The CBE Scroll

Men with egalitarian attitudes about the role of women in society earn significantly less on average than men who hold more traditional views about women’s place in the world according to a recent study.

The Labour Department’s National Longitudinal Survey of Youth began tracking 12,000 people when they were 14-22 years old for 25 years in order to observe whether a person’s view on gender roles affected their income.

It was the first time social scientists produced evidence that large numbers of men might be victims of gender-related income disparities. The differences found were substantial. Men with traditional attitudes about gender roles earned over $11,000 more a year than men with egalitarian views and over $14,000 more a year than women with traditional attitudes. These comparisons were made on men and women working in the same kinds of jobs with the same levels of education and putting in the same number of hours per week.

We are used to thinking about women being disadvantaged in the workplace, but this study shows that men are also treated differently if they do not hold traditional views on the place of women and men.

I’m wondering if anyone reading this has experienced this discrimination either for themselves or their fathers, husbands, brothers or sons.

A man has to be twice as good a parent as a woman to get child custody. Fortunately, this isn’t difficult.

Ouch. Blatantly sexist.

A woman has to be twice as good as a man to get the same job. Fortunately, this isn’t difficult.

Ouch. Popular coffee cup.

I’ve worked almost 20 years in legal offices that do, among other things, divorce law. There is a grain of truth in the blatantly sexist statement. It stems from the idea that women are better at home with children, that men are naturally inferior caregivers to children. The popular coffee cup also has a grain of truth in it. Men can still get jobs, particularly management jobs, more easily than women with equal experience. Presented the way they are, both of my examples are insulting to a group of people because of their gender and how that group has received special treatment in the past. Both statements reverse this by saying the other group of people are better than the first group of people because of their gender. Only one is funny. Why?

The coffee cup is, to my mind, a good sign. The problems of women advancing in the workforce can be laughed at. Scoffed at. Those making the sexist barriers can be openly mocked as the fools they are. Humor is often overstatement. Our society allows us to laugh at treating men as superior to women. Unfortunately, we cannot laugh about treating men as inferior to women because this is often not seen as inaccurate. Instead, it’s treated as a truism.

I think humor can be a gauge of how society thinks. Sadly, humor tends to be harsh and insulting, enjoying the embarrassment and pain of others. That is to say, it is tainted by our sinful natures. To me, these examples show that we still have as much, if not more, work to be done on sexism against men as that against women, both inside and outside the formal church.

What do you think? Are men being encouraged to use all of their gifts, even with children, even in the family?

I began considering the issue of chivalry some time ago, inspired by a very close friend of mine—more specifically, when he tried to give me his seat.

On this evening, my small group was meeting in my living room. Though there were a few open chairs, I decided to sit against the wall, since I’m one of those people who is often most comfortable on the floor. This attracted the attention of my friend, who practically leapt off the couch and told me to sit there instead.

I appreciated his gesture, and told him so. I also assured him that I really, truly wanted to sit where I was. A lively dialogue ensued, with him practically begging me to take his seat, and me insisting that I was sure—yes, really sure—that I would much prefer the floor. After more verbal tug-of-war than I care to recount, my friend looked at me helplessly and finally protested, “But… you’re a woman!”

Needless to say, I didn’t particularly appreciate that logic.

When talking with him later, it became evident that this was something he had been raised to believe. Real men give up their seats for women. Real men open doors for women. Real men never let women pump their own gas, always scrape the windshield for them, always carry the groceries, and so on. As a man, my friend simply wanted to honor and serve me, a woman he cared about.

I understood where he was coming from, yet something didn’t feel right. I was perplexed as to why. After all, I appreciate being offered a chair. I have no problem with guys opening a door for me. I actually think it’s great when men go out of their way to do small, thoughtful tasks for the women in their lives.

But as I began to pay attention, the system of chivalry began to reveal its weakness to me—and its weakness is just that: it is a system. Like most social systems, it is really bad at taking into account the full personhood of its members. It gives us lots of instructions and assumptions about how to deal with one another, saving us the trouble of, say, actually knowing one another. We are trained to see a single member of a broad class who consequently requires certain treatment.

Chivalry gives everyone a clear role to play, complete with prescribed duties and responses. It puts pressure on men to prove they are manly by fulfilling certain set duties. It puts pressure on women to prove they are feminine by gladly receiving men’s service, whether it actually serves them or not. Chivalry hinges on entitlement and obligation.

Scripture, on the other hand, gives us a much higher standard for our relationships. Rather than assume things about one another as we follow a script, we are to prefer others above ourselves and consider their best interests alongside our own (Philippians 2:3-4). Rather than ask how much is expected of us, we should lay down our entire lives for our brothers and sisters (1 John 3:16). Servanthood hinges on humility and gratitude.

The issue can be confused sometimes, seeing as chivalry and biblical servanthood can outwardly look the same. But in my observation, the problem with chivalry lies not so much in its actions as its intentions. For instance, it is one thing to be asked, “I see that you have X need; may I do Y for you?” It is another to be told, “I see that you are a woman. I have been well-trained in how to treat women. I shall therefore do Y for you.” The first makes me feel honored and blessed. The second makes me feel embarrassed and a bit put upon. I feel freedom to accept or decline the first offer without hurting anyone’s feelings. I feel nervous that refusing the second will be taken as an affront on someone’s manhood.

What about you? How do you see chivalry compare to biblical servanthood? Does chivalrous conduct hurt or help your relationships with the opposite gender? Is there a better way to interact with one another?

Amanda Beattie

This was my first response to a friend who was inspired by the American revivalist preacher, Paul Washer, in his series on “What it takes to be a man.”  My friend and I are still discussing this issue, but you may wish to comment after viewing, or listening to the sermon content yourself here.

Managed to track down the ‘U tube’ audio of the “What it takes to be a man” message. Pleased to hear that it had such an impact for you personally. The message was in 6×10 minute segments and took a bit of getting through but I got the gist of it. While I can appreciate the guy’s sincerity, passion and belief that this is what the Bible teaches, I did find it very stereotypical, with constant references to manliness and his love for hunting etc. He is right on the money about the western mindset of dating and of how unbiblical and harmful it can be in the development of responsible relationships. Where I strongly disagree with him though is on the issue of men being designed to lead women and to be the sole provider and protector. His premise that until a man is willing to lead and provide for a woman he should not be considering dating a woman, leaves men with the notion that they are destined by God to lead and women are designed to simply follow their lead.

Granted, for some men, possibly yourself included, this seems to give a real purpose for the male role within the marriage, and a lot of what he has to say in that respect is very admirable, but I still hold to the view that “in Christ” men and women are equals which means that each shares the responsibility of leading, discipling and parenting children. Both should be respected and listened to by one another first, and then by the children as they are nurtured within the home. Both have opinions to bring to the table as together they seek to have a home that glorifies the Lord. The danger of this teaching, which I have to admit is very popular, is that a woman can be relegated to the pretty, empty headed and spiritually deficient little thing whose only job in life is to take care of her man by always being there for him and making sure that both she and the home is a place that is attractive to her husband so that he is not tempted to stray.

I will be the first to admit that men, as a general rule, do not step up to the plate and take responsibility within the home, and in that respect messages like this are very timely to motivate men. My concern is that as admirable and passionate as this sounds, it is still culturally rather than biblically motivated. These ideas of family are dated and probably belong in the post war, 1950′s family TV show era. True Biblical injunctions on the other hand are timeless and supra-cultural in that they transcend all cultural, ethnic and class settings. Big words and ideas but what they mean is this; Christ came to fully redeem both men and women from the effects of the curse. Life and work doesn’t have to be difficult and a hard slog as Paul Washer suggests. We are meant to be “in Christ” (as men and women), walking in the spirit, operating from a position of “rest” and total reliance on Him. Both genders are to cultivate the fruit of the Spirit and display a “considering one another, provoking one another to love and good deeds” kind of atmosphere within the home. This can only happen when couples are prepared to be mutually submissive to one another.

So….preparing couples for marriage should include the kind of teaching that doesn’t condemn us to grit our teeth and live out the effects of the curse but should entice and excite us to live in the “new way”, the way of the Spirit, that sets us free and allows both men and women to be all that God wants them to be. The only thing that isn’t easy about this is that we each must give up the rights to our own life and allow Jesus to call the tune. If we are both doing that then it is a win-win situation because each of us is willing to submit to the will of God for our family and for each other. In that sense we can break free of cultural expectations, which exist even in the church, and carve out our own destiny under the guidance of God and His Word. When married couples have the same Christ centred expectations of their relationship, marriage and Kingdom living there is nothing that will create a need for one to have leadership responsibility over the other.

Not long ago we were alerted to an article written by the Rev. Dr Marie Fortune on her blog (see FaithTrust Institute) in which it was reported that a key spokesperson for complementarians stated that there were just two options for husbands whose authority was threatened.

“And husbands on their parts, because they’re sinners, now respond to that threat to their authority by either being abusive…..or more commonly to become passive, acquiescent and simply not asserting the leadership they ought to as men in their homes and churches”

Dr Fortune writes that this ‘insight’ was prefaced with the opinion that the problem begins with women who ‘rebel’ against their husbands who have been given authority over them by God; once again blaming the victim.

We could assume by these statements that here we have someone who has limited experience with domestic violence and has attempted to excuse behaviours which are obviously ungodly.

The third option of course is for husbands and wives to stand side by side as equal partners, faithful to each other and submitting to one another in love. No abuse here by either person and an opportunity to demonstrate true Christ-like qualities.