Charcoal And Pencil

This is the fourth post of a series that began May 11. To begin at the very beginning (a very good place to start), scroll to May 11 and read "On To John", then "Hello God? Is AnyBODY Out There?", then "A Rather Dry Ending..."

I've agonized over this post - I feel like I'm painting a picture, but each stroke is so offensive or odd that to watch it being painted will take away from the ability to appreciate the whole.

I have an idea I want to share with you. It is made of many strokes. But today I'll just pick up the charcoal or maybe even a pencil and sketch...

Here is the background.

1) As a society (church society and folks who grew up around it, which is just about everybody), we generally devalue the physical. We tend to think we are inside our bodies instead of being our bodies. This tendency comes from Greek Platonic ideas that seeped into Christianity with Augustine, Aquinas and friends. Credit for this idea goes to Dr. Robert Rapa (whom I hope will soon have a link here!), N.T. Wright's book, "What Saint Paul Really Said" and the Human Puzzler. From a philosophical perspective (in relation to Eldredge), see also Steve's remarks in the Comment Section of my post entitled, "Hello God? Is AnyBODY Out There?"

2) At the same time we devalue our physical nature, we inherently sense that our sexuality (femininity/masculinity) is intergral to who we are.

In the context of the above background, here is the idea.

1) We are relational beings.

2) As such, we long to be known, accepted and valued.

3) Yet how are we to know, accept and value each other fully - including sexuality?

4) No society can survive in chaos, therefore societies do not promote chaos. Instead they promote order.

5) If people (universal) valued each other's sexuality by having sex with everyone, this would create massive chaos - socially and spiritually and a million other ways as well.

6) Yet if we deny our sexuality we cannot be fully known.

7) "Damned if we do, damned if we don't."

10) So...

11) Societies create "methods" or "paths" for the sexes to recognize and value each other as a society. Marriage is, among many things, a method of appreciating sexuality, but as a partnership of two, not as a society. I am not talking about marriage here. I am talking about, for example, in our society, we recognize masculinity and femininity by...

11A) Opening doors for women. / Allowing the door to be open.

11B) Carrying luggage and other heavy things for women. / Allowing men to carry luggage and other heavy things.

11C) Pulling out the chair for women. / Allowing the chair to be pulled out and then sitting in the chair.

12) These (and other examples as well) are socially constructed. They are not innate to the sexes. In other words, I am female and yes, I have the ability to open a door, but I allow the door to be open for me as a method of appreciating masculinity and being appreciated as female.

13) I'm sure somewhere there must have been a society that existed without doors to open, but unlikely were there ever societies that did not create methods of recognizing and affirming femininity and masculinity. In other words, societies need to create "safe" methods of recognizing sexuality(or else we either revert to promiscuity, androgony or oppression).

14) Radical changes have occurred in recent history that have caused a massive societal / cultural shift. These changes are (among other things)-

14A) The education of women.

14B) "Equal pay for equal work" (well, sorta) plus anti-discrimination laws which equals the ability of women to become independent (as opposed to being dependent on father or husband).

14C) Popular access to relativly effective birth control.

15) All three of these, in a word, equal this - POWER. Women have more power today than they have ever had in all of history.

16) This is not "bad". It simply is. Our response to this change can be "bad"...or it can be "good."

17) I cannot think of one way (please help me if you can) that femininity can express appreciation for masculinity actively (note that 11A-C only include responses to masculine initiative) with the possible exception of cheerleading - and the obvious exception of being a good housewife, except we're not talking about marriage, we're talking society as a whole. In other words, all the "methods" I can think of involve first a man's initiative and then a response from women.

18) The "New Femininity" (which is still defining itself) is not comfortable with being "passive responders" either all of the time or some of the time - depending on the degree of liberalism (which is a word that means nothing really, but whatever...).

19) Therefore, masculinity feels rejected, unappreciated, devalued because women are no longer conforming to the old methods. Men open the door and women say, "I can get it" - hear: your masculinity is unimportant to me.

20) And thus, men like Eldredge write books, in which I think, he does two things wrong (at least two).

20A) The first is he assumes the cultural shift is "bad" instead of understanding it as neutral.

20B) He confuses what was (and still is) the "working out" of innately human needs by men and women with "innate soul gender" (Remember? "There is a masculine heart and a feminine heart.")

21) But, if we really want to solve the problem, we probably need to create new methods of appreciating sexuality (while keeping some of the old too) that reflect the changing femininity (and masculinity), AND

22) Begin considering what it means to be "holistic" - your body IS you, AND...

23) Many other things, not the least of which is to pray, cause we need some help down here!

More to come, but let's stop there for now.

Eh tu?

posted by Headless-in-GR @ 5/15/2004 07:39:00 PM