Some thoughts on unearned respect

In the thread below yesterday’s post about chivalry , there’s some discussion of the notion of "respect."  Writing about the apparent victim in the Duke rape case, Mr. Bad writes:

My respect is mine to give to those who earn it, not their’s to demand from me as if it is their right to force me to give it to them. And I suspect that many men feel the same way. Thus, because women have learned to act less respectably – and at times outright disrespectful – men (rightly) refuse to give them their respect, and IMO won’t do so unless and until women begin to once again earn men’s respect.

According to this thesis, strippers and other sex workers don’t respect themselves — and thus are not entitled to expect respect from others. 

I’m going to leave aside the rape case itself, and focus on what saddens me about Mr. Bad’s argument.   What he’s saying is not new; I’ve heard it from both men and women for years now.   To many folks, there’s something neat and compelling about the notion that respect is reciprocal and must be earned.  In theory if not in practice, we are still a culture that despises the notion that anyone is "entitled" to anything merely by virtue of being a person; our ersatz Calvinism is instinctively attracted to the idea that everything — even the right to be seen as fully and completely human — is something that we have to work for.

One of my base convictions (the sort that don’t change every week) is that this particular attitude is fundamentally wrong, particularly on a spiritual and religious level.  Nowhere in Scripture, not even in Proverbs, does it say "Respect those who respect themselves".   Scripture is full of examples, however, of folks who make the mistake Mr. Bad makes, of dividing the world into the deserving and the undeserving .  Again and again in the Gospel story, the Pharisees are appalled by Jesus’ penchant for seeing the "unclean" as full and complete human beings.  In particular, Jesus models an important new way for men to relate to the very sort of women who were the first century equivalent of sex workers.   In his refusal to condemn the woman caught in adultery, in his tenderness to the five-times-married woman at the well, Jesus shows us a radical standard for ethical behavior towards women whom the rest of society would have described as "not worthy of respect".

Even those who do not embrace Jesus as Lord and Savior are frequently inclined to acknowledge Him as a great moral teacher.  It’s a pity that one aspect of his moral teaching –  his radical insistence that the "impure", the "dirty", the marginalized are as loved as anyone else — is so often ignored!  I’m quite certain that most Pharisee men would have treated their virginal and demure sisters with the utmost respect even as they prepared to stone to death a woman who had stepped outside of the acceptable moral framework.  But Jesus makes it clear that respect and love are not earned — they are our due as human beings, gifts of God to all of us

This notion that respect is due to all of us, not merely to those who respect themselves, is not an exclusively Christian one.  Indeed, it’s a principle that I think most feminists can, should, and often do embrace.  From its origins to the present, feminists have critiqued the cultural dichotomies that divide women into "nice girls" and "sluts", into "respectable" and "fallen" women. Feminism insists that women’s sexuality not be a barrier to embracing women as full and complete human beings.  This doesn’t mean that some feminists aren’t critical of sex work!  I long for a world where sexual behavior is no longer commodified, where no woman feels compelled to sell visual or tactile access to her body in order to feed her children.  (Heck, I’d discipline the lacrosse team at Duke merely for having hired a stripper, regardless of whether or not they assaulted her.)  But the fact that I find the sex industry to be repugnant doesn’t mean I hold those who make their living in that profession with contempt. I can separate the work from the worker — the former is deserving of my outrage and my sadness, the latter of my respect and my love as my sister.  I can separate the two without mental gymnastics; I’d expect most folks to be able to do the same.

When stories like the Duke rape case arouse our passions and our sense of justice, it’s easy to lose sight of the notion that respect is not earned.  When I read the emails of one member of the Duke lacrosse team, Ryan, who wrote: i plan on killing the bitches as soon as the walk and proceding to cut their skin off while cumming in my Duke issue spandex, I find it momentarily difficult to see this young man as my brother!  It disgusts me, it enrages me, it saddens me.   He has done much to suggest he is not "worthy" of respect.   He doesn’t respect women (to put it mildly), so why should he and those like him be deserving of it, particularly from feminists?  But Ryan is as much my brother as the victim in this case is my sister.   That doesn’t mean that I see stripping and rape as morally equivalent, mind you!  But it does mean that I don’t see respect and compassion as in any way contingent upon other’s personal conduct.

I am sorry that some of my fellow feminists have chosen to go after the prep school that Ryan attended.  News flash, folks: strippers are people entitled to respect regardless of their profession.  White males who go to private schools are also people entitled to respect regardless of their wealth. The fact that she strips for a living doesn’t also justify our stripping a woman of her dignity; the fact that they attended elite private schools doesn’t allow us to condemn all fortunate young white men.  We can get angry at the sex industry for reinforcing negative stereotypes about women; we can get angry at private schools that occasionally reinforce a notion of irresponsibility and privilege.  But that doesn’t allow us, even in our anger, to return to tired old stereotypes.

A note on the Judas Gospel and overcoming gnosticism

This morning, at 5:15, I walked into my boxing gym for my Monday workout. First question out of my trainer’s mouth: "What do you think about the Gospel of Judas?"  I rolled my eyes; it’s only the thirty-eighth time someone has asked me about it this week.  I wanted to talk about the Mayweather fight; instead, I gave a ten-minute primer on the gnostics (the sect which produced the Judas Gospel) while trying to shadow-box.

If I had had more skills in languages, I would have done early Christian history for my doctorate. Susanne Elm at Berkeley turned me on to it (I was in the first seminar she ever taught at Cal), and Scott Bartchy at UCLA had me convinced that there was no more interesting field to work in.  But I allowed myself to be scared off by the languages; we already had to become competent in Latin, German, and Anglo-Norman French for the Ph.D. in medieval history — if I’d wanted to do early Christianity, I’d have had to add Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and either Syriac or Coptic.  I wimped out.

Still, I have a soft spot for early Christian history (especially the heresies).  And I’m happy that all of this talk about the Judas Gospel has people interested in the question of how the Bible was put together, as well as the fine old heresies like gnosticism.  When I get around to lecturing about Irenaus of Lyons in my 1A class, more folks should pay attention this year.

I’ve always disliked gnosticism, for the same reason I don’t like the Cathars of medieval Europe.  As someone who spends a lot of time reflecting on the body, I’ve always been viscerally (literally) opposed to those heresies that argue that our bodies are prisons.  Gnosticism teaches, of course, that our bodies are the creation not of God but of a less perfect demiurge.  Depending on which gnostic school you’re talking about, we are to practice one kind or another of bodily self-mortification in order to work at overcoming our flesh.

I dislike gnosticism because I’m prone to the heresy myself.  As someone who has struggled with an eating disorder as well as great sexual shame, I’ve been tempted by the belief that my body is fundamentally bad.  In my younger years, I mused ruefully about how virtuous I would be if my body didn’t have such imperious and overwhelming demands!  My experiences with anorexia and self-mutilation saw me behave in ways that would have been familiar to some of the more extreme gnostics, who saw body mortification as one way of coping with our wretched imprisonment within the flesh.

The gnostics generally don’t believe Jesus had a physical body, or if He did, as in the Gospel of Judas, that He couldn’t wait to be rid of it.  But Christian orthodoxy teaches that Jesus not only had a body, He delighted in it.  When he’s anointed with oil, or when he asks for food after his resurrection, He is not showing us a man who loathed his own flesh!  He may have been willing to die for us on the cross, but that didn’t mean that He saw pain as a fundamental Good, or that he saw physical pleasure as wicked.  His life reminds us that we are not just spiritual beings — we are also physical beings, and our bodies and their potential for pleasure are gifts from God. 

It is a sin to indulge one’s body at another’s expense.  It’s also a sin to constantly deny the body out of self-loathing.   The spiritual life is one of balance: we are called to delight in our flesh and use our flesh to bring delight to others.  We are also called to use our bodies responsibly, even sacrificially, never allowing our need for gratification to trump our obligations to the larger community.  Our right to pleasure as created beings exists side-by-side with the call to love others unconditionally.  When we place our own physical wants for food or sex ahead of the needs of the world, we misuse God’s creation.  But when we loathe our physicality, we reject a great and wonderful gift.  The gnostic temptation is to see the flesh as wicked, and only the spirit as good.  The Christian task is to see both as gifts of an all-loving God.

A reflection on chivalry, female vulnerability, and male decency

I may be among the last of the feminist bloggers to take on the now-infamous Duke Lacrosse Team Rape Case.  If you’ve managed to avoid hearing about it, start here and then make your way through the femosphere.  There’s lots of good commentary out there.   What is not in dispute is that an African-American exotic dancer was hired by members of Duke’s lacrosse team to perform at a party.  What is in dispute is whether or not she was raped.

It’s not available for free, but both Amanda and Jill have excerpted extensive sections from a David Brooks column in the New York Times on the subject of the Duke lads and the notion of chivalry.  Brooks is apparently worried that a focus on "identity politics" (discussing the privileged white members of the lacrosse team and the fact that the dancer is an African-American single mom) is obscuring what he sees as the real issue: the loss of manners, chivalry, and self-restraint.  Brooks writes:

The educators who used this vocabulary several decades ago understood that when you concentrate young men, they have a tropism toward barbarism. That’s why these educators cared less about academics than about instilling a formula for character building. The formula, then called chivalry, consisted first of manners, habits and self-imposed restraints to prevent the downward slide.

Furthermore, it was believed that each of us had a godlike and a demonic side, and that decent people perpetually strengthened the muscles of their virtuous side in order to restrain the deathless sinner within. If you read commencement addresses from, say, the 1920’s, you can actually see college presidents exhorting their students to battle the beast within — a sentiment that if uttered by a contemporary administrator would cause the audience to gape and the earth to fall off its axis

Today that old code of obsolete chivalry is gone, as is a whole vocabulary on how young people should think about character.

Jill and Amanda do an excellent job of taking the Brooks piece apart, and I suggest reading both posts in their entirety.

I want to focus on another aspect of the whole discussion, one that Brooks raises indirectly but which continues to come up in contemporary laments about poor male behavior: the notion that feminism is directly responsible for the loutish, irresponsible, and often violent behavior of today’s young men.

According to this thesis (supported by romantic illusions about the past), women’s vulnerability is inextricably linked to male responsibility.  In the "good old days" (whenever they were), women had fewer rights, opportunities, and protections.  Economically, physically, and sexually, women relied more on the protection of men.  This vulnerability forced men to "step up"  and act as courtly protectors of their wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters.   Chivalry was a necessary construct to protect fragile women and girls from violent and predatory men.  The thesis has all the usual attractions of the complementarian lie: that women and men are created for radically different purposes, and society functions best when each sex stays within the strictly defined boxes that God and nature have prescribed for them.

Of course, feminism made the fatal mistake of empowering women.  In the last forty or fifty years, women have gained a plethora of rights; women have access to birth control, to education, to economic opportunity.  As women have become more powerful and independent, the thesis goes, men began to question not only old chivalric codes, but the whole need for self-restraint.  Why should men continue to protect women when women insist on being able to take care of themselves?   The greatest benefit of the "old ways" was that a man could have his ego and his self-esteem boosted by knowing that he was needed by the fragile, delicate, vulnerable women in his life who relied absolutely on his strength and self-control.  But the more freedom and autonomy that women gain, the less men feel needed and the less compunction they feel to control the "tropism towards barbarism" that Brooks refers to.  Thus when women are raped by individuals or groups of men who care nothing for their dignity and their humanity, the feminist movement is only reaping what it sowed.

First of all, this myth is based on a historical lie. There was never a time when "chivalrous" gentlemen treated all women equally.  From the era of courtly love in the middle ages to the antebellum South, gentlemen had very different codes of conduct with women of lower classes than they did with their own.  In other words, there never was a time when a working class woman of color would have been well-treated by a large group of privileged young white men.

But from the standpoint of those of us who love and care about men, there’s another equally insidious lie in this theory that male responsibility is contingent upon female vulnerability.  It is deeply, profoundly and tragically cynical about men and the ways in which we become full and complete human beings.  Now, I’m not denying that men have violent and lustful impulses (though the extraordinary number of women who report similar desires suggests more and more that this sort of behavior is not only linked to male biology).  And I’m not denying that in the not-so-distant past, men were encouraged to exercise self-control in order to protect vulnerable and fragile women.  What I am denying is what Brooks seems to be implying: that if we want better behaved men, women will need to surrender some of their hard-won rights and freedoms.

A pro-feminist strategy for male accountability cannot be based on appealing to men to return to some sort of ancient code of chivalric conduct.  It can’t be based on tired Jungian narratives in which every man gets to think of himself as a "knight in shining armor" protecting "damsels in distress."  Mind you, I think there’s a lot of value in reclaiming old stories and myths; obviously, they speak powerfully to young people. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with challenging young men to be brave, even "heroic"; as is clear from my earlier posts, I think there’s a lot of good in teaching self-restraint and consideration for others.  But those laudable lessons of self-restraint must be separated from disastrous messages about female vulnerability.  Women of all occupations and ethnic backgrounds deserve respect, not because they are fragile women but because they are human beings made in the image of God. Indeed, other men deserve that same degree of courtesy and compassion, not because of or in spite of their sex, but because of their inherent value and worth as human beings.

I’m absolutely with David Brooks that we should be teaching character everywhere.  In the schools, in the churches, on the playgrounds, in the media.  By character, I mean integrity and compassion: the integrity to match one’s private behavior behind closed doors with one’s public pronouncements; the compassion to see all living things as valuable and deserving of care, not of exploitation.   That’s not a message for men only, or for women, but one we all need to hear over and over and over again.

Pro-feminism and Christianity stand together on this.  We both reject the notion that "boys will be boys", and we reject the notion that violent/lustful/destructive behavior is women’s job to control or redirect.  Though Scripture is filled with stories of men who struggled with their nature (David chief among them), it is also filled with stories of men who are powerful role models for kindness, generosity, self-restraint and selflessness.  This Passover and Easter week, I think particularly of the "two Josephs" I love so well: the Old Testament Joseph, who in the story of Potiphar’s wife shows us that a man can exercise sexual self-control, and the New Testament Joseph, who faithfully and lovingly marries a woman pregnant with a child that he knows is not his own.  Neither man bases his behavior on the actions of the women in his life; both live lives of love and self-restraint based on fidelity to God and their commitment to other human beings.  Joseph and Joseph are reminders of what all men are called to, and they are reminders of what it is that we can lovingly but firmly demand from our fathers, husbands, brothers, and sons.

I am an imperfect human being. But my duty to love my wife more than I love myself, and my duty to all of my brothers and sisters in the human family, is not based on my perception that they all need my masculine protection.  It is based on a fundamental understanding of the dignity and worth of creation.   That understanding, not some tired old class-based chivalric code,  is what the lads at Duke apparently lacked.

A note on weight, class, privilege, good genes, and virtue

Two big posts on a Friday — not normal.  Can you tell I’m procrastinating?  On what, you ask?  Real writing, of course, the kind that gets submitted.

The posts about eating disorders, culture, and weight continue to abound.  I had my two offerings up earlier this week.  Jill and Piny already had fine ones up; Ampersand has been very busy on the subject and has more today.  All take issue, and rightly so, with this post last Sunday from Anthony at Cosmic Tap which included these whopping paragraphs, words already fisked and refuted by Amp, Jill, and Piny:

So, please, ladies – the girl who has the body the rest of you wish you had is not anorexic. The girl who delicately refuses the eighteen-ounce wedge of deep-fried cheesecake the rest of you dive into after dinner is not anorexic. The girl who is obsessed with fitting back into those size 1 jeans is not anorexic. She’s just thinner than you, knows how to say no to herself, and it makes you jealous.

And parents – please realize that it is the countercultural idea of self-control and self-denial, backed by the occasional dramatic image, that catalyzes enough fear for us to think anorexia poses some threat to our youth. Much like the War On Some Drugs, however – the threat it poses is to our way of thinking, not our health. It is far, far more dangerous to let your spoiled kids eat what they want.

More broadly, the idea of anorexia threatens our view of our bodies, our consumption-obsessed culture, and our deeply held personal ideas about how much nourishment we “need” (read: “deserve.”) Perpetuating the myth of anorexia helps us demonize denial as some kind of blasphemy, rather than looking at our own dinner plates or in the mirror and asking: am I fat? (Probable answer: yes.)

Yikes.  By confusing healthy moderation with the self-hatred and dysmorphia associated with anorexia, Anthony does real harm here. 

That said, all of this talk about self-denial and food has got me thinking.  Specifically, I’m aware of how my own relationship with food has changed and improved enormously over the course of my lifetime.   Thumbnail sketch: I was a skinny child who ate whatever he wanted, and then a chubby teenager who continued to eat whatever he wanted despite the change in his metabolism.  I carried quite a few "extra" until I was in grad school, when an eating disorder suddenly emerged with a vengeance.  Weight fell off me as I practiced radical restriction; I got myself down below 145 (this is 180 pounds) and was widely rumored to have AIDS.  After bottoming out in late 1992, I began a slow return to normal eating.

But what I’ve been doing for the past decade is exercising.  A lot.  And though I love, love, love to work out, I also love that all of this exercise allows me to eat more.  In my head, "denying" myself food when I’m hungry seems sinful, self-destructive, and pointless.  But if I’m running, lifting, boxing, biking, and Pilates-ing — well, then I can eat a lot more without concomitant guilt.   When I’m in workout mode, I’ll put away 4000-5000 calories a day, easily.  (Considerably more on "long run Saturdays".)  Most of it is healthy stuff, mind you, but I eat to satiety most of the time.  I keep my body fit not so much by restricting what goes in, but by increasing my output.  It’s always easier for me to do more than to do less.

Of course, as a Christian environmentalist, I sometimes wonder about all of this consuming I do.  When I go out for three-hour trail runs, frantically eat and shower, and then race off to do an intense hour on the mat and the reformer at Pilates class, only to pump in thousands and thousands of more calories, am I being a good steward of the earth’s resources?  The more I work out, the more I eat,and I eat a lot of things that come in packaging that can’t be easily recycled.  (For example, most days I’ll eat 3-4 Clif Bars in between meals.) The less I work out, the less I eat, the less consuming I do.  It’s a sign of my relative wealth that I can have pastimes that deplete me physically!

On the other hand, working out so much leaves me calm and relaxed and able to focus on others.  Anyone who’s known me knows how anxious and tense I get when I haven’t run in a few days.   Intense exercise drains away so many of my fears, and it also drains away so many of my negative and destructive impulses.  At the same time, it gives me more vigor.   Thus I can tell myself that all of this working out actually equips me to be of greater service to others.  And given that I volunteer many hours a week, I can’t help but think immodestly are benefiting from my increased energy and increased focus.

Anyhow, on to my point: so often, we falsely present the issue of weight as an issue of self-control.  Well, folks, I out-eat most people!  I don’t stop at "one" of much of anything most of the time. I have very, very little will to restrict when faced with tempting foods.  Yet no one ever accuses me of a lack of self-control, because I frantically burn off whatever I put in!  My body seems to be that of a disciplined person, even though my behavior in the buffet line is anything but.  Plenty of overweight folks eat far less than I do.  Perhaps they don’t have a tenured teaching job with a flexible schedule that allows plenty of time for exercise; perhaps they aren’t childless and middle class.   Do my privileges make me better?  Or do they just obscure my lack of self-control?  Why do so many people tell me how impressed they are by my fitness schedule?   What is so laudatory about narcissism, anxiety, and disposable income?

So yeah, I’m addicted to exercise.  That’s a foible, folks — not a virtue.  The fact that I have a resting heart rate of 42 and a body fat percentage in single digits is about three things: good genes, spare time, and an addictive personality hopelessly hooked on endorphins.  But my addictiveness and my good fortune are not particularly praiseworthy.

“A new creation” and the Christian feminist rejection of traditional masculinity

Lots of talk in the feminist blogosphere lately about "real men" and insecurity.  On Wednesday, Jill posted about a much-discussed MSN article in which a group of fellas discuss whether or not successful women intimidate them.  Yesterday, Amanda joined in.  And a few days ago, Ann Althouse took  on the lamentable Harvey Mansfield, who has written a new screed entitled "Manliness".

I haven’t gotten around to reading Mansfield, but I don’t like the excerpts I’ve read.  In her review of his book, Christina Hoff Sommers writes:

First of all, he thinks we should clearly distinguish between the public realm and private life. In public we should pursue, as best we can, a policy of gender neutrality. He firmly believes that the law should guarantee equal opportunity to men and women. However, "our expectations should be that men will grasp the opportunity more readily and more wholeheartedly than women."

Though he mentions it only in passing, it follows from his position that our schools should be more respectful and accepting of male spiritedness; they must stop trying to feminize boys. A healthy society should not war against human nature. It should, he says, "reemploy masculinity." That means it has to civilize it and give it things to do. No civilization can achieve greatness if it does not allow room for obstreperous males.

In the private sphere, his advice is vivé la difference! A woman should not expect a manly man to be as committed to domesticity as she is; nor should she assume that he is as emotionally adept as her female friends. Manly men are romantic rather than sensitive. They need a lot of help from females to ascend to the higher ethical levels of manhood, and Mansfield urges women to encourage them in ways respectful of their male pride.

(Emphasis mine).  In what I’m told is a compelling fashion, Mansfield is not just defending the essentialist notion that "men just are the way they are."  He’s doing something else that is much more insidious: insisting that women must serve as men’s catalysts for transformation into ethical, thoughtful human beings.  This is complementarianism (the notion that the two sexes have predetermined, specific roles to play in human relationship) at its worst.  It burdens women with the task of making men better.  It liberates men from taking responsibility for taking the primary leadership role in nurturing younger men into ethical, responsible adulthood.  And it implies, none too subtly, that destructive and violent men become that way because of women’s failures, not because of their own personal choices as males.

As a Christian pro-feminist man, few things make me angrier than the periodic re-emergence of the ugly "myth of male weakness."    Those who praise traditional manhood celebrate certain qualities: courage, initiative, wildness, aggression, honor.   But at the same time, the essentialists and the complementarians are convinced that  "real" men are incapable of emotional sophistication.  We’re "verbally challenged" when it comes to describing our own inner psychic terrain, and we’re destined to be blind to the subliminal clues that our sisters "naturally" pick up on.  We’re also more vulnerable to temptations to sexual infidelity and violence.  Women would do well to help guard us against temptation (because we are so weak), even as they tremble in excitement at our brave and heroic deeds.  In Mansfield’s world, we men are these strangely incomplete creatures:  at once dynamic and helpless; courageous in the face of gunfire but hopelessly overwhelmed by the demands of a simple conversation.

My pro-feminist side cries foul, because I’m tired of the line that male transformation is a woman’s job.  Even Robert Bly (whose writings about manliness created the mytho-poetic men’s movement almost two decades ago) acknowledged that raising up boys into responsible, complete, adult men was primarily the job of other men.   If Sommers is capturing Mansfield accurately, he’s letting us off the hook.  Rather, it’s our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters who must push us and prod us towards the "higher ethical levels of manhood", since obviously, our fathers, brothers, and male role models lack the emotional vocabulary to do so. 

My Christian side cries foul as well, even more loudly.   As Christians, men and women alike, we are called to become ever more and more like Christ.   We all know the Epistle:

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

Paul didn’t write:

When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. With the constant pressure and encouragement of women in my life, I became a man; I put childish ways behind me only because my mommy and my wife helped me ascend to the higher ethical levels of manhood.

Men and women alike are called to be "new creations" in Christ.   As Genesis makes clear, rigid gender roles with their strict complementarianism are a holdover from the Fall, but in Christ all things are made new.  To me, that has always meant that as a believer, I can never, ever, ever, ever, say "I’m just a man, I can’t help being the way I am."  Christ destroys our old nature, including our fearful adherence to narrowly defined categories like "manliness" and "womanliness".   In the refining fire of His love  we become the complete, whole, human beings we were intended to be.  It’s not an instant event, but rather an ongoing process.  Paul encourages us:

Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind.

One of the ugliest patterns of this sinful world is the idea that men "are the way they are", spectacularly capable of many things but utterly incapable of others!   As  a Christian and a pro-feminist, I don’t get to say "I’m not good at washing dishes" or "I’m not good at talking about my feelings".  I can say "Lord, help me to grow in You, and help me to do what I was told was not possible."   The last thing I need is to accept that my masculine identity will forever render me incapable of gentleness, nurturing, emotional perceptiveness.   In relationship with Christ and my brothers and sisters in Him, I can become the full and complete human being He wants me to be — ambitious, brave, honorable, kind; a boxer and an earner and an adept changer of diapers and dispenser of hugs.   It is not a woman’s task to tame me or transform me — it is something that I do with God, and for which He and I alone are fully responsible.

My acculturation as a man, my testosterone, my Y chromosome  — none of these are obstacles to full and complete personhood.  Of course, it’s much more comfortable to retreat to gender essentialism, because it lets me and every other man off the hook for anything much in the way of personal growth.  I’m not saying its easy to overcome one’s biological impulses or one’s socialization.  I am saying it is possible, because I’ve seen it done and I’m doing it.  I am saying it is desirable, because when both men and women are allowed to embrace their full humanity, our world will be a more joyful, fairer, happier place.  And for those of us who follow Christ, I am saying it is part and parcel of our conversion to let go of all of our sinful attachments to the idea that we just "are the way we are."  What we are is broken, folks — and gender-based limitations are one whoppingly glaring sign of that brokenness.

UPDATE:  Cross-posted at The Scroll, the group blog of Christians For Bibilcal Equality, where I will be cross-posting often from now on.  Also, Ilyka Damen comments at length on this post; check it out.

Friday Random Ten: neither rhyme nor reason edition

No rhyme or reason to these; I love every one of these songs, most of which are mine rather than my wife’s.

1.  "December 1963 (Oh what a night)", Four Seasons
2.  "Past the Point of Rescue", Hal Ketchum  (Reminds me of my obsessive mid-20s)
3.  "The Letter", Macy Gray  (Cried the first time I heard it)
4.  "It’s a Shame", Third Day
5.  "Loving You Sunday Morning", Scorpions  (High school!)
6.  "Cry Love", John Hiatt
7.  "Shake You Down", Gregory Abbott  (Um, this is my wife’s)
8.  "I’ve Always Loved You", Third Day
9.  "Better Off in a Pine Box", Doug Stone  (Another good obsession song)
10.  "Happy and Satisfied", Toshi Reagon

Bonus Track:  "Breathe (2 AM)", Anna Nalick  (My new favorite song.  I’m a sixteen year old girl in my other life.)

Thinking about revival, ambivalence, and the Holy Both

I’ve got lots on my plate this month, but I’m thinking of getting to a couple of the events associated with the Azusa Street Centennial celebration later this month here in Los Angeles.  Tens of thousands of folks associated with various branches of the Pentecostal movement will be coming here to L.A. to mark the hundredth anniversary of the Azusa Street Revival, described in quick detail here.

In a very real sense, Los Angeles is the birthplace of both modern Pentecostalism and modern Fundamentalism.  The latter term goes back to the first decades of the 20th century, when the Bible Institute of Los Angeles (now Biola University, from the acronym)  issued a series of pamphlets called "The Fundamentals" — a rallying cry for Christians worried by encroaching modernism and liberalism in the church.  (In case you were wondering, the five fundamentals are absolute inerrancy of Scripture; the divinity of Christ, substitutionary atonement; Christ’s bodily resurrection from the dead; and His return at the Second Coming.  Depending on the day, I can sign on to two, three,or even four of these.)

When I think of my calling as a progressive pro-feminist, I remember that one of the things for which I have a real heart is reaching out to my more conservative Christian brothers and sisters.  And while my true fundamentalist friends are often hostile to the notion of women in leadership, I’m happy to say that most Pentecostals have a much more open-minded understanding of the issue.  The Assemblies of God and the Foursquare Church, two of the largest Pentecostal churches in the world, both believe women are called to teach and preach, just as they were in the early days of the Azusa Street Revival. 

Of course, I’m also interested in reaching out with the Gospel to feminists. One of the things that bugs me about my secular feminist friends is that they can’t make basic distinctions among conservative Christians.    They use terms like "evangelical" and "fundamentalist" as if they are interchangeable (they are anything but); they aren’t aware of the huge divisions between the strict Reformers in the Calvinist tradition and the exuberant Revivalists in the Azusa Street tradition.  I spend a lot of time explaining these sorts of nuances to folks who are mystified as to why John Ashcroft (a Pentecostal) embraces the idea of women in the pulpit while Jerry Falwell (a Southern Baptist) rejects the same notion.

Of course, I get equally piqued when my conservative Christian friends make sweeping generalizations about feminism.  There are as many feminisms as there are Protestant denominations in this country, with as many significant doctrinal differences as there are among contemporary American Christians.  My conservative Christian friends look at me with bewilderment when I talk about liberal feminism, radical feminism, and Marxist feminism — they like using the terms interchangeably.  To most of my conservative mates,  liberals are radicals are Marxists, and the differences don’t count. 

I spend a lot of time with two different groups, trying to explain the subtleties of one to another!  And man, the more I run back and forth between and betwixt, the more the fundies on both sides start to resemble each other. 

As I think about going to the big Azusa Street celebration (to be held at the Coliseum on April 29th), I’m filled with a huge outpouring of warmth for my Pentecostal friends.   Strict, dour Reform churches have held little appeal for me in my life.  But I love hanging with the charismatics!  I love worshipping with folks who believe that Jesus is right here, right now, in this space, and in the next few minutes if we all pray real hard, we’re going to have a miracle!  The politics of liberal Episcopalianism match my own — but the raw emotionalism and the passionate certainties of my spirit-filled friends in Pentecostalism touches my heart like nothing else.

As I wrote a few weeks ago, if I’m not careful I fall prey to a kind of paralyzing ambivalence about almost everything.  Too often, as the old saying goes, I worship the Either, the Or, and the Holy Both!  My mind runs so fast; my interests are so disparate; my friends so diverse.  I can’t stay with the Pentecostals for too long — their certainties enchant at first, and then terrify. But for an afternoon a few Saturdays from now, I think I’ll worship with a hundred thousand or so of them.

Sometimes, I need to lay down my pride, my breeding, my intellectual suspicions, my fears, and my doubts.  Sometimes, I need to raise my hands in the air and lose myself again in the kind of ecstatic worship that leaves me breathless and amazed and electrified.  I need to feel the Spirit again, the way I did in the early days after my conversion. I live so often in the midst of delicately balanced contradictions, and those contradictions will be there for me when the worship and praise are done.  But for a few hours, I need to go home to the place where the eithers and the ors and the ambiguities all disappear into the great big all-encompassing YES of Jesus and His sweet touch on my skin.

Come on out and join me at the Coliseum, April 29, 1-5PM.

Raising Malawi

Here’s the text of a letter my wife and I are sending out.  If any readers have corporate contacts that can supply the sort of items listed her, we’d be grateful to know about it!

We are working with the Raising Malawi: Orphan Care Initiative that is part of the larger Spirituality for Kids Foundation, a registered 501(c)3 educational non-profit organization committed to providing at-risk children and their families tools for overcoming life’s challenges. This Youth Initiative was created to provide 32,000 orphaned children in Malawi with direct physical assistance. The South Central African Republic of Malawi has an estimated population of twelve million, of which one million are orphaned children battling HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, poverty, famine, and so much more. On June 5, 2006 we will inaugurate our SFKF Malawi Youth Initiative by touring the area in question and distributing thousands of "gifts" to orphaned children. To accomplish this task, we need a great deal of assistance. We only have one month to gather said "gifts" so that they can be shipped out in time to arrive in Malawi by June 5th. We are asking for in-kind donations of any of the following items:

Games, quantity 2,000 (Memory, Connect 4, Chess, Backgammon, etc.)   

Jump ropes, quantity 1,000

Toothbrushes and toothpaste, quantity 7,000

Children’s clothing, quantity 7,000 (any brand, any size, t-shirts, dresses, shorts, caps, coats)

Children’s shoes, quantity 7,000 (any size, any brand)

Soccer balls, quantity 1,000

Blankets, quantity 7,000

Toys/Dolls, quantity 3,500

Hair accessories, quantity 2,000 (such as barrettes or scrunchies)

Musical instruments, quantity 1,000

If you would be so kind as to forward this information to anyone that may be willing to assist, we would be most grateful. I would be happy to provide any additional information at your request, or at the request of any interested parties. Please know that we will also be providing full documentation as to the distribution of these gifts along with a detailed report of the success of our program. Thank you for your time and consideration.

If you have any leads or suggestions, email me here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Men, women, homosociality and weight

There are so many wonderful carnivals in the blogosphere these days, I have a hard time keeping up. I did check out the latest Big Fat Carnival, dealing with a variety of blog posts on weight and culture.   As a result, I found this article at AskMen: 6 Ways to Tell Your Girlfriend to Lose Weight.

The six tips range from the asinine (buy her an outfit that’s too small for her and inspire her to try and fit into it) to the manipulative (tell her you have a new female trainer at the gym, and she’ll show up just to keep tabs on you.)  My first reaction, reading through them, was to make certain that it wasn’t satire.  I’m fairly confident it’s not.  I’ve run into many, many men who complain about the weight that their wives or girlfriends put on over the course of a relationship.  Some of these guys are crass about it, while others are clearly guilt-ridden.  One of my friends, "Joey", sought me out a few years ago on this very issue.  "I feel like such an ass", he said, "but my wife’s weight gain is bugging the hell out of me. I love her and don’t want to hurt her — how do I talk to her about it?"

Meloukhia has an impassioned response at her place, one that begins:

First let’s start with the premise that it’s your responsibility to tell your girlfriend to lose weight as though it’s some sort of moral obligation. Clearly, you wouldn’t want to be seen dating a fat girl, so as those pounds creep up, you’ve got to take decisive action…or dump her. And you wouldn’t want to dump her, now would you? This premise also assumes that it’s totally socially acceptable and ok to tell your partner to lose weight, albeit in oh so clever and devious ways. As a self respecting man, you’ve got to take a stance somewhere, right?

Though she doesn’t expand on it, Meloukhia is dead on right that much of the issue here revolves less around issues of sexual desire and health and more about men’s homosocial status.   And this reminds me of my reaction to Joey’s query.  Before discussing strategies for tactfully approaching our partners about their weight, men need to cop to their real reasons for wanting their girlfriends and wives to be slender.  Many men are reluctant to admit the degree to which their partner’s perceived attractiveness in the eyes of other men bolsters their confidence and their sense of status.  Put bluntly, having a trim girlfriend or wife boosts one’s standing among one’s male peers.  In this culture, men are taught from an early age that being with a "hot chick" conveys real and tangible benefits in the eyes of other guys.

For many American men raised to see women as a yardstick with which to measure their own masculinity quotient, a partner’s weight gain is going to be perceived as a very real threat to their own standing.   We all know men who get turned on when they realize that their wives or girlfriends are objects of desire for other men.   One key question we need to challenge men with: is your partner’s weight gain really turning you off, or are you worried about how other men are reacting to her as a result? Do you miss being able to use other men’s sexual desire as a crutch to stimulate your own libido?

Men are taught to find "hot" what other men find "hot."  The whole notion of a "trophy girlfriend" is based on the reality that a great many men use female desireability to establish status with other men.  And in our current cultural climate where thinness is idealized, a slender partner is almost always going to be worth more than a heavy one.  For men who have not yet extricated themselves from homosocial competition, their own self-esteem and sense of intra-male status may decline in direct proportion to their girlfriend’s weight gain.

Let me stress that this is absolutely not women’s problem to solve!  My goal is not to make women who gain weight feel bad; protecting a fragile male ego is not a woman’s responsibility.   The key thing men need to do is get honest about their own desire to use female desireability to establish status in the eyes of other men.   And here’s where pro-feminist men can do a terrific service by challenging one another and holding each other accountable for the ways in which we are tempted to use our wives and girlfriends as trophies.   When I confronted Joey with this, he admitted that he still found his wife attractive — but he was embarrassed by her when they went out with his friends.  He realized that he was angry and frustrated because he was scared of what others would think, even though he still responded sexually to his spouse.  Our conversation didn’t stop his anxiety entirely, but it helped him see it in a new perspective.

Some of my friends who know my wife will point out that she is a toned, muscled triathlete/boxer/cyclist, and this it’s easy for me to come down hard on men who are upset at their wives’ weight gain. But without getting into much detail, I’ve been married to women who were considerably heavier than the cultural ideal.  Though my past marriages ended for a variety of reasons, my wives’ weight gain was not ever one of them!  I was fortunate to learn early on to separate my own love and desire for a woman from how other men see her.   Whether or not other men think my wife is "hot " or not does not add to my longing for her, because she is not a tool that I use with which to compete with other guys!  Like all of us, my wife’s body goes through periodic changes.  Together we gain and lose weight (though not always in harmony).    I’m grateful that I’ve learned that real sexual desire in a committed relationship is not linked to these inevitable fluctuations.

I’m glad my wife works out. I love her strong, powerful physique.  But mostly, I like that she and I share the same passion for fitness.   We don’t work out merely to live up to some ideal, we work out because we get high on the endorphins and on the exuberance that exercise produces.   I’m glad we share that.  But if my wife were to stop her exercising and gain weight, that wouldn’t be about me.  If she gained weight thanks to depression or some other crisis, I would of course be gravely concerned — not with the weight gain but with what precipitated it.   But while we each own each other’s body in the sense that Paul discusses ownership in 1 Corinthians, neither of us gets to demand that that body look or feel a certain way.  And both of us, I’m fairly confident, are able to separate our very real physical delight in each other from the way that others perceive us. 

In the end, our bodies will age and weaken  — nature is nature, and perfection will slip further and further from our grasp, just as it does for everyone.  If our longing for each other is built on the way in which our bodies match a cultural ideal, than our love is not worthy of that name.

Thursday Short Poem: Berryman’s “Keep Your Eyes Open”

I have a category of poets called "Poets I Normally Don’t Like Who Have One Good Poem I Love".  Sylvia Plath is in it for "Lady Lazarus", and so too is John Berryman for this one.  It’s a definite "read-out-louder", and the structure infuriates and seduces and amuses all at once.  This poem — and only this poem of his — works for me.

Keep Your Eyes Open When You Kiss

Keep your eyes open when you kiss: do: when
You kiss. All silly time else, close them to;
Unsleeping, I implore you (dear) pursue
In darkness me, as I do you again
Instantly we part .. only me both then
And when your fingers fall, let there be two
Only, ‘in that dream-kingdom’: I would have you
Me alone recognize your citizen.

Before who wanted eyes, making love, so?
I do now. However we are driven and hide,
What state we keep all other states condemn,
We see ourselves, we watch the solemn glow
Of empty courts we kiss in .. Open wide!
You do, you do, and I look into them.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged