The fact that we replaced "penis" with a funny word but just straight-up censored "vagina" is an interesting reflection of patriarchical society and the sexual economy. It reminds me of a part from the series of Christianly-explaining-sex-to-kids books my mom gave me (a more indirect, less awkward alternative to The Talk, though one that led to some misconceptions that would probably have been cleared up if I had availed myself of opportunities to ask questions (for example, the book explained that sex is when a penis goes into a vagina, but it didn't mention that you're supposed to move -- I got the impression that you just put it in and left it there)). In one of the books, it said "some boys refer to their penises with silly terms like 'weiner', and that's okay, but slang terms for girls' private parts are disrespectful." (not an exact quote; I'm quoting Greek-style) Even at the age of ten, I found that disparity odd -- why is it only okay to use slang terms for one gender's parts, but not the other's?
Implicit in that slang double standard is the assumption that females must be sheltered and protected and males must be lone, undefended protectors (which may have been intentional on some level, to promote a complementarian viewpoint that is supposedly a "traditional Christian" viewpoint (when the reality is that the only reason it was traditional in a Christian context is because it's the way the 1st-century Roman Empire
already operated, and the early church was so egalitarian in comparison to the empire (following Jesus' example of treating women like actual people) that non-Christians thought Christian women were all prostitutes (because only prostitutes would be so brazen as to speak in public!) and Paul's writings that are used today to support patriarchy were actually saying "Look, guys, society isn't ready for this kind of equality yet, so here's how you can pretend to go along with this system in public to keep up appearances without having to abandon your newfound freedom entirely")). Also, I should note that these books were not divided into a boys' set of books and a girls' set of books (or even, as is more common, the default set of books and then the "for girls" version released a year or two later) -- it was the same series of four books for boys and girls. And yet, you can tell that it was subconsciously written addressing males as the default active participants -- "Okay, boys, it's fine to talk about your own junk like that, but talk about ladyparts respectfully." The authors of the book didn't give any thought to the notion that girls might refer to themselves slangily. And that mindset hurts both girls and boys (and really hurts those who don't fit into either box).
And now I'm reminded of
this 2007 column by John Piper that's recently resurfaced.
Suppose a couple of you students, Jason and Sarah, were walking to McDonald’s after dark. And suppose a man with a knife jumped out of the bushes and threatened you. And suppose Jason knows that Sarah has a black belt in karate and could probably disarm the assailant better than he could. Should he step back and tell her to do it? No. He should step in front of her and be ready to lay down his life to protect her, irrespective of competency. It is written on his soul. That is what manhood does.
In addition to the obvious stupidity, a commenter on
Rachel Held Evans's blog post points out that even in this situation, Piper is addressing the man, continuing to assume that the man will be the only active party here -- "Should he step back and
tell her to do it?" If Sarah is a black belt, she will not have to wait for Jason to give her an order. Her reflexes will kick in immediately.
"Irrespective of competency" means that even if Sarah is also carrying a concealed firearm, and even if Jason is a paraplegic, Jason must still step -- or roll -- in front of Sarah and refuse to let her do anything (or to
actively stop her from doing anything if she's not the type to wait for a man's go-ahead before doing anything). So now Jason's dead, and Sarah ends up killing the assailant herself anyway, except now she gets to bury her quixotic boyfriend! Yay for gender roles! Everything's the exact same as it would have been in an egalitarian relationship, except now half of them are dead and the other half is either wracked with guilt and self-doubt or she's rightly furious at the religious system that killed the first half! But hey, at least now Jason doesn't have to live with the shame of being helped by a woman!
(
Jenny Rae Armstrong has a really good response to Piper, including an observation that Piper's conception of gender roles isn't even Christianity, it's Plato's Theory of Forms)
Poll
