What’s Wrong with the World

The men signed of the cross of Christ go gaily in the dark.

About

What’s Wrong with the World is dedicated to the defense of what remains of Christendom, the civilization made by the men of the Cross of Christ. Athwart two hostile Powers we stand: the Jihad and Liberalism...read more

Dry humor on traditional gender roles

For a bit of humor value cum good points, here is a fun piece by Douglas Wilson on gender roles. He is replying to this piece by Michael Horton. As Wilson points out, the target(s) of Horton's piece is/are a bit obscure, but I surmise that Horton is using an exaggerated "niche marketing" portrait of those who advocate traditional gender roles in the church (the position sometimes called complementarianism) in order not-so-subtly to advocate the alternative position, known to the trade as egalitarianism.

Here are a few enjoyable quotes from Wilson:

(This first one's a real zinger.)

Some of the things said in the citations were pretty bad, but why were there perfectly reasonable points lumped in with them? Maybe the bad quotes are only bad taken out of context, and we are not given a context to look up. Looking things up might ruin the party. Maybe citing your opponents would look too masculine, and Horton didn't want to undercut his central point.
My second problem is that the whole critique appears to rest on a confusion about the role of "gender stereotypes from our culture." He tells us that "a lot of gender differences are cultural." Okay. Of course they are. This particular zombie appears in every last one of our discussions of this topic, and it always wants to eat our brains. Let us arise therefore, with the machete of truth, and decapitate this one for good and all.
There are certain creational differences between the sexes, which God intended to be operative from the begining of the world to the end of it. Women bearing and nurturing children would be something in that category. Men protecting and providing for their families would be another one. But these creational differences have a deep need to find, discover, and apply a wider vocabulary. They want to express themselves further. That is why there are other differences that do not fall into this category of creational difference, but which are roles assigned to the two sexes by societal expectation. And (cue the zombie) it is facilely assumed in discussions like this one that if it is not a creational given, scripturally assigned, with black ink on white paper, we need not pay any attention to it. It is only "a gender stereotype," and what a relief to us all!

Here Wilson attacks the kind of hyper-nominalism to which, many and many-a year ago, I used to be tempted myself--the idea that we can just pretend that meanings of words, customs, and the like are instantaneously malleable and have no claim on us if they are a result of human decision:

Suppose you overheard one of the kids from your church telling one of the sweet little church ladies to "eff off." Suppose you confronted him about it, and he defended himself by saying that the meaning assigned to those particular sounds were assigned by our culture, and not by the Holy Spirit speaking in Scripture. Suppose further that he scoffs and says that the whole thing is "linguistically arbitrary." And, you know, he's right, and I suppose you also know that he is entirely and completely in the wrong. It is linguistically arbitrary, and he still doesn't get to speak that way.

The Bible never tells us that men should take out the garbage, or that a gentleman holds a seat for the lady, or that opening a car door for your wife is a class act, and so on. Never. But that is irrelevant. Our culture gives us the vocabulary of honor, but the Bible tells us how we must do something with that vocabulary.

When I am told in the Scriptures to love my wife, I am told nothing about what I must do on our anniversary. But the anniversary gives me an opportunity to do what the Holy Spirit commanded me to do. And recovering male sinners should never waste such opportunities. I am told that I must do something, and a great deal of the raw material for obeying Scripture is given to me by my culture. That's the way it is supposed to work.

And last, Horton makes the standard mistake of confusing an attack on effeminacy (inappropriate softness) with an attack on femininity (glorified responsiveness). When a man acts girly, to object to this is not to attack the girls. "But you used the word 'girly' in that previous sentence, did you not? Why would you use the word girly in a pejorative way if you didn't have a deep misogynistic streak, a thing about girls, hmmm?" The answer is that words derive their meaning and intent from an old-fashioned thing that our ancestors used to call "context." If you tell your teen-aged son, who is driving you all to church, that you "need a little less Dale Earnhardt Jr., son," this is not a slam on NASCAR. Dale Jr. is just fine in his place, in context. Just not turning down Maple Ave. Sunday morning on two wheels.

I have only one hesitation about Wilson's column. What he says here could be taken to mean that I shouldn't be blogging, or perhaps only blogging for women, or at least not criticizing theologically confused men:

[The women] don't do these dissections [of theological bloviators] in public because they don't think it would be fitting, and prefer that the menfolk do that stuff.

As a matter of fact, I think it's perfectly fitting for me to dissect theological bloviators in public. But I'll try not to worry too much about the fact that Doug Wilson might not approve. He's written a column that is both right and enjoyable.

Comments (15)

I liken this to the military salute. My friend in the RAF salutes palm-out, whereas we in the US salute palm-in. The orientation of the hand is nothing. The fact that you're rendering respect to a senior is what matters.

Exactly. There is no question at all that people who say, "Traditional gender roles are just social customs" are trying to destroy something far more fundamental than this or that specific expression thereof. Because if you undermine all the incarnate expressions, you undermine the understanding of the thing itself, which cannot exist in a Platonic realm and still be accessed by real human beings.

I agree with Horton that "a lot of gender differences are cultural."

Yes, but I think Wilson is right to point out that it really doesn't matter all that much. Ultimately it's simply a spinning out of something that definitely isn't cultural. And if you abstract out all the "cultural" stuff you're left with nothing--no way of expressing the underlying creational differences which are very important. It's not as though there's any good case to be made for reinventing male-female gender roles "from scratch," even if such a thing were possible. Moreover, the Bible reaffirms several of those "cultural" differences, such as a man's being the leader of his household.

The thing is, for Horton to bring that up just looks kind of...shallow. It's as though nobody's ever considered that point or something. It's a throwaway line that complementarians and egalitarians have talked about ad infinitum. Now, I've been told by a reliable source that Horton isn't actually an egalitarian, but that just makes it all the odder for him to say that without giving it some kind of context, like saying, "But underneath those cultural expressions are God-given male and female natures, which are different and complementary, and which we should respect. Moreover, Scripture makes it clear that one expression of these differences are different roles in the church. Nothing I'm saying here is meant to deny that," etc. Nothing like that at all. Just something that sounds, in isolation, like a pointless canard.

And this, from Horton's piece, definitely looks like a few egalitarian talking points thrown in one place (and stale, boring ones to boot):


And what about the fact that women as well as men are identified as "disciples" in the New Testament—something that was quite unusual for Second Temple Jews? Or Paul's expressions of gratitude and greeting to the women who assisted him in his work? Not to mention that "there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28).

I mean, hey, after that litany one half expects him to start talking about Junia as a "woman apostle" in the next breath!

There are certain creational differences between the sexes, which God intended to be operative from the begining of the world to the end of it.

Do you think it is reasonable to say, Lydia, that in order to accept the thrust of Wilson's argument--that males and females are socially different in ways that transcend specific cultures--one must first accept that males and females were created by God?

Not epistemically, Phil. God's creation is in fact the source of the differences, but the differences themselves are obvious to scientific and daily experiential observation. However, if one holds to a fairly sweeping materialist worldview, I suppose what happens is that one really has very little reason to care, morally, about *anything*, and so these obvious differences like anything else can simply be treated as something to be fought, or minimized, or overcome. This will have all manner of purely utilitarian bad effects on individuals and on society, but if one has some ideological agenda at a sufficiently broad level, or if one is simply in denial about the utilitarian bad effects, one can pretend that one is "bringing about more good" by advocating the elimination of traditional gender roles, gender-bending, etc.

God's creation is in fact the source of the differences, but the differences themselves are obvious to scientific and daily experiential observation.

So, in your interpretation, Lydia, Wilson's choice to specifically mention that gender differences were "creational" and that "God intended [them] to be operative from the beginning of the world to the end of it" is...not really relevant to the case that he was making? My reading of _his_ argument was that it was an important point.

Be that as it may, since Wilson's point is that gender differences, themselves, are significant without regard to the specific ways that these gender differences are expressed differently from culture to culture, it would seem prudent to rule out "daily experiential observation" as evidence of that particular claim. An individual's daily observations would necessarily involve observing whatever specific culture in which she happened to be immersed.

I don't think it would be fruitful to debate whether a materialist worldview must always be nihilistic (or to debate whether a utilitarian argument in favor of a supernaturalist worldview has any bearing on its truth or falsity.) One need not be a materialist to disbelieve a particular tenet of religious faith. In fact, it would be reasonable to say that one hundred percent of non-materialists still disbelieve at least one tenet of someone else's religious faith.

I guess I'm more interested in finding an area of agreement. How about this: clearly, Wilson agrees that some gender roles and gendered behaviors are evidenced differently in different cultures. So, for example, one culture may view long hair as being feminine/effeminate, another culture may view hair length as gender-neutral, and a third culture may view long hair as a masculine trait. Wilson seems to argue that context matters, and so acting masculine is important for biological males, even if the behavior one engages in to act masculine differs from culture to culture.

Would you agree, however, with this statement: at least some of the ways in which cultures express gender are trivial, and focusing on them (the trivial things) is shallow and perhaps petty? I'm not asking you to agree on which specific gender behaviors are trivial, I'm just asking if you agree that trivial gender differences exist.

So, in your interpretation, Lydia, Wilson's choice to specifically mention that gender differences were "creational" and that "God intended [them] to be operative from the beginning of the world to the end of it" is...not really relevant to the case that he was making? My reading of _his_ argument was that it was an important point.

Come, Phil, you're not that dumb. It was part of the case he was making to his intended audience, who are Christians! If you have independent reason to believe that God exists and created man and that the Bible tells us something about God's plans and purposes for man, then this is an _additional_ reason to believe in differences between the genders. Surely this is not too difficult, is it?

Be that as it may, since Wilson's point is that gender differences, themselves, are significant without regard to the specific ways that these gender differences are expressed differently from culture to culture, it would seem prudent to rule out "daily experiential observation" as evidence of that particular claim. An individual's daily observations would necessarily involve observing whatever specific culture in which she happened to be immersed.

Sorry, shallowness alert. Compare: "Since you've just admitted that maternal bonding with children is expressed differently, sometimes very differently, from one culture to the next, then you should admit that daily experiential observation cannot have anything to tell us about whether women are naturally inclined to love their children, since by definition anyone who observes a mother and a child is observing a mother and a child in a particular cultural context." I'll let you figure out what is wrong with both poor arguments.


or to debate whether a utilitarian argument in favor of a supernaturalist worldview has any bearing on its truth or falsity

I didn't suggest that. I suggested that utilitarian considerations should favor not destroying distinctive femininity, that they tell against the feminist and gender-destroying agenda.

at least some of the ways in which cultures express gender are trivial, and focusing on them (the trivial things) is shallow and perhaps petty?

Define "trivial" and "focusing." But I'd much rather deal with specific examples. I can imagine specific gender expressions and particular degrees of "focusing" that I would consider to be petty or even crazy. If a store owner screamed at any woman who did not wear a skirt in his store, this would be not only petty but also unchivalrous, stupid, and creepy. If parents held a mock funeral for their daughter if she cut her waist-length hair to shoulder length, this would be insane. On the other hand, if parents forbade their minor daughter to get a butch cut, refused to pay for it, and grounded her if she sneaked out and did it anyway, this would be entirely reasonable and appropriate.

If you have independent reason to believe that God exists and created man and that the Bible tells us something about God's plans and purposes for man, then this is an _additional_ reason to believe in differences between the genders.

I agree with you that his audience was Christians, but my reading was that the created nature of gender was intrinsically linked to their differences, and not a secondary, additional point that he was making.

If a store owner screamed at any woman who did not wear a skirt in his store, this would be not only petty but also unchivalrous, stupid, and creepy.

I'd say that a store owner who screamed at a man who wore a skirt into his store or banned him entrance would also be petty, although I think it is safe to say that I'm more likely than you to want to apply the same standard to both men and women.

I'd say that a man, of any age, who puts on a pink shirt to go out to a sporting event with friends, who brushes off accusations that it is "girly," is actually showing evidence that he is secure in his masculinity.

I'd say that a woman who shows an interest in football or professional wrestling and brushes off accusations that she is acting in an unfeminine way is showing evidence that she is secure with her femininity.

I suspect that you _might_ agree with those examples, though I'd personally go much, much further in terms of gender norms that are trivial and unimportant.

On the other hand, if parents forbade their minor daughter to get a butch cut, refused to pay for it, and grounded her if she sneaked out and did it anyway, this would be entirely reasonable and appropriate.

They could lock her up in a tower until her hair is long again!

To be honest, I think it is appropriate for parents to ground their daughter (within reason) for sneaking out, or for disobeying them. But if the reason to ground her is because she has done something unfeminine? I cannot imagine what parents would hope to accomplish by that. I think that respect for rules and respect for authority can be taught, at least in part, through punishment. I'm not convinced that appropriate gender expression can be taught through punishment. I know several mature adults who are grateful that their parents punished them for reckless behavior, for driving without permission, for doing drugs, etc. I can't say that I've ever met a mature adult who was grateful that her parents punished her for behaving in an unfeminine way.

If behaving according to gender norms is a moral obligation, and if cultural context matters, then does it follow that a woman in a Muslim country has a moral obligation to cover her face in public? Or to refrain from driving? I think it would be more appropriate to say that the gender norms in question are immoral, and that violating them is a morally neutral act.

If behaving according to gender norms is a moral obligation, and if cultural context matters, then does it follow that a woman in a Muslim country has a moral obligation to cover her face in public? Or to refrain from driving?

It's certainly possible for traditional gender indications in some country to be unduly burdensome on women and/or unwise in other ways. In this case, for example, covering one's face in public has all manner of problematic results: It depersonalizes the woman to such an extent that she is going to find it tremendously difficult to deal with strangers outside her own family in a person-to-person way. This, in fact, is its intention. The cultures in which this is the norm are (and have been for centuries) intensely tribal and wish to discourage all out-group interactions, particularly with men, by their women. If one considers that goal to be wrong-headed or extreme, one will disapprove of the norm. I do, so I do. Then, of course, there are various issues concerning crime and the like (making it easier for men to disguise themselves as women and commit crimes, making it more difficult to judge a witness's truthfulness in court). Something similar is true of requiring women not to drive.

It is possible to believe in real distinctions between the sexes and in the importance of indicating these in ways normally recognized by those around while at the same time believing that some particular cultures have wrong-headed ideas about men and women which they have enshrined in custom. I don't happen to think that that is the case for women in America and hair that is not cut very, very short. There is no huge burden involved in a woman's wearing her hair in a feminine as opposed to a masculine style, especially if one does not take this to mean that she must never cut it at all.

Moreover, in America, if a man wears a skirt, he's gender-bending (or dressing up for Halloween). There is no point in pretending that a man who does that is just an ordinary man who happens to have some completely independent good reason of convenience for wearing a skirt (as a Western woman finds it useful to be able to drive a car). Transgenders of various types don't claim that. That's why they are called "transgender persons."

This, in fact, is its intention. The cultures in which this is the norm are (and have been for centuries) intensely tribal and wish to discourage all out-group interactions, particularly with men, by their women.

It sounds like you are saying that religious beliefs arise through human invention, as a way of enforcing societal needs and norms.

I assume that what you mean is that only certain religious beliefs arise through human invention, but that others come about through divine revelation and/or divine inspiration, and it is only coincidence when these latter beliefs also serve the function of enforcing historical societal needs and norms.

I don't mean that as an argument; I suspect that that is what you believe.

There is no huge burden involved in a woman's wearing her hair in a feminine as opposed to a masculine style, especially if one does not take this to mean that she must never cut it at all.

That may be true, but it is even less of a burden to not really make a big deal about it if a woman does have very short hair, is it? Imagine: you walk into a room, any room, with another woman. You see that her hair is very, very short. Now, it would be very little trouble for her to grow her hair longer, and perhaps put a bow or barrette in it to indicate her femininity. In the other hand, it would be no trouble at all for you to simply not care about the length of her hair.

It may sound like I'm being flippant, but surely you can agree that there will never be 100% agreement on gender norms, even within a particular region, and that gender norms change over time. Sure, you can make the case that there are some broad strokes that should be fairly obvious to everyone who you personally encounter, but even then, this requires a moral evaluation of every specific act. In the part of L.A. I lived in for a while, it was common for young women, regardless of their body size, to have very large breasts. This was achieved through surgery in many instances, but it was undeniably the societal norm for the region, and it's undeniably a gender-based norm. Nonetheless, there is no moral obligation for a woman to get breast implants, ever. And I would contend that there never can be.

I think one problem that I have with the analysis in the original post and ensuing comments is the implication that a choice can be evaluated morally without regard to either the intent or the specific action. If a given act isn't intrinsically wrong, then Wilson is saying (and you're agreeing) that the appropriateness of the act is audience-centric. Surely, a woman who wears no makeup when she is home alone is not behaving inappropriately, but then how could one say that a man who is home alone wearing a skirt (perhaps because he finds it comfortable) is behaving inappropriately? And if neither individual is engaging in inappropriate behavior, when they walk into a room with me, Phil, and you, Lydia, and Phil doesn't care one whit, then the ingredient that caused the behavior to be inappropriate is you, Lydia. How can another person be morally responsible for a choice that you made?

Phil, I think you are pretending that we don't actually say anything to one another with our behavior. Now that _is_ something Wilson is criticizing, and rightly so. I'm afraid you are coming rather close to his caricatured story of the kid who uses a swear word to a little old lady at church and then pretends it's not a swear word because "language is socially defined."

Similarly, you know and I know that certain female haircuts in America 2012 convey and are intended to convey masculinity, even lesbianism. I used the phrase "butch cut," for example. A buzz cut would be similar. You know and I know that a man doesn't wear a skirt in America 2012 "just because he finds it comfortable." You make up that unrealistic example to make it sound like a man who wears a skirt in public isn't trying to convey something. Yet I have sat through city council meetings with the gender-benders who are *quite clear* that they have a point to make, that the men among them dressing in skirts actually regard themselves as women and demand to be referred to as women! In fact, your example is almost an insult to my intelligence, as though you would expect me to be so stupid as to join in the pretense that if I get a certain message (which I might, y'know, disagree with) from a man wearing a skirt in public, this is my problem. Neither of us is that stupid, so why should we pretend in this conversation?

Lydia,

I think the reason we're talking past each other is because I'm speaking hypothetically, and you're not interested in entertaining the notion that a hypothetical example _could_ exist. I'm aware that there are transgender persons who believe that their hair and dress communicates some important facet of their inner being. That's a separate discussion from the discussion of whether gendered behavior, in the abstract, constitutes some kind of moral imperative.

A kid swearing at an old lady at church is _intending_ to cause her offense, and unless there is some bizarre extenuating circumstance, having the intent of causing another person offense is problematic behavior.

A man who wears nail polish to the mall may or may not have the intent of causing another person offense, and absent any other information, there is no reason to take offense. Ever. So, if a middle aged woman sees a young man wearing nail polish and chooses to feel offended, the simple solution is for her to stop worrying about whether strangers conform to her concept of what is appropriate gender behavior.

Similarly, you know and I know that certain female haircuts in America 2012 convey and are intended to convey masculinity, even lesbianism. I used the phrase "butch cut," for example. A buzz cut would be similar.

I've known several women who shaved their heads because a sister or daughter had cancer, and they wanted to show support. I found that laudable, and the fact that they were behaving in a supposedly gender-inappropriate way was entirely unimportant.

I am not saying that every woman with an extremely short haircut is engaging in some kind of selfless act. But I think there's no reason to judge a woman for her hair and her hair alone, ever. You may disagree, but you're surely aware that judging another person is a choice you make, and you could choose differently if you wanted to.

A man who wears nail polish to the mall may or may not have the intent of causing another person offense, and absent any other information, there is no reason to take offense. Ever.

So why take offense when the kid swears at the old lady? After all, _maybe_ he is a speaker of some language you just don't happen to know in which those same words have quite a different meaning. Absent any other information, it would be charitable not to take offense!

This is sophistry. I refuse to participate in it.

Post a comment


Bold Italic Underline Quote

Note: In order to limit duplicate comments, please submit a comment only once. A comment may take a few minutes to appear beneath the article.

Although this site does not actively hold comments for moderation, some comments are automatically held by the blog system. For best results, limit the number of links (including links in your signature line to your own website) to under 3 per comment as all comments with a large number of links will be automatically held. If your comment is held for any reason, please be patient and an author or administrator will approve it. Do not resubmit the same comment as subsequent submissions of the same comment will be held as well.