Not So Submissive

I have been avoiding writing, which is why this post is late.

Honestly, I don’t like writing when I am gloomy--it sours the tone, smothering the patented Andie optimism and humor that readers seem to enjoy. Without it, I come off as mopey, whiny, depressing. Who wants to read that? If you need angst-ridden text, there are hundreds of blogs and Tumblrs that will fill your bleak banks to overflowing.

I am dispirited lately, though. The kids have only been out of school for a week and I am already to the point of wanting to stick them in a box and mail them to Uruguay. I hear it is lovely this time of year. Emerald and Benjamin have been bickering nonstop; Gabriel is just fine, but having him here all day long when he is getting into the pantry and dumping food all over the floor is draining. He is a force of pure kinetic energy, a most perfect perpetual motion machine that is exhausting to even look at.

So, I put off writing. I went shopping several times. Made Michael’s breakfast bowls, as well as two types of soup for myself, that I froze. Cleaned the house, washed all the laundry, reorganized my pantry and bookshelves. I even stooped so low as to wash the dishes, which is Michael’s chore.

Having long since run out of excuses, I sit here now, only slightly begrudgingly (as I do all things when I am in a mood) trying to figure out exactly where I am going with all of this.

Not too long ago, I was asked if I believe wives are meant to be submissive to their husbands.

At the time, in the interest of maintaining civility in a situation that was rapidly going to be losing it, I briefly answered, “No.” and made my escape before my pent-up frustrated feminism came spewing out all over my grandmother’s breakfast nook.

I have regretted not elaborating further. Not because I could have used it as a teaching moment--frankly, those questions are rarely asked with a genuine heart of enlightenment, but rather as baiting. It seems to be easier to reduce the rights of a group to a bantering non-debate or a punchline when you sit in the position of privilege.

No, I regretted it because there were innocent eyes on me, pleading with me to say the thoughts she couldn’t put into coherence, defend what she knew was right but couldn’t argue from the easily dismissable perspective of youth. I am hardly older, but God gave me the gift of words not so I could remain silent. I feel like He has been gently tugging on my heart, bringing this issue back again to the fore because it needs to be said.

We have a broken vernacular as Christians when we speak about the rights of women.

The way we are taught and raised, the specific language we use when discussing women as a gender is inadequate and harmful; we have needed for a long time to reevaluate it, to overhaul this defunct system, but we have fallen so far into complacency. In our minds, it has worked thus far. Can’t fix what ain’t broke.

The issue is compounded because much of the language we have inherited by the perfect and infallible word of God, The Holy Bible. Is this harlot saying that GOD IS WRONG?!

The lens through which we read and interpret the English translation of the holy secondhand word of God has been so colored that the original intended meaning has gone awry. Because of that warped interpretation that was taught to our fathers who taught it to us as we are teaching it to our sons, we have adopted it as the ultimate faultless viewpoint of God, and it is reflected in the every interaction men and women have together.

It starts way back in the beginning, when we were created.

“The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’ “ (Gen. 2:18, NIV).

First mention of women, and we are worded as an afterthought. God made MAN, and it was “very good” (1:31); MAN whom He made in his own image (1:26). On a later whim, as gift to ward off his loneliness and alleviate his burden, God formed woman out of the rib of his very good Man.

Obviously I am inflecting a significant amount of tone into the above passage. But when reading that, it is quietly planting the seeds that blossomed into this subservient female interpretation. Especially when evidence would suggest that God always bore intention of making woman, as they are the only vessel by which new life (outside of His one-on-one creation) could occur. Yet the story we tell is that God created man first and woman second, of man, for man.

Later in chapter 3, there is the fall of man….precipitated by that same girly helper God had made for Adam.

Jokingly and not, I have heard that the fall of Man was because of woman. She tempted him. She ate of the fruit first. It is her fault that we were kicked out of the garden, and we have been paying for it ever since. Womanly woes like periods and childbirth? You can blame Eve for that, the temptress.  

No. Not really. It says, “She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.” (3:6). Assuming that this is a true, historical event and not a folk story passed down for generations, dude was standing right there. He heard the argument from the serpent and he made his own decision. It says nothing about him trying to stop her, persuade her otherwise; it makes no mention of her wheedling or sweet talking to him, convincing him that he should do this. She didn’t take the fruit away from the tree to where he was, tricking him into eating something he shouldn’t have. Dude was RIGHT THERE. They fell together, both making the same poor decision to disobey God.

The same decision many of us make every day of our lives, trying or not. Just sayin’.

Aside from this being the first time the rebuttal “if your friends jumped off a bridge” was ever used, it also says nowhere that Adam attempted in anyway to argue with Eve or the serpent, or to prevent Eve from eating of the fruit.

I have often wondered, wording aside, about the “punishments” God doled out for this transgression. When Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, “the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked” (3:7). They were naked before, they were just innocent and ignorant of it. Perhaps the hard work in toil and childbirth were of the same nature--God was just informing them, “Hey--now that you did the thing after I told you not to do the thing, you need to know about this stuff, cuz it’s gonna happen.”

Maybe I am wrong on that count. Maybe God was really furious that they did exactly as He knew they would, and these were the consequences. If there is some truth in what I am saying though, then “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (3:16) is cautionary and not command.

Born out of this mindset of 1) women being an afterthought, created solely as a thing for man, and 2) that the poor decision of woman bringing about the downfall of all of mankind, the natural conclusion is that male be dominant over female.

Right from the get-go, we as women are reduced to the lowest common denominator and forced to convince others of our worth.

Why does this all matter though? How does the language we use affect the rights of women?

“As a man thinks in his heart, so is he.” (Proverbs 23:7)

Our sons are being raised right now to view women as objects. We live in a society where our worth lies in our sexual purity, as that is what is of value to the man who will eventually claim us; a man’s virtue lie in his moral behavior. One is a human being, the other property. We teach our boys through our actions, expectations, and words that women’s bodies are inherently sexual, toys, and their bodies are what is the only thing that matters.

Boys are distracted by the way we dress, so we must cover up.

If we dress in a way that reveals our body, no decent man will want us.

If we choose to wear a hijab or burka, we are oppressed by men.

How is it that there is an exact golden standard of how much we may cover up and how much we must cover up--which no one can exactly agree on--to demonstrate our virtue? How has the sum total of my clothing become equated with my desirability and respectability, so completely to have become almost universal law in our country?

My worth is not determined by whether or not a man desires me.

I am more than a helper, more than a potential spouse, more than a mother, a uterus and vagina and breasts that males do not have. I am more than what you have made me out to be.

I am a daughter of the King, proud and strong and capable of reason, ethics, and greatness equal to that of any man that is or ever was.

Do not discuss me as though I am a thing for you to conquer, to own. I am a human being, I am so much more. It is not dominance over you that I seek. That is a weak dismissive tactic used by individuals that know their stance is crumbling. Women have never sought to control men, they ask for no authority, but respect, partnership, honor.

In my heart of hearts, I do not believe that God ever intended women to be “submissive” to men. Those are Paul’s words, which I will not fight you on (unless I have to; don’t pick a fight unless you are willing to go to the mat over it.) It would seem that those who screech, 1 Peter 3:1 the loudest (“Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands”) stopped reading before verse 7, where it says “she is your equal partner in God’s gift of new life.” Husbands are called to “give honor” to her in the same verse.

I don’t know about you, but I do not feel particularly honored when my role is the punchline to a weak joke.

--Andie