Defining Gender Roles

March 10, 2006 Posted by Roger Overton

I’ve decided to post each Friday on gender issues. Last week I posted on why
patriarchy is not necessarily oppressive. This week I’m beginning to re-hash a
seven-part series I wrote over a year ago (pre-A-Team).

John
Mark Reynolds commented on an interesting article posted on MSN: “Navel Gazing: Why even feminists are
obsessed with fat.” By Laura Kipnis. After discussing some current
literature on the subject she claims, “There's simply an irreconcilable
contradiction between feminism and femininity.” Unfortunately, she ruins her
incredibly correct point by continuing…

“…two largely incompatible strategies women have adopted over the years
to try to level the playing field with men. The reason they're incompatible is
simple. Femininity is a system that tries to secure advantages for women,
primarily by enhancing their sexual attractiveness to men. It also shores up
masculinity through displays of feminine helplessness or deference. But
femininity depends on a sense of female inadequacy to perpetuate itself…

Feminism, on the other hand, is dedicated to abolishing the myth of
female inadequacy. It strives to smash beauty norms, it demands female equality
in all spheres, it rejects sexual market value as the measure of female worth.
Or that was the plan. Yet for all feminism's social achievements, what it never
managed to accomplish was the eradication of the heterosexual beauty culture,
meaning the time-consuming and expensive potions and procedures—the pedicures,
highlights, wax jobs on sensitive areas, “aesthetic surgery,” and so
on. For some reason, the majority of women simply would not give up the pursuit
of beautification, even those armed with feminist theory.”

What I understand Ms. Kipnis to be saying is that there was no female voice
prior to femininity and feminism. Rather, each of these ideologies was a
reaction to masculine oppression throughout history. In the sense, both
femininity and feminism are relatively new on the historical scene. (This is
what I see behind her comments, but perhaps I’m reading too much feminist
thought into it.) For feminists such as Ms. Kipnis these are liberation
movements.

She’s entirely correct that femininity and feminism are hopelessly
contradictory, but not for the reasons she’s offered. The first major blunder
she made was mischaracterizing femininity. Femininity is not new, and it is not
a strategy to level the playing field with men. It is not a system that tries
to secure advantages for women and has very little to do with sexual
attractiveness. Rather, I think the closest term similar to femininity is Lady;
its cousin is Gentleman. The Lady and the Gentleman are roles long forgotten in
our culture. I point to these not because I think Victorian principles ought to
be our standard, but because historically those Victorian principles more
closely resemble the traditional roles put forth by God’s Word more than any
other.

What do I mean by traditional roles? Those God blessed us with. We can find
them explicitly defined after the fall because God brought difficulty to the
roles as punishment. (Gen 2:16-18) “To the woman he said, ‘I will surely
multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.’ And to Adam
he said, ‘Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of
the tree of which I commanded you, “You shall not eat of it,” cursed is the
ground because of you; in pain you shall eat all of it all the days of your
life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the
plants of the field.”

In these verses and the surrounded context we find defined roles for women
and defined roles for men. For women, there is the specific role of motherhood.
Why is this mentioned and not fatherhood? Because women have a complex capacity
for nurturing men do not have. The other prominent feminine role has to do with
her husband. Some see the curse as being that the husband will rule over the
wife. Rather, the curse is “Your desire shall be for your husband.” This is not
sexual desire, but desire for control and authority. The only other time the Hebrew
word for “desire” is used is found in Gen 4:7, when God tells Cain, “sin is
crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” The
norm is for the husband to have authority; the curse is that the wife will
desire rule and that will bring strife to the relationship. As she was called
when God created her, Eve was Adam’s helper; her role is support. Thus the
primary feminine roles are nurture and support.

For men, the roles are provision and responsibility. He must provide for his
family, but his task will be difficult and painful. Further, he bears the
responsibility for his family. When God entered the garden after the fall He
went to Adam for an answer as to what happened. Though the serpent, the woman,
and the man were all at fault for what happened, the man bore the most
responsibility since he was created as the head. Thus “sin entered the world
through one man.” All subsequent generations have suffered the consequences not
because of Eve’s sin, but because of Adam’s sin.

The curse from the fall will taint our lives until sanctification is
complete, but that doesn’t mean we should not try to be better. As I noted
earlier, I think the ideals portrayed in the concept of Ladies and Gentlemen
most resemble the biblical model of how men and women ought to live. Each was
characterized by a selfless embrace of their respective God given roles. The
Lady was to be completely female through engaging in female activities (like
nurturing and helping), not for her own power, but for her God, her husband,
and her society. Similarly the Gentleman was to be completely male through
engaging in masculine activities (like provision and leadership), not for his
own power, but for his God, his wife, and his society. This was true femininity
and masculinity.

Today we have Ms. Kipnis and her ill view of femininity. What she describes
as femininity is merely the fallout of the Gentleman and the Lady. They are the
results of a culture that is scrambling to redefine itself. The new definition
is feminism. There is no male counterpart; feminism is pushed upon both women
and men. While femininity and masculinity sought what’s best for everyone,
feminism is entirely self-centered. It is arrogantly obsessed with personal
desires and demands at the expense of others. Ms. Kipnis even hints at this:
“One problem with this brand of global feminism is how closely it resembles
narcissism on a global scale: Women everywhere mirror me.”

The reason femininity and feminism are not the same is because they are
geared toward different goals. Femininity embraces God-blessed purposes (in
hand with masculinity) for the sake of bettering everyone else. Feminism throws
away God’s decree for the sake of bettering the self. We are indeed in
narcissistic times.

Next week: the Biblical equality and inequality
between men and women.