soft patriarchy. Nor would the division of labor be efficient. They probably wouldn’t marry soft patriarchs in the first place (or they’d soon divorce them), so doesn’t that throw off the numbers a bit?
They should test female engineers and see if they are happy in these kinds of relationships. But then… they wouldn’t be engineers in a soft patriarchy, would they?
I’m confused.
Why classify certain activities and ways of thinking as “male” and certain activities and ways of thinking as “female”? I’m offended at the notion that because I have many interests that are classified as “male”, that it somehow takes me down a notch as a bona-fide female. I feel like something is being stolen from me when people go on like that. It’s like there’s a nagging pressure from outside that I’m somehow “defective”. That unless and until I deny myself, I can’t really be “myself”. That others’ desire to cram me into a mold I don’t fit should trump my natural development.
And that’s another reason I don’t get patriarchy. I don’t think a man should be the head of an adult woman, and I don’t think men have any special skills and abilities for leadership that women don’t also possess. Why would anyone want patriarchy, when they could have equality instead? I’ve met women who grew up in patriarchal homes who went on to continue that life in adulthood, who seemed to be cool with it. I’ve met women who grew up in patriarchal homes who grew up to resent it, and who wouldn’t dream of returning to that lifestyle. And I’ve met women who grew up in egalitarian homes who continued on in adulthood with their familiar pattern. But I’ve never met a woman who grew up in an egalitarian home, who later on desired patriarchy. Never. Not saying they don’t exist; I’m sure they do. But they are decidedly rare, and I think that’s telling.
“I’m offended at the notion that because I have many interests that are classified as “male”, that it somehow takes me down a notch as a bona-fide female.”
La Lubu, I agree with you, and I’m the same way! I have “male” interests that I could never give up just for the sake of receiving “love and admiration” from a soft patriarch. I just didn’t know how to make my point without regressing to gender stereotypes. I apologize for that. I tried to use lots of “quotes” to express that I don’t REALLY think we should categorize behaviors as masculine or feminine.
> But wouldn’t it make sense that the women who are happy with “soft patriarchy” in
> these surveys are the girlie-girls who actually enjoy doing “feminine” things?
hmmmm… I’d rather be out putting in fences than inside cleaning house. I prefer almost ANYTHING over housework. lol… I prefer active outdoor activities, playing sports, dealing with livestock, helping my husband when he’s working as a rodeo medic. I’m a jock and an academian. But I also love to cook, and I love to spend time with kids. I’m good at working with teenagers. I love the logic and artistic simplicity of working through a geometry proof.
There’s absolutely no way I can think of to pigeon-hole me. I’m head-strong, stubborn as a Missouri mule, prefer having my own way. And I kinda coached my husband into a “soft patriarchy” role. AAMOF, one of the problems with my first marriage was that my ex *refused* to take part in the spiritual side of the marriage, in any way whatsoever.
My husband is in the process of putting together something to post on the topic. If it turns out to be really long, I’ll post it to my blog and link it here. To simplify his realization as we were discussing this matter, for the most part, the male of *any* species tends to be more aggressive, more domineering. Because of that, men *NEED* to be the spiritual heads of their families, in a servant-leader capacity, for them to learn to deal with things in a manner that is non-aggressive, non-domineering. I don’t know that I’m explaining this very well. I’ll let you know as soon as he’s got that written.
Caitriona: I’m interested to hear your husband’s thoughts on the matter. For the moment, though, I’m wondering about your universalization of the “man as spiritual leader” concept (“men *NEED* to be the spiritual heads of their families…”). Are you implying this as an across-the-board, one-size-fits-all rule? If so, I think that has the potential to be awfully dismissive to those whose religious traditions do not promote or include that particular hierarchy. What’s best for your family is not necessarily best for all families; plenty of families with non-patriarchal setups are perfectly successful and happy. I think it’s important that even though each side doesn’t seem to understand the other side particularly well, we still try to respect each other.
And though I think the servant-leader model is an admirable concept/goal, I don’t see why it requires patriarchy to work effectively. You keep saying that “soft patriarchy” is about each partner taking the lead in the situations they understand and can handle the best; I have no problem with that. I don’t even care if they want to divide it along gender lines, provided that it works with their personalities. The problem I have is that calling it “patriarchy” inherently implies that the man’s work and leadership are more important. Why is that necessary? Why wouldn’t each partner benefit from use of the servant-leader model in the areas of life in which they specialize? (Again, gender roles aren’t perfect indicators of personality– I know lots of men who aren’t particularly domineering or aggressive, and lots of women who are. Seems to me that the latter women would benefit more directly and immediately from learning to be a servant leader than the former men.)
Maybe some of my questions will be answered in your/your husband’s expanded thoughts on the subject. I look forward to reading them.
“To simplify his realization as we were discussing this matter, for the most part, the male of *any* species tends to be more aggressive, more domineering.”
I agree with that… because you said “tends to be”. I believe that is correct. But it is not true for every individual, and that’s why I don’t think this one-size-fits-all rule is a good one. It can’t possibly work for everyone.
In my relationship, I am more aggressive than my fiancee. He is very smart (engineer), but he’s a bit introverted. I don’t think I’m the leader over him, but I am definitely more aggressive. Think of the quiet, intellectual guitarist (him) and the loud, almost-barbaric drummer (me). We get along great!
In my experience more assertive or aggressive women can be very happy and content with soft patriarchy. My own mother is a perfect example, my sister, my sister’s-in-law. All of them strong women, assertive, often tact-less, and not inclinced toward crafts.
The way it worked in my family was like this: My mom was the talker, the “there” parent, the administrator. She told everyone, including dad, what to do, and we all did it. My dad was usually a symbolic figure-head, He called us to family prayer, he did father interviews with us, administered spiritual blessings, sat at the table and called us to order. They made joint decisions about money and big discipline issues and that sort of thing. I don’t know if my dad ever “pulled rank” on mom, but I doubt it. I can’t imagine that it would occur to him to do so. Really they were a team and he was only leader in name and on a symbolic level, although I’m sure that influenced their relationship in a lot of subtle ways. Still it is a healthy happy relationship for both of them. And it was a great family to grow up in.
Nevertheless, I think even the symbolic leadership is harmful. Men don’t “need” to rule the roost because they have some flaw that makes them beat their chests and break things if we don’t call them master. They are perfectly capable of being a partner, a true partner with no special extra soft patriarchal power to keep this man power satiated. There doesn’t need to be someone with final say-so in a family, families aren’t structured that way. If differences become so wide that there can be no consensus then the marriage is broken, and that isn’t time for the man to stand up and make a decision based on his Y chromosome.
I have a lot of sympathy for Cait’s gender essencialism. I tend to feel that way myself most of the time. Women and men do seem to need and want different things. I feel like a lot of this has to do with biology, women live with much more risk than men. We just do. However, I hate that so many people translate these difference into prescriptions for healthy relationships or lifestyles when the generalizations just aren’t going to work for huge chuncks of people. It’s annoying.
I’m perhaps jaded, being brought up in a “hard patriarchy”. My parents did not even believe in education for women. So I attended college on the sly my first year (I was 17). It was either hide it or get the belt.
But after they divorced, I didn’t have to hide it anymore. My “Christian” father cheated on my mom with her first cousin. He’s married to the cousin now, and they’re living in my mom’s former house. Hey, I don’t call myself ‘redneck’ for nothing!
So maybe that’s why I have no desire for any kind of patriarch– hard, soft, whatever! I value my independence too much. I could never be the “there” parent. It’s just not in me to do it or be good at it.
It’s also been my experience that many men don’t “need” to be patriarchal anyway. I’m very open about being an independent feminist, and I’ve found that men are attracted to that part of my personality, rather than afraid of it.
I’ve found that many men are both attracted and afraid of independence in a woman. Too many times, the thing that attracts is also the thing they try to “pound” out of you once you’re in a relationship with them.
It’s really, really difficult to find someone, either gender, who is secure enough in themselves not to fall into this trap at some point or other.
Too many times, the thing that attracts is also the thing they try to “pound” out of you once you’re in a relationship with them.
Word. It’s like beating the ‘boss monster’ in a video game–you want it to be a challenge, but by god you eventually want to win.
Biological essentialism is a myth that we embrace because it allows us to stay in our comfort zones, and avoid thinking much about how gender roles shape our lives. Some people say that having children teaches them that boys and girls really are different; my experience has been that people are all different, and what’s repetitive is how hard adults push children into fitting into the ‘right’ gender roles.
I have not had the experience of men trying to pound the independence out of me (and I know you don’t literally mean “pound”). Well, except for my father, and that DID literally mean “pound”!
But I realize my experience doesn’t reflect any true statistics. Anecdotal evidence is meaningless in that regard. However, I have been in several long-term relationships. Maybe the men who would have tried to take my independence away just didn’t date me long enough for me to find out.
Oh, it’s certainly not “all men,” but those types are out there. Growing up with a father who was strong but admired and encouraged the women in his life to be strong too, it was kind of a shock to me to date the other sort.
It reminds me of that scene in Clan of the Cave Bear when the men of the Clan are trying to figure out who could have gotten Ayla pregnant, i.e. whose spirit was strong enough to defeat her totem’s. None of them want to be her mate, of course, but there’s a lot of admiration and prestige attached to the man who did–beating a strong woman means the man is that much stronger.
Mythago,
I don’t *know* about gender essencialism.
I tend to agree with it, Motherhood has really strengthened my tendency toward it. Not in how my kids are different, as you mentioned, but in how much Motherhood changed me. I got all teary and girly and dependent feeling, in a way I never felt before children. It was really weird, and I really don’t think I had control over it. All those bonding hormones the female body makes when we lactate. Men don’t do that. It changed me.
Despite that, I am open to the idea that it’s a myth we use to be comfortable, it’s possible that’s true, but I tend to think the truth is somewhere in between, some essencial gender differences, some socialization, a lot of individuality.
I just think that it’s just too easy an answer to say gender essencialism is a myth, period. And to make that assertion, when we really don’t know, I think does a disservice to the wide array of possibilites.
As far as the men pounding independence out, that’s never been my experience with men. But then maybe I’ve just been lucky.
Men don’t do that.
Don’t do what? Get teary and emotional and dependent-feeling on their children? Sure they do. You’re making the error of saying that you had these feelings; you’re a woman; therefore all women and no men have these feelings, and it’s due to our genetic heritage. Quite a logical jump.
I just don’t get how anyone can look around at our culture’s extreme and constant pressure to fit particular gender norms, and then say y’know, anyone who fits those norms is doing so because of their ‘essential’ nature, not because of this socialization.
No Mythago, you misunderstood me. Yes men bond with their children, and cry and feel dependent. My husband is the perfect example. He cries all the time, he is very family centered, he loves his kids beyond reason. He is more nurturing than I in many ways.
What I meant is that what I experienced was different, irrational. Many women may not experience it the way I did, so even that is not universal, but what I experienced is directly related to post-partum depression. First cousins, if not siblings.
I am not a crier. I don’t cry. When I became pregnant, even before the sick started, the crying started. It lasted for six years, the time it took me to be pregnant with, and nurse three small children. Hallmark commercials, news stories about sick babies, pictures of injured children and I would sob. For hours sometimes. And I would obsess over my children’s safety in really unhealthy ways, worrying about really irrational things.
And the weirdest thing of all, I would lie in bed at night, snuggle up to the dh and drench myself in fear that he would die, or leave me, or go crazy and I would have to raise these children alone, and how on earth would I do it. I just couldn’t do it! And that is just soooo not like me. I could do it just fine thanks. I can’t imagine having that thought now, I can’t imagine having that thought six years ago. And even while I thought it, I knew it was irrational and not like me, but I couldn’t stop obsessing about it.
I just barely became myself again, my non-crying self. I couldn’t dreg up a tear now if my life depended on it. I almost didn’t notice the change in me until I changed back. It is real, it is hormonal, it doesn’t happen to men. Period. (Yes men can go nuts and hormonal but it’s not related to gestation/lactation, men don’t gestate)
Women’s bodies release hormones when we are pregnant and nursing. Different women will react differently. Some of these hormones make us bond, some make our hips spread, some make us vomit. Men will never experience these changes. They just won’t.
So I figure, if using my uterus could have that effect on my life, on my emotions, on my whole internal self—then what other parts of me are effected or controlled by my female-ness. It stands to logic that there must be some effects.
What I can’t get is how you can think your anti-essentialist absolutism is so much more logical than my moderate opinion that both factors probably play a role. Yes, there’s a huge amount of pressure to live gender roles. No I’m not comfortable with that. Yes, I’m sure it formed me and is forming my children. I wish I had a better handle on how it all works so I could be more aware of what messages I’m sending to my kids.
And just so we’re clear. I’m fully aware that men used to use the excuse that women have a uterus and are therefore irrational and irrelevant. And that is NOT what I mean. I think it’s just more evidence of how anti-woman we really are that claiming that women can be unique and have unique attributes can make us so uncomfortable. If we truly valued women then we wouldn’t feel like we have to deny that there might be uniquely womanly things. If you will.
Or I could be wrong and it could be all socialization. I just tend to doubt it.
In order for me to explain my position, a little more than has been told to you of my life by my darling Cait, needs to be said.
I was involved with gangs and drugs in high school. I joined the Marine Corps in 1977. After 11 years, I became a consciencous objector leaving the Marines Jan 15, 1991, the day before the “official” beginning of Desert Storm. I received a General Discharge under Honorable Conditions, and a reenlistment code of RE-4 (Do not reenlist).
My life after the Marines spiralled down into divorce, alcohol abuse, bad relationships, and an almost total loss of faith.
In 1998, I began a long and somewhat painful journey in my return to faith.
Cait and I met in July of 1999, and were married 00:01 January 1, 2000.
Shortly after the US invasion of Afganistan, we left the Southern Baptist Church and joined the Mennonite church.
> I think it’s just more evidence of how anti-woman we really are that claiming that
> women can be unique and have unique attributes can make us so uncomfortable. If we
> truly valued women then we wouldn’t feel like we have to deny that there might be
> uniquely womanly things.
I whole-heartedly agree!
Why do we, as a society, insist that men and women must be alike? Yes, it is acknowledged that each individual person is different, but modern society tries so hard to make everything “unisex.”
I’m all for “equal work, equal pay,” and things like that. But I also relish the differences between men and women. I LIKE being a woman.
A few days ago, we were talking with a lady who purchases her feed at the same little feed store we do. She is a wonderful, kind, extremely helpful lady who graduated from high school in the 50′s. At that time, it was a shock to everyone that she decided that she was never going to have children, simply because she didn’t feel that she was the “type” to be a good mother. She wears what she calls “men’s clothes,” does “men’s work,” and thoroughly enjoys everything she does.
Her one concession to her feminity is to have her nails done once a month, in a bright pink polish. She relishes this ritual.
Each of us has at least that one little thing we do simply because we are male or female. For me, it’s always been dresses – preferably in blues, purples, and/or bright pinks. I love wearing dresses, even though I went a few years where I rarely did. Now, instead, I rarely wear pants. I’ve also begun covering, but not as do most women who make that choice. Instead, I prefer silky fabrics with those same bright colors I prefer in my dresses.
Still haven’t figured out how to accomplish this while ref’ing, though.
> I have not had the experience of men trying to pound the independence out of me (and
> I know you don’t literally mean “pound”). Well, except for my father, and that DID
> literally mean “pound”!
I’ve personally known a few of those myself. Some of my earliest memories are of my father trying that with my mother. Didn’t work. Then my first step-father tried it. He didn’t succeed, either. Did I mention I got my stubbornness from my mom?
Lisa, I would agree that motherhood has changed me, but not in the way you describe. If anything, motherhood has made me more aggressive, “fiercer”…motherhood brought out the “mama bear” in me! Yet our shared culture (mainstream American) does not recognize that as appropriately “feminine”. My ethnic heritage does recognize that as appropriately feminine.
So….am I “mama bear” because of my gender? Apparently not all women have mama-bear attitude, so I think not. Yet that was my model growing up, so I tend to think that a lot of our “gendered” expressions are really cultural.
The women who don’t have the “mama bear” attitude seem to me to be few and far between, though. Women who are otherwise fairly passive often become extremely aggressive in matters concerning their children.
I’ve one exchange student profile sitting on my desk where the mother actually said in her introductory letter, “Please have him help with the housework and do the dishes. If you have a problem, explain it to him, as this is how we’ve always done it. If you still have a problem, contact me and I’ll deal with it.” This tendency to make sure that the family half-way around the world knows how she deals with her son so that he can be well cared for while he’s away from her isn’t at all unusual. As a matter of fact, these are the ones I love getting.
I don’t know la Lubu, it seems to me the mother bear is a fairly common female stereotype.
And Cait,
Personally, head coverings don’t strike me as particularly feminine expression, at least in our present culture. More like a way to make you look the weird person everyone tries not to stare at in Costco. If you’re longing to express your feminine side, I’d buy a pretty pink purse instead.
Maybe I shouldn’t have used the expression “mama bear”, but it seemed like the only handy one at the time. Sure, women can be accepted as mama bears if their child is in immediate physical danger, but I was thinking of the more mundane, everyday expressions of “mama bear” attitude, like say, being an advocate for your child at school, or standing up for yourself at work. That’ll get you labelled as a “bitch”, no matter how diplomatic you are about it. If you have a steely look to your eyes, and a no-nonsense level head and firm tone, you are considered as encroaching in “masculine” territory. Mainstream U.S. standards for femininity require that you go to great lengths to mask that “mama bear” ‘tude, by softening your voice, using lots of smiles, verbal crutches (“like”, “uhm”, “err”), tilting your head from side-to-side, and profusely apologizing. That’s different from the mode of expression I learned from my family; yet the “fierceness” of those women was considered an essentially feminine attribute. Women who did not express themselves in that manner were considered “too nice” and somewhat childlike…not ready for prime time. That’s what I meant by “mama bear”.
Assertiveness is considered a positive trait in males, but is still considered a negative trait in females, in U.S. society at large. The old double-standard rearing its head again.
I LIKE being a woman.
Me too. I don’t like the way that’s taken to mean “You should like painting your nails, and romance movies, and wearing your hair long,” or any combination of feminine stereotypes you care to choose.
Many women may not experience it the way I did, so even that is not universal
Which is exactly the point. I’m not, as you paint me, an “anti-essentialist absolutist,” whatever that means; I’m just baffled at the notion that ‘evidence’ like “Some women experience this” is taken as proof of biological essentialism. Ditto when you take five minutes to look around and see the rigid gender stratification that starts even before birth.
If we truly valued women then we wouldn’t feel like we have to deny that there might be uniquely womanly things.
I really, truly am baffled by this sentence. It sounds like you are trying to say that if I don’t agree with you I hate women, which is, at best, disingenuous.
What, please, are these ‘uniquely womanly things’ I am denying? The ability to breastfeed? (Adoptive mothers, women with mastectomies, you suck!) An appreciation for “The Bridges of Madison County”? A love of chocolate?
Lisa,
The covering isn’t to show my feminine side. It goes back to the headship issue. It was a decision that was made after many months of contemplation, prayer, reading, arguing against what I was reading, then going back to praying. The texts I argued against were the more “conservative” ones. The final decision was one I made based on what I feel to be God’s leading. If I’d stuck to the writings on the topic of covering, I’d still be arguing.
La Lubu,
The attitude you describe is also what I have always expected from women. You’re right that it gets us painted as “bitches.” (I’m quite certain that that’s the least of the descriptors one particular family had for me after last Saturday’s U-18 soccer game. Something about my telling the coach to get his player (their son) under control. According to the mom, he was just “excited.” Bah!) I’m used to very matriarchal women in marriages that fit the “soft patriarchy” description. It takes a strong woman to love and live with a strong man.
mythago,
It seems to me that from the discussion, we each have a different view of what the “American culture” paints femininity to be. IME, each of us has a different attribute of the stereotype that we prefer to retain and different attributes we prefer to let go.
Why be pigeon-holed? I’m the only woman working with either of the two soccer leagues near us who covers. I wear dresses and cover because that is what is right for *me* to do. But I don’t wear what is the “norm,” even for those who dress with so-called “Christian modesty.” (If I’m buying online, a rarity, I actually prefer the clothing found on the Jewish sites, especially the scarves.) The lady I talked about earlier in the discussion has her nails done once a month. I never have mine done. Each of us is different.
I’ve had to stop and restart on this so many times that I’ve forgotten now where I was going with it. I’ll have to try again later, when I’m not doing things with the kids in the midst of writing.
Mythago,
What you are doing is setting up a straw man argument. I don’t know if you are deliberately misunderstanding me, if I’m being unclear, or if you really can’t understand me. But your arguments aren’t directed to what I said, but to some assertion that all women must act one way because they are women. I never made that assertion and I wouldn’t because I don’t believe it.
If you care to address what I actually said, I’ll discuss it with you, otherwise it’s useless.
La Lubu,
I couldn’t agree with what you said more. I really couldn’t. I totally agree this is a problem and I don’t like it one bit.
However this doesn’t negate my assertion that even if we could raise children in a gender neutral vacuum we still might (in general) react to things in gender specific ways (again, IN GENERAL) because of physical differences (like the hormones that changed my whole personality into a weepy clingy paranoid).
It makes perfect logical sense to me that if nature would evolved two different genders, one that bears the weight of reproduction (female) and one that doesn’t (male), that there might be some hard-wired behavioral differences tied up in this reproduction or potential reproduction. (In GENERAL, with huge variations between individuals)
Even without the weight of human social interactions, male and female behavior in other species is very gender driven. Female lions act different than male lions. Female chimps different from male chips. (In GENERAL, With huge variations between individuals.) Are these animals only reacting to social pressures to conform? Maybe. Does this have any bearing on human gender difference? Maybe not.
Again, I don’t know anything about this stuff. I’ve never studied feminist thought, or biology, or anything really. I’m just an ignorant Mormon housewife from Idaho who’s following my own nose toward things that make sense.
LOL… Lisa, you’re not ignorant. I’ve found your posts to be very intuitive. And that’s coming from a half-redneck Mennonite homeschooling mom who works with international students.
Lisa and Caitriona, let me put it this way — you two can bring your life experience around marriage and children into the discussion in a way that no childless or unmarried person could. Your feminism is far more practical, and valuable, than my musings. Thanks to both of you, I’ve learned a great deal.
Thank you, Hugo.
If you care to address what I actually said
I did, and you have refused to respond. I truly don’t understand your claim that “If we truly valued women then we wouldn’t feel like we have to deny that there might be uniquely womanly things.” I don’t see why it’s a ‘straw man’ to point out that your if-then statement pretty flatly says that anyone who “den[ies] that there might be uniquely womanly things” doesn’t truly value women. If you meant something else, I’m all ears.
Again, I don’t know anything about this stuff.
Look, disclaimers (serious or sarcastic) about being ‘ignorant’ are not really helpful here. If you talk about a subject, I’m going to do you the courtesy of assuming that you believe you have some knowledge about it. I’m also going to do you the courtesy of treating you as an intelligent person who is willing to debate the issue, instead of getting mad or retreating into “I’m just a housewife” with somebody who strongly disagrees with you.
Why be pigeon-holed?
Exactly my point.