Gender Holes

I lean forward in my seat, set my elbows on the table, and look at the man across from me. Fascinated with the gender roles and their impact on my life, I have finally come to the point of true learning - questions. "But Steve, if this is all true, where…what is the defining source of gender roles?" He broke into the broadest smile, then let his answer just hang over the table: "societal norms." Like a deep-sea diver's first breath at the surface, the words leave me both relieved and bewildered.

The past year has shifted my views on gender roles and relationships. Or perhaps there's a better way to summarize - that what was once ignorantly static is now excitedly dynamic. I know of few better changes to make in life.

It started with a girl. And doesn't it always? Stuck together in a year-long service program, we were practically destined to frustrate each other. This girl was (and is) a strong initiator, planner, and achiever, someone who is incredibly gifted at serving others. Along those lines, she detested when anyone would serve her in turn. In contrast, everything in my past trained me to serve women wherever possible. It was my job - no, assumption - that I should hold doors, carry heavy boxes, pay for dates, walk closest to the street, drive, and so on. We all have our sensitivities - mine happens to be women who stress themselves out trying to do and control everything. 

 You can imagine our assumption-based spats, which left both of us frustrated and angry.  Fortunately, we not only learned to understand and appreciate our differences but grew as friends through the process. And while I can’t speak for her, I do know that our conflict forced me to examine my own motives. Why do I hold doors or carry things – is it just to impress girls? Where do all of these unspoken standards in my head come from? What's the background for them in culture as a whole?  

That beginning set the stage for a slew of deep conversations with friends, challenging mentors, and surprising articles.

Next, I dated a girl. And that experience moved me not through any particular conversation as much as the gravitational effect of her dynamism. She was smart, strong, and passionate - especially on issues of equality. This immediately became apparent on first date, as I repeatedly had to dash ahead/fight to get the door for her. Later I teased - was such an "emancipated" woman like her comfortable with me opening my car door for her? Evidently that stuck, because at a later date she firmly demanded to pay for the night and reflected my own question back at me: was a man as "strong" as I comfortable with a woman paying for a date? My objections were immediately quenched by her raised-eyebrow challenge, sparking a series of fiery questions in me. Why? Am I somehow less of a man if she pays? True, spent money is one indicator of interest, but I'd paid for several dates already. Wouldn't it be nice to split the costs sometimes? Isn't there a point where it's less about principle and more practicality? Perhaps a better question: what would her paying communicate? A lack of interest on my part (clearly not), or openness and humility by letting her serve me in turn? She paid. And I ruminated.

Exploration of this concept continued – that relationship isn't two rigid parallel paths but rather a fog-ridden island you explore hand-in-hand. Questions just kept coming. Where do our gender expectations come from? Are they nature or nurture?

I casually asked friends about the origin of their thoughts on gender roles. Almost universally, the answers were entirely unhelpful - personal experience and/or family. Hardly a scientific basis. One mother stays at home with seven children while her salesman husband travels. Another mom works as a doctor while the father stays home, daytrades stocks and does housework. Every practical “norm” had its counter-example. So it's hard to pin down gender roles. In that case, why not attack the issue from a different angle? What is it men or women distinctly cannot do? What are the gender holes? Alright. Men can't bear children, women can't conceive alone, and other obvious physical differences abound. Men tend to have greater upper-body strength, and women better balance (lower center of gravity and all that). Men tend to have a stronger singular focus, while many women excel at doing many things at once (or do they?). But these are more obvious traits – I’m looking for relational characteristics. At the question of gender holes, friends provided almost identical responses: men don't initiate, communicate, or follow through. Women are complicated, random, and frustrating. But these are all generalizations, fodder for comedians and country music, and I can name several men and women off the top of my head that shatter these categories. Suddenly the negative approach is getting nowhere. So if gender holes are a dead end, perhaps we should turn around. Who can easily define what a man or woman is? That question is reflected throughout our culture as a constant struggle for identity. From a very insightful article:

"Men [tend to] define masculinity by being different from women. So this unisex culture has resulted in two things. More men are driven into stereotypical macho behavior to prove their masculinity. And they simply withdraw from any sphere which becomes identified with women." Thus we have a culture confused and polarized: full of boys and girls that either fit stereotypes or define themselves through empty rebellion, both equally misaligned and lost. As I'm male and dare not speak too much on the fairer and more inscrutable sex, let me focus on masculinity. From another post, what defines a man? Is it upper-body strength, facial hair, or the ability to pee standing up? Or maybe it's our ability to make money, win fights, and pick up girls? No.

“A man is someone who has qualities that distinguish him from a boy: responsibility, leadership, and integrity.” That's a nice handy quote. Yet when I broaden my perspective again and apply this to the genders…this certainly doesn't mean that women are not also distinguished by their capacity for responsibility, leadership, and integrity. Again, we’re attempting to draw definition through the negative. And masculinity is not the opposite of femininity. A positive towards one gender does not imply a negative towards the other. If I said women must initiate more (which I will), immediately there'd be a backlash from girls angrily wondering why men shouldn't initiate as well. But that's not the point being made, is it? Obviously, sensitivities abound when dealing with gender. This scene from the Father of the Bride comes to mind. Honestly, I agree on many levels with modern feminism. I completely agree that many elements of our culture objectify women, from Disney to Die Hard.

Credit: xkcd.com

But it's naïve to stop there and think the objectification is one-sided. Why is it so hard to think of TV shows where the husband is a good role model for his kids and isn't stupid, lazy, or irresponsible? Or where the wife doesn't constantly nag him and pick up his slack? Yes, I do believe that through much of history, the vocational mobility and basic rights of women have been limited and violated. But your have to broaden your perspective on the issue. Gender is an equation. Subtract from one side, and you lessen the other. Whether in the past or the present, whenever one gender is limited, the other is equally bound. Limiting this to "women's rights" alone forgets the perspective of a far more important cause - human rights. If culture restricts women to the home, men are excluded from their critical role in family life. And if men are pigeonholed as the sole possible breadwinners, the potential workforce is halved. Do you see? Men and women are two sides of the same coin, built for one another. Gender labels always chain both sides with unrealistic expectations, unspoken frustrations, and unmet desires. Whether you label men as lazy sports nuts or women as helpless princesses, you don’t just limit their capacity for the give-and-take of real relationship – you limit the relationships, families, economies, and futures of the world.

To put fact behind that: NPR interviewed Hillary Clinton today, who spoke briefly on this exact topic. She mentioned a study (this one, I believe) that made a compelling case about economic roles of women. "The failure to include women in the formal economy [directly] led to lower a standard of living and lower gross domestic product." Going back to the equation metaphor. We are equal, but not the same. Meaning we must be careful not to unconsciously associate difference with inequality. Perhaps this is the best way to say it: celebrate the differences, while not making them straightjacket stereotypes. At this point I was still unsatisfied. I felt stuck; there’s gotta be something deeper than societal momentum and negative definitions. So I went to the deepest source of truth and the beginning of our “is”. 

“…the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man […] therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” – Genesis 2:21-25 (ESV). So much deep stuff here. But I only want to highlight two points: first, that woman came not from the foot or the head of man, but the side. As an equal. Second, that men and women are made for each other, as two pieces meant to become whole. But that’s not the entire story. The Fall changed everything, and I bet offhand you can detail the results of the curse. Women get pain in childbirth, and men had their work made difficult, right? Let’s look at the former: “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth.” Nothing new here, but you have to finish the verse: “…and you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you” (Genesis 3:16, NLT). I chose the NLT because it uniquely includes the word “control” (other translations put it in the footnotes). Do you see what this verse means? Both that the genders were destined to be in conflict from the beginning, and that our conflict is a curse. And that's not supposed to be ok. With that as a foundation, the next step is to use scripture to interpret scripture. For the sake of time – and the importance of you discovering your own process – I’ll summarize my findings. As I went through the Bible with an eye for gender roles, three realizations emerged. First, while many stories describe women in subordinate roles (the latter half of Genesis, Judges, Kings), nothing implies these are imperatives, while everything indicates these were societal norms of the time. You cannot get ‘ought’ from ‘is’. Separating the historical norms (the ises) from actual commands (the shoulds) provides a ton of breathing room. Second, I found verse after verse (Proverbs) emphasizing the critical role of both a father and a mother in the home. Yet nothing forbids women from work, holding office, the vote, and so on. Instead, the opposite is emphasized, both in the Old and New Testament. Proverbs 31 lists many traits of a “wife of noble character” – foremost among them being her ability to take initiative, make huge business decisions, and provide for the home. Have you ever read the story of Ruth and noted her incredible blend of boldness, initiative, and humility? And to the shock of those around him, Christ continually brought women into the spotlight, reinstated their value and spoke to them as complete equals – from the prostitute about to be stoned or the Samaritan woman (John 4). The list goes on - like Deborah, the Song of Solomon, Mary as the mother of Christ, and Ephesians 5.
A bookending point from Mark. The Sadducees questioned Jesus, asking: if a woman’s husband dies and she remarries, whose wife will she be in heaven? Christ’s response: “When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Mark 12:8 NIV). Wow. What does that mean – that we’ll be genderless? Well, we are made in the image of God. Therefore gender is a mystery, as it's sourced from mystery that is God. Do we really believe God's image could be fully demonstrated in two physical, broken halves? If nothing else, Mark 12 is perspective. Yes, this conflict is destined, frustrating, and broken. But this verse means those chains of curse-driven gender conflict will be broken one day in heaven, and that we will finally be free and true images of God. There is an end to this struggle. It feels like I've been in too many churches that promote the 1950s-esque gender roles: that a real man can’t possibly stay at home with the kids, and that a woman couldn’t possibly be interested in a career. How silly. God created us each with a purpose - individual and unique. Hammering out precise vocational roles – whether using the Bible or personal experience – is like trying to keep water in my pockets. Liquid indeed has unwritten laws it follows, but trying to enforce my own wishes on it just leaves me wet and frustrated.

Metaphors and analogies seem to be the key to this. Here’s a last one: it's like singing. Basic genetics and hormones differentiate our voices, yet professional male vocalists can sing incredibly high, and professional women vice-versa. But that's not the point, is it? The point is when we sing together, the complement creates a magical harmony you wouldn't find in singularity. “It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him” (Gen. 2:18) – amen, we were made for each other. Men and women are not mere gender, restricted, unknown, and full of holes. We are a gender, whole. 

Bonus points if you know what musical this is.

In closing, I found this article particularly poignant. It’s short, powerfully written, and worth the read. A favorite line out of many: “We are people first, gender second.” 

To answer my earlier question of why: I hold doors, jump to carry heavy things, pay for dinner - all because that's a strong way I show value and respect. Acts of Service - be they with doors or dishes or dancing - are one of my love languages. That’s a personal norm. And if a girl is so insecure to take that as patronization, I feel for her. Because this norm doesn't just apply to girls. Romance highlights love languages - but they apply to all interactions with others, young and old, men and women alike. Christianity blatantly releases service from the restrictions of gender in Luke 10, where Christ urges us to serve our neighbor (everyone), regardless of who or what they are. The fact is, allowing someone to serve you doesn't communicate weakness. No, true strength is the knowledge that you’re not strong enough, that you need other people and that serving each other is the fuel of love. True strength is humility. And as a man I look for a girl who lives out of abundance in that strength, not out of scarcity that needs me to fill her. 

To shoot at the other side: ladies, you should realize the application here. As a principle, you must – not just can – initiate; in conversation, a dance, lunch, whatever! Never let yourself sit on the side of a room wishing some guy would talk to you - go introduce yourself, ask him how his day went, etc. In practicality, of course use discretion and common sense (read more about that in detail right here). Now this in no way means men shouldn't initiate as well. Instead, I'm saying that your own initiative is a fantastic test of a real man, who will initiate right back if he's both interested and worth anything. And if he's not interested or worth it, who cares? Just be open for whatever adventure awaits you in this fog-ridden island of relationship.