Of course that piqued my interest. “Bad” You Tube videos come in many different flavors: Would this video be poor quality, offensive, or just plain bizarre? With wide eyes and low expectations, I turned toward Kate’s computer.

As it turned out, the video’s humor was based on a grossly exaggerated negative stereotype of a U.S. American man of one culture hitting on a woman of another at the cinema. Kate had been introduced to the clip after the Bible study she co-leads, and while she chuckled at it ridiculousness, she found it completely offensive, inappropriate, and unfair.

Against the opinion of many friends, I agreed that the video was racist, and I was frustrated the skit had aired on a major television network. However, after further consideration I realized it does convey a sliver of truth. Even if its portrayal of women and men of certain cultures is inaccurate, it shows that someone somewhere finds the way certain men relate to certain women disgusting. This focus on supposed differences can lead us to consider a larger issue at hand: If not as the video portrays, how do we behave when we’re interacting across both gender and cultural lines?

Every (sub-)cultural group has its own flirtation norms, meaning that when individuals of two cultures interact, they’re often playing by two sets of rules. Men and women are frequently on separate pages already, so compounding that existing divide with an ethnic-or class-based cultural gap can make communication quite complex, especially when it comes to initiating (or stalling) romance.

I think for us as egalitarians, these cultural differences make life pretty darn tricky. Sometimes the male-female scripts of a particular culture don’t seem to match up with my egalitarian ideals, and it’s easy to rush to (sometimes inaccurately) label others as sexist. My lack of cultural fluency sometimes leaves me confused about whether a man is hitting on me or how I might respond appropriately, which might in extreme situations lead to cases of potential sexual harassment, as one culture would define. And obviously, ignorance paired with prejudice leads to the kind of media portrayal we saw in this video.

The long-term solution, I think, is to pair our work for local and global gender equality with intentional efforts to understand people that are culturally different from us. As we get to know them and better get to know ourselves, we’ll be able to live together with less miscommunication. Greater clarity in all relationships will benefit cross-gender relations, as well, as we begin to understand the rules that dictate flirting, friendship, and the like. Plus, confusing—even offending—each other gives us practice embracing patience and grace.

In the meantime, any thoughts on navigating male-female interaction across the cultural divide?

Now, if we could only learn to look beyond the physical appearance of a person and get to know the heart it would solve a lot of issues including those of pornography, lust, objectification, etc.

God chose to give us a human body for our limited time on earth, so it must be a good thing in itself. However, the body has been affected by sin just like everything else, and as we age the beauty and innocence of our bodies gets tarnished either from sin or decay. Throughout Scripture, the body is described as a house for the real person inside – a temporary place of residence while on this earth. There are references to caring for our bodies, protecting more sensitive parts, not using our bodies for wrong purposes, as well as extolling the place of the body in honorable lovemaking.

Psalm 139 says we are fearfully and wonderfully made, so if we believe that for ourselves and other people it should help us to have a balanced attitude to our temporary bodies. A person who does not recognize or believe in God or life after death can have a careless attitude towards bodies and the people they house because there is no sense of permanence for the personality which shines out. Whereas, for those of us who believe, our bodies can be vehicles through which the light of God can shine.

We can’t change the way others look at bodies but we can let our light shine in the way we treat other people and then maybe some may see our ‘good works’ and give praise to our God.

Back in the day in my youth group as well as my college fellowship, I heard the same kind of rhetoric being promoted. In talks about purity, it was always the girls who were called out. Fingers were wagged at the girls to be selective about what they wore in order to keep guys pure. And the message was clear: girls, it’s your responsibility to keep the guys from lusting, and if they do end up sinning (lusting), it’s your fault for not being careful!

What does this do but give a girl an inaccurately negative concept of her body and her sexuality?

Yes, it is true that women should dress responsibly (I, in no way would dispute avoiding scandalous, revealing clothes), but at the same time I would add to this young woman’s blog, ‘Boys: look away and stop lusting!’ She failed to mention this as do many youth pastors and counselors (and sadly, I must confess, even me in my complementarian days as a youth advisor).

In every message about purity to young people, it needs to be made clear that it is not the girls’ responsibility to keep their brothers from stumbling; it is the guys’ responsibility to keep themselves from stumbling. It is the brothers who need to avert their eyes and control their passions.

Have you heard similar one-sided teaching? How is sexual purity taught in your church? How can it be improved?

‘It’s fantastic, but there’s still a lot to fight for. There are many things that need fighting for so women can finally be valued for what we are worth.’

‘I don’t think it will contribute much to promote equality, but at least it gives women a place there [in traffic lights].’

‘I think it’s really silly. A single sign changing from green to red, allowing or prohibiting crossing is enough.’

Personally, I can see that they have the best interest at heart, but unfortunately, their simple solution seems to underscore the opposite of their intention. Aren’t they just reinforcing the old sexist stereotypes of feminism – skirts, ribbons, and ponytails? What do you think? Is this silly or significant?

Here is the link to the story.

In my case, my family was very good in the way it valued women. My father didn’t look at other women, even though my mother was overweight. There were no suggestive magazines around. But even though my home environment was positive, the overall culture emphasized that what was most important about a woman was the shape of her body. Women who dressed suggestively were praised and favored by men. They were celebrated by the culture. I found myself tempted to dress in a manner that emphasized my body. Thankfully, between my home environment and my Christian faith I was able to resist the temptation and never acted on it.

Through the grace of God I no longer have this temptation. It’s not that I don’t want to get married, I do. But, I no longer see the shape of my body as being important.

How seriously are women being deceived by our culture into believing our value is based on the shape of our body, with those women with more curvy features being considered more valuable than women with less curvy features? I know it affected me as evidenced by the years it took for me to lose the desire to dress suggestively.

How has it affected your life?

“The subjection of women in Muslim societies–especially in Arab nations and in Iran–is today very much in the public eye. Accounts of lashings, stonings, and honor killings are regularly in the news, and searing memoirs by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Azar Nafisi have become major best-sellers. One might expect that by now American feminist groups would be organizing protests against such glaring injustices, joining forces with the valiant Muslim women who are working to change their societies. This is not happening.”

She goes on a couple of paragraphs down: “The condition of Muslim women may be the most pressing women’s issue of our age, but for many contemporary American feminists it is not a high priority. Why not? The reasons are rooted in the worldview of the women who shape the concerns and activities of contemporary American feminism. That worldview is–by tendency and sometimes emphatically–antagonistic toward the United States, agnostic about marriage and family, hostile to traditional religion, and wary of femininity. The contrast with Islamic feminism could hardly be greater.”

Sommers then follows with example after example of the skewed priorities of American (secular) feminism and takes them to task for their moral short sightedness. She sites Katha Pollitt, a columnist at the Nation, for example, who draws a “common thread of misogyny” between Christian Evangelicals and the Taliban, and journalist Barbara Ehrenreich, who characterizes Christian evangelical movements (that’s us!) as “Christian Wahhabism,” i.e., the name of the sect that is the inspiration for Osama bin Laden. These radical feminist philosophies “collapse moral categories in ways that defy logic, common sense, and basic decency,” such as casually placing “limiting young people’s access to accurate information about sex and opposing abortion [in the U.S.] on the same plane as throwing acid in women’s faces and stoning them to death” [in third world countries]. Likewise they seem to be “incapable of distinguishing between private American groups that stigmatize gays and foreign governments that hang them.”

It may be that some of these feminists are tied up in knots by multiculturalism, she says, and find it difficult to pass judgment on non-Western cultures. Maybe they find it easier to find fault with American society for minor inequities than criticizing heinous practices elsewhere. To her credit, Sommers does mention some activity in the secular feminist movement, such as Eleanor Smeal and Mavis Leno’s efforts with the Feminist Majority Foundation (FMF) to create a national campaign in 1997 to expose the crimes of the Taliban.

Fortunately, Muslim women are creating their own growing movement to address their plight. “Islamic feminists,” says Sommers, “believe that women’s rights are compatible with Islam rightly understood. One of their central projects is progressive religious reform. Through careful translation and interpretation of the Koran and other sacred texts, scholars challenge interpretations that have been used to justify sexist customs. They point out that forced veiling, arranged marriages, and genital cutting are rooted in tribal paganism and are nowhere enjoined by the Koran. Where the Koran explicitly permits a practice such as the physical chastisement of wives by husbands, the feminist exegetes try to show that, like slavery, the practice is anachronistic and incompatible with the true spirit of the faith. This kind of interpretation of scripture has been practiced by Jewish, Christian, and Islamic scholars for centuries. Now Islamic women want to play a part in it, and nothing in Islamic law, they believe, prohibits their doing so.”

I don’t know how much of this slanted piece I believe, but it does appear that Islamic feminism differs radically from its best known contemporary American secular counterpart — having instead a faith-based, family-centered and positive-towards-men approach. Too bad that the CBE version of gender equality isn’t better known, or Sommers might have seen some hope in America.

I appreciate CBE’s international scope and was happy to see the most recent issue of Priscilla Papers highlights gender justice worldwide. The moral need and imperative to engage Muslims can’t be emphasized enough. Does anyone else see an opportunity for Christian egalitarians to dialog with and help our Muslim sisters? Although the details may be different, we speak the same type of religious language and have similar approaches. Perhaps some CBE members have already involved themselves in such projects. If so, why aren’t they better known? Maybe if [more/bigger/more impressive] joint projects could be undertaken, perhaps both our respective patriarchal societies could be helped.

Hurrah to the men who have taken this pledge; may the power of the Holy Spirit strengthen them to keep it. But why aren’t the women concerned about their own sexual purity? Is not such a pledge appropriate for them as well? Wouldn’t it be less likely for an adulterous relationship to begin—at least within the congregation—if the “desperate housewives” were as committed to purity as their male counterparts? Knowing the women are praying for your commitment is no doubt encouraging to the men; knowing that the women have also committed to guard their own sexuality would be even more heartening.

I couldn’t help but wonder how much more effective this program would be if the leadership threw off the traditional stereotypes of men as sexual and women as emotional, and recognized that all adult human beings, male and female, face sexual temptation—on their televisions, computers, and magazines; in the workplace; and, yes, even in the church. What a powerful congregation would exist if the men and women respected each other as fallen-but-redeemed brothers and sisters, and prayed for each other to be transformed body and soul into Christ’s image!

1. Have you been in a church with a similar program but one which successfully avoided the stereotypes? Was it effective in spiritually encouraging both men and women?

2. What other church programs have you observed that start with the right motive of encouraging biblical living, but miss the mark because of gender stereotypes?

3. What might be an appropriate method of respectfully protesting such programs and presenting to the church leadership an alternate program grounded in a fuller biblical view of humanity?

I, [daughter's name]‘s father, choose before God to cover my daughter as her authority and protection in the area of purity. I will be pure in my own life as a man, husband and father. I will be a man of integrity and accountability as I lead, guide and pray over my daughter and as the high priest in my home. This covering will be used by God to influence generations to come.

This year the same organization put on an Integrity Ball for mothers and sons. There was no mention of the mothers making a pledge to their sons, but here is the pledge the sons take:

I, _________________________, choose before God to remain pure in my lifestyle, as I grow toward the goal of manhood, and until such a time that I marry.

I will be a young man of integrity and accountability as I strive to be an example to those around me. I will be bold and courageous, no matter what.

Today, I choose to seek after the high calling of God in every area of my life.

During the Purity Balls girls and teenagers are told to keep themselves pure for their future husbands, and as seen in the pledge, fathers pledge to “cover” their daughters and protect their virginity. During the Integrity Balls boys are told that the every girl they will date is someone else’s daughter and potentially someone else’s future husband. Would these young men want another man messing around with their future wife? Boys pledge to take charge of their lives and body; fathers pledge that they will protect their daughter’s virginity. Exactly how does Generations of Light (the organization behind the balls) view women?

Generations of Light view women as objects to be managed by men: first by fathers then by husbands. Instead children and teenagers should be taught that they are created in the image of God, and for that reason alone they need to respect each other. Boys should have been told that every girl they date is made in the image of God, and he needs to respect her and treat her accordingly, and girls need to hear the same thing. Christian teenagers also need to realize that first and foremost they are brothers and sisters in Christ. They might date, and they might break up. They will eventually get married, but through all those transient relationships, they are still brothers and sisters in Christ.

Another thing that needs to be addressed is that girls and women have sexual drives and needs as well as boys and men. This assumption that men are aggressively sexual and women are to be passive resistors of temptation is a horrible patriarchal myth that needs to end. Both men and women have sex drives, and both men and women have access to the fruit of self-control that the Spirit gives us. We should be teaching our teenagers how to cultivate self-control and set boundaries that will help them keep these pledges they make. It goes without saying that girls should be making their own pledges to take control of their lives and bodies as do the boys.

When men and women view each other as made in the image of God, and as brothers and sisters in Christ, we can respect each other and cultivate the self-control that is necessary to resist sexual (and all other) temptations. When a woman is a person in her own right and a man respects that, then they can set biblical guidelines and boundaries to their relationships.