Notes on a Scandalous Life

Last month, the Guardian published a really interesting article that deals with the prevailing attitude among the Big 3 (Islam, Judaism, and Christianity) that God hates women. Well, maybe he doesn't hate us, but he definitely created us to play supporting roles, at best.

The article is not anti-religious; actually, it seeks to reconcile religion to the modern blending of gender roles by pointing out that the abandonment of patriarchy does not necessarily need to lead to a disconnect from religion, but from history.

First, the authors gives examples of sexism in the modern practice of each of the Big 3: an Islamic man beating his daughter to death for liking a British guy, the Baptist church's official statement on the duties of womanhood (why, submission to our respective spouses, of course!), and a snide comment from the Pope in 2008, when he said that modern standards of gender equality take away from the differences that God established between the sexes.

None of this is groundbreaking, of course (and, Protestant-ly speaking, scant little of it is Biblical, either, considering Jesus' attitude toward and treatment of women), and, so, the article probes further, asking the question: "Why do so so many women actively participate in their own demeaning?" After all, we often make up a larger percentage of church-goers than men, even though we are typically stuffed into positions of subordinance and non-plus-ery. This is something about which I've often wondered, myself, and the article offered several possible explanations:

1. "Religions are sticky", and hard to get out of with any saving-of-face, especially for women, who are encouraged even less to think and act for themselves than their congregational male counterparts.

2. Because women, religious or not, tend to have more monotonous lives than men, going to church infuses a little excitement - provided the woman behaves herself and doesn't, OMG!, talk back to someone with a penis.

3. The article's final and, I think, ultimate answer is that religion consoles its members for what it has removed from them in the first place. Because religion often implements sexism in a big way, it also makes sure to let its members (men included, because it's not like they're all enjoying the pressures of traditional gender roles, either) know that life does, indeed, suck, but that God has something less crappy in store for them in the next life. Just as long as the men assume the responsibility of maintaining a dictatorship in their households, and the women are "submissive".

While all of the explanations make sense and are probably true in a lot of cases, the last one rings the most true for me, especially for those of us who were raised in the church. As the authors put it: "It's the sad, familiar, heartrending bargain in which the victim embraces the perpetrator, in some complicated, confusing, all-too-human mix of appeasement, need and stubborn loyalty. The fact that the embrace is all on one side is resolutely ignored."

Last night, I finished reading Charlotte Temple. This book was never exactly at the top of my reading list, but it was assigned to me for school. Sometimes, I get this weird urge to actually do my homework.

The story is frustrating, but at least it's simple - Charlotte is an unsuspecting innocent who, under the influence of a sketchy French schoolteacher and a manipulative suitor, makes the mistake of eloping to America. As a result, she dies. The book is sort of a Puritanical cautionary tale - young women, says the author, are not fit to decide whom they should and should not marry; that's up to the parents. Men, you see, are sneaky bastards, and will ship you off to America, get you pregnant, and then leave you. Forget finding another man once you're there, by the way, because, once you've lost your chastity, no man will take you seriously again. Ever.

Overlooking not-too-subtle message of "disobeying your parents and having premarital sex automatically leads to pregnancy and death", Rowson's warning to young women DOES have its roots in some sound reason. There weren't many autonomous women at that time, and, so, women depended on either their parents or husband for support. Breaking the ties between you and your parents left you entirely at the mercy of your significant other, so, if that failed, you probably would have pretty much just been screwed.

In America today, women do not suffer so much from a lack of potential to obtain autonomy (or birth control), but some people still cling to the method of finding a mate that Rowson proposes in her book. It's called courtship, and, in theory, it keeps you from having your heart broken by the dating game, because you'll never spend any time alone with your significant other until you're married. Rather, your parents will supervise all your interaction, and, ultimately, determine whether you can or cannot marry the person you are "courting". In Charlotte Temple, we see where the ideology behind courtship is rooted: young women are ruled by their emotions, and, so, their parents ought to guide them in choosing a mate. Otherwise, men will surely take advantage of us, and, heaven forbid, have sex with us, and we will get pregnant and die.

Last night's new Intervention might possibly rank as my second-favorite episode of all time, topped only by alcoholic/meth-head/frequently-nude Cristy ("I'm just on a permament good one that none of you guys will ever get to experience"). It featured Polish twins Sonia and Julia, who, due to some very dramatic sibling rivalry and codependency, had somehow both grown up to be some crazy, anorexic bitches.

The girls problems manifested due to their lifelong competition to be the "skinny twin". So, they kind of hated each other. But, then, they were practically attached at the hip, so they had to find a way to deal with their rivalry. The solution, of course, was to adopt the same exact rigorous diet and exercise routine, so that no one would have to worry about the other twin sneaking in, uh, less food.

Dark-haired twin was a dead ringer for Brandon's roommate's equally-skinny, equally-whiny girlfriend, so I got to enjoy a little vitriolic mental substitution, which was nice. The really interesting part of the show, though, was the way the parents of the twins reacted to their daughters' mental illness. As migrants from Poland, they just didn't get why anyone would struggle with food in such a way - they were just happy to be in America, where, in contrast to Poland, the getting is good, in the food department. I'm unsure of exiting data on this matter, but it seems like Anorexia is pretty much a product of our culture, which, contradictingly, offers us way more food than we need, and then encourages us to worship the bodies of unfed people.

A group of Evangelicals in Milwaukee, Wisconsin is plying the local government for the right to remove and burn a YA book about a gay teen (ALA). This article reminded me of a list of banned and contested books that my Adolescent Literature teacher showed the class last semester. The list also included various complaints made against the books - one individual called Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath "filth".

As someone who likes books a lot, I am strongly against the banning or burning of any work of literature, even books that I myself hate (although it would be really, really hard to resist attending a Wild at Heart bonfire). It's ridiculous that this still takes place today, but, then, I think of the fact that The Grapes of Wrath is generally considered to be pretty non-threatening, today. This book that's currently being contested in Wisconsin will eventually fall under the same category - after conservatives succeed only in making it desirable reading for young adults by drawing attention to its "wickedness".