The most popular post on this iteration of my blog – at least in terms of comments – has been this one called “Men, Women & Friendship.” This morning, as I was working through Google Reader, scanning the blogs that I follow, I came across this article. I’ve copied the whole post here. I would love to hear y’all’s thoughts… especially those of you that commented on the original thread. If you want to see the post on it’s original site and see some of the comments there, here’s the link.
The Devil’s Gateway
“. . . you are the devil’s gateway. . . you are she who persuaded him, whom the devil did not dare attack. . . . Do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on your sex, lives on in this age; the guilt, necessarily, lives on too.”
—TertullianThe view of woman as “temptress” has early roots and is alive and well today both in the wider culture (see links below) and sadly also in Christian circles.I was a speaker at a gathering of pastors who were interested in doing a better job of utilizing women’s gifts. The first question asked during the open forum afterwards stunned me, “If we work with women, won’t we be tempted?”What followed was not a candid discussion about the heart and where is the real problem when there is a moral failure (as in as what goes on behind closed doors when a man is alone with his computer), but a laundry list of precautions to safeguard oneself from moral hazards when working or dealing with women.Women find this kind of thinking offensive, and rightly so. This low view of women conflicts with the Bible’s high redemptive view of us. What strikes me as I think about this, however, is that this negative view of women also reflects badly on men as testosterone driven, morally weak, and unable to control themselves. This is not to say that our sex-saturated culture doesn’t create serious problems for everyone. But it is one thing to think wisely about modesty and conduct and quite another to view women as seductresses.So here are my questions:First, are men also outraged by the temptress view of women—because of what it implies about them? And second, is it possible to hold a low view of women without degrading men?Your thoughts?
Twitter Updates
My general view about this is to blame how our culture handles the general interaction between the sexes. Since I can remember the pressure to be in a relationship (emotionally or sexually) seems to be the driving force in America’s media and culture. This is problematic in that this pressure combined with the hormones of puberty and young adulthood create such a pressure cooker for young people that it drives many to feel inadequate or weird if they decide to focus anywhere else. It’s been my experience that these feelings more often than not may lead to poor decisions to be made while still very young.
The result of all of this pressure when were young is Americas big problem in sexually mal-adjusted adults. If we learn at such a young age that sex and promiscuity is such a readily acceptable if not EXPECTED act then what is going to change our minds when we’re older?
I guess though going back to the question at hand I don’t believe woman are by nature temptress or men by nature weak and sex crazed. This seems more a case of nature vs nurture where us a generation raised by the media is at a severe disadvantage.
Piero
PS- I’m very bad a writing comments back so I hold the right to correct anything I say “in writing” in conversation
Didn’t someone once say “it takes two to tango”?
1. Yes, this view of women is an outrage. It is propagated from generation to generation in subtle ways. Certainly the Bible, Koran, and other authoritative texts written by men have been very injurious to women.
2. I don’t think it’s possible to hold a prejudiced low view of another human being without also degrading yourself.
In this example, a man’s claim of weakness does nothing to injure his reputation. It points the blame at the woman, both for being seductive and for taking advantage of his weakness. Using the excuse, “I’m a man, and we are all weak that way” brings all men down and takes the personal blame off of him.
Complete BS.
“I don’t think it’s possible to hold a prejudiced low view of another human being without also degrading yourself.”
What a thoughtful response.
Thanks for you comments!
I agree with you all, and yet I found myself in a position where my views on subjects like this put me in a minority. SIGH.
(a minority among other pastors, that is, not among the people at our church)
The logic used in the pamphlet and in the eve-teasing is extremely biased in favor of men. It takes two to tango. Men and women both do things, conscious and subconscious, to attract someone. Men typically respond to the outward appearances. Women tend to look for other things (sorry faux -hawkers).
Look at all the famous poetry (Keats, Neruda, Shakespeare, Donne) written to woo women in prior centuries. Men use words and smooth talking. But I’m sure there are no pamphlets blaming men for using their voice and causing girls to lust, right?
If we used the same logic that these people subscribe to, then love poems, love songs, cologne, perfume, Axe products, nice shoes, a good smile, dreamy eyes, a deep voice, confidence, quick wit, good personality, good job, fast cars, and motorcycles etc. would all be considered part of the “devil’s tool-chest” to lure women into sin. And men using them, even innocently, would be partaking in that sin.
Take for instance, my hypothetical friend Jack who followed similar logic:
Jack – “I had to stop driving my awesome truck because it was attracting to many girls at the NASCAR races and bars I frequent. I just didn’t want to be a part of their sinful lust for me. Once I was aware that my biceps, chest hair, and Dodge HEMI was turning women towards sinful thoughts, I had to stop working out, shave my chest, and buy a humble Plymouth Acclaim. But, then I started to attract different kinds of women, ones that wanted me for my smooth chest, soft arms, and down-to-earth practical lifestyle. It felt pretty much like a no win situation.”
This topic has still been on my mind. I was reading some of the Talmud, a pretty old “holy book” still in use today. It commands the observant one to thank his maker every day that he was not born a woman. This low view of women seems to run through religious texts, which is compelling evidence that they are man made. They are all from the masculine perspective. The Old Testament, as we condescendly call it, basically has woman cloned from a man for his use and comfort. The New Testament has St. Paul expressing fear and contempt for the female. It’s no wonder that the pastors (all male by the way) in the commentary above, who draw their education and council from these texts, cannot think of a woman in any modern rational way. They are stuck I’m the past, diseased by these ancient thoughts.
Now some may say “that was then, but we don’t think that way anymore.” But how far has the Christian church actually come? Clearly in the article above the pastor group seems to struggle with and fear women. “let’s give them something to do, and meanwhile let’s come up with some obsessive compulsive rules to help us from their temptatious ways.”
I came across a book called The Young Evangelicals, published in 1974. It gives a very insightful look into the sociological views that were being formed in the Christian church during the 70′s. Here’s an excerpt (see if any of this view may still echo in the church today):
“Orthodoxy has not yet taken Women’s Liberation seriously. In almost all non-Pentecostal Evangelical or Fundamentalist denominations, women are not ordained to the ministry. “Unmarriageable” types, however, may be encouraged by their churches to make the ultimate sacrifice – to become a missionary. Single females are welcome on the mission field, but not in the home pulpit. Alternatively, an aspiring young lady with a graduate degree in theology might be called by an Orthodox church to become an unordained director of Christian education – for less pay than her ordained male counterpart would get for the same job. But, for a marriageable young lady in the typical Fundamentalist or Evangelical congregation, the highest vocational aspiration she can have is to become the wife of a minister. Every Orthodox pastor – lest he be regarded as a playboy or, worse yet, a homosexual – must have a wife. In taking on a minister, the young woman will lose her identity completely. The ideal pastor’s wife is simply an extension of her mate – sweet, sociable but not aggressive, talented, above reproach in her behavior and, above all, entirely submissive to the will and career of her husband. As such, she becomes a “nonperson” in every sense of the word.” P.58-59