Girls are fragile.
I don’t really remember who told me this, but I heard it a lot when I was a kid. I mean a little kid. A kid just big enough to understand why he shouldn’t hit people. Especially girls.
This stuck with me.
Fast forward to May 2009. I’m in my first year as an elementary music teacher. I’m in a 1st grade class that is about to make me lose my salvation. It’s a small classroom. There are lots of children. And there’s a lot of, shall we say, physical contact.
And I remember one little guy, who got fed up with the girl next to him poking him in the ribs and decided to take matters into his own hands.
And I said it, too. I can’t believe I said it. God help me.
Don’t hit girls. Girls are fragile.
Fortunately, I have had many, many chances with those same children to tell them a different story, and hopefully, I’ve undone any damage.
Don’t hit girls. Don’t hit anyone, because they’re our friends, they’re our classmates, they’re our equals.
I don’t really believe girls are fragile anymore. I’ve encountered enough strong women since my childhood to know that. I even married one of them. And I mean she’s a strong woman in every sense. She’s strong physically. She’s strong mentally. She has strong character. Truth be told, most of the time, she’s a stronger person than I am.
The problem is that when we tell boys that they are; when we tell them men should be the leaders, the guides, the protectors, the providers, we’re not telling them to respect women. No, quite the opposite.
We’re telling them to see women as something less than, not quite, almost enough. We’re telling them women aren’t equal.
Unfortunately, this message isn’t any different in the church.
- When the church tells women they can’t be leaders, it’s telling them they’re not equal.
- When the church tells husbands they are the providers, we’re telling them their wives aren’t equal.
- When the church tells fathers they are the spiritual leaders of their families, it’s saying mothers aren’t spiritually equal.
- When the church tells wives to submit (not mutually, solely), it’s saying they aren’t ontologically equal. (Patriarchalists love to say women are “ontologically equal.”)
And all of these statements are contrary to the gospel.
My dog’s not my equal, and that’s why I need to do so many things for her. I have to open doors for her and carry her around and feed her. I have to lead her when we walk around the neighborhood. Am I respecting my dog by doing those things? No, I’m exercising my authority over her.
I would actually kind of like the church to take a stand against chivalry, and not just because I love my blazers and suit coats WAY too much to cover up puddles with them. (Evidently, chivalry holds that women are incapable of turning.) Because chivalry reinforces those subliminal messages of inequality under the facade of respect.
So let’s rethink the whole concept. Maybe it’s time we do things for each other out of kindness. Maybe men should open doors for women and men alike out of kindness. And maybe men accept the same kindness from women.
Some of you reading this might not understand all this chivalry stuff, but I’m from Texas. I was raised with the belief that my ancestors would come up out of the grave and get me if I didn’t offer a lady my chair, or open the door for her. It was my solemn duty as a guy. Well, I think duty is the least honorable reason to do anything, and doing chivalrous things out of a sense of duty doesn’t show respect, it assumes inferiority.
What do you think? Is it time we rethink the idea of chivalry? Should we instill in boys the sense that girls are equal instead of the sense that men have power over women?
I enjoy reading your writing, but I have a hard time with this particular post. Your message is clear, noble, honorable, and a lot of other nice adjectives, but one concept those that strive for equality seem to miss is that men and women are not the same. One basic example is that and muscle tissue are distributed differently among men and women. Do you know what that actually means? It means that girls ARE fragile, because they were built to be more fragile than males. It’s why the results in the Olympics differ so greatly between men and women and why men can’t carry babies.
Winning the war for equality doesn’t mean treating everyone the same. No Child Left Behind doesn’t work well, because the smarter kids have more trouble excelling. If I’m a poor bowler, and I take a 30 pin handicap against you and win, do I really win? There are more female teachers than male teachers at the elementary level… why? There are more male construction workers than female, why? Testosterone and Estrogen, to oversimplify. The levels are different because we were built to be different.
As far as your dog: Very similar circumstances occur with the elderly. If you helped your great aunt mildred through the door or cut up her food for her because she couldn’t…. are you exercising authority, or offering your respect?
My thoughts are fragmented here, obviously, but my point is simple: True equality just cannot exist between two males or two females, let alone between genders. Males and females are different, and I don’t think true mutual respect for all human beings can be achieved without openly acknowledging that fact, and embracing it for what it really means.
Dan, it seems the point has been missed. I understand the post to be advocating that assistance be given on the merit of need, not gender. That when we blindly assist without using contextual cues, we naturally insult and make harmful assumptions about the others nature.
Imploring people to view others as individuals before their gender isn’t an attempt to remove gender, it’s an attempt to embrace the uniqueness of the human. The same could be said about different races of the same gender. The point is to be informed by the person about who they are, not defining their limits for them.
I’m curious as to how distribution of muscle tissue qualifies one as fragile. By that logic either gender could be considered fragile. Also, don’t forget that gender representation in various careers has more to do with sociological influences – I’m sure you can imagine why many women have avoided construction work (just walking by a job site lets me know I will likely be objectified) and flocked to education (it’s often socially acceptable for women to teach since they can still ‘mother’).
With helpless animals, children, and those ill or in advanced age and in need of care, there would be the element of need. And in some of those cases, authority…if someone’s prefrontal cortex is either not developed or impaired, authority is likely evoked – think power of attorney.
I am saddened that equality seems hopeless for you. Keep digging in, and be mindful of those unhelpful messages by society. Equality doesn’t mean everyone is the same. I do think it entails allowing others to define the peripheral of their personhood.
Dan, thanks for your comments and challenges. And thanks for reading.
My wife has, I believe, given a great answer here. I would add that I (and none of the egalitarians I know) would say that there are no differences between women and men. There are, as you mentioned, biological differences, and there are differences stemming from societal influences. It’s key to remember that there are greater differences within genders. We don’t all fit the mold. So, I believe making broad concessions on the basis of gender alone is unhelpful at best and dehumanizing at most.
Great post, and great comment above from Daniel. It’s so good that we are thinking these issues through and not just blindly accepting what church tradition has told us, and what some die-hards are still telling us, about men and women.
Wow. I tried not to respond but I cant help myself
I believe Kelsey hit on something that is often sorely missed in this debate…“Equality doesn’t mean everyone is the same.”
When Jefferson wrote that, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal“, did he mean all men of exactly the same physical mental, emotional and economic status? Certainly, at the time, that’s all his worldview would allow. But few in the 21st century would say that those sentiments and God-given rights aren’t meant for those of all races, gender, religious, and educational or economic backgrounds.
I am equal to you because I am human, not because I am exactly like you. Muscle tissue (or talent, skills, intellect, etc….) isn’t distributed evenly between any two people. All humans all over the planet are different: physically, emotionally, mentally, spiritually and economically. If we allow ourselves to categorize and compartmentalize our fellow humans based on these criteria, we set up dangerous power structures that will always oppress those that are at the bottom.
This is the story of human history.
That’s why the Declaration of Independence was so radical, and set a moral standard that lit the world on fire. It suggests the radical notion of equality outside the realm of such things and that people are equal simply because they are made in Gods image; full of worth and dignity, which should translate into equal opportunity. Granted, it has taken a long time for that beautiful thought to include all races and it is taking a bit longer (especially in the church) to include gender.
All men and women of all varieties and circumstances are created equal – not because we all have the exact same muscle mass, status, vocation or….whatever – but because God created us that way. Inequality and its attendant abuses are a result of our common brokenness, and it seems to me that those who profess Christ should be the first to shout these self-evident truths, not jump on the bandwagon of essentialist thinking with no solid biblical footing.
Beth, you are always welcome to respond. Thanks.
It’s so funny because I was thinking about this exact issue today. I went to a church where we had a close student group that hung out a lot, including many guys. In a full room, a guy would stand up and offer you his seat when you walked in, and if they didn’t then the student leader would instruct them to do so and they’s do it begrudgingly. In a way I really hated that because I didn’t like being treated differently – in a room full of guys I just wanted to hang out and have fun and not be singled out as the lil’ lady who needs special treatment. On the other hand it was a bit of an ego trip to be so important and special that people had to give up their chairs for me. Either way, my possession of two X chromosomes didn’t merit special attention, it didn’t do me any good and it meant some guy who had the common sense to arrive at an event on time lost their seat to a flaky girl. To m, it felt like a sort of apology for the church’s complementarianism. In fact, chivalry has always existed as a sort of apology for sexism. “Sorry ladies, we won’t let you vote because we think you’re weak and fragile and easily confused. But look on the bright side – since we think you’re weaker than us, we’ll open doors for you!”. In fact, the inevitable loss of chivalry was used as an argument here in the UK at the turn of the century for continuing to deny women the vote. It’s as if some men think they can’t respect women unless they can also patronise and treat us as if we’re fragile.
Daniel – girls are absolutely not fragile. First of all, girls and boys are about equal in muscle mass until they hit puberty. If you are a post-adolescent guy and you are in the bottom 10% of possession of muscle mass for healthy males in your age range, does that make you ‘fragile’, and would you like to be referred to as ‘fragile’, and treated as if you are fragile? If I’m into judo and am stronger and more agile than a skinny, sedate male then which one of us is fragile and ought to be treated as fragile?
Sophie, thanks so much for your contribution here. I especially like your point in the last paragraph. Many women are less fragile than many men. Hell, I’m not a real big guy, so many men are much stronger and powerful than me. Should they be culturally bound to protect me, also?
Good points.
Sorry for the late reply.
I think that it’s imperitive to each everyone that we are all equal and that boys and girls grow up learning to treat others as equals. Boys and girls should learn how to be independent and how to ask for help, they should learn equality and respect as inherent actions in all that they do.
A lot of people that I’ve met have have eschewing the traditional vows in favour of more equal commitments that better represent equal relations between partners, which I think is wonderful.
The way I personally understand chivalry is that it demonstrates respect. As a woman I would hold doors for people, offer people my seat, etc. to show that I respect them, and I do this to all people regardless of their gender and I would accept those actions from others in many situations.
I also liked that you discussed non-physical aspects of fragility, I find it particularly troubling that many people assume that fragility is only a physical trait or that women are inherently fragile. Fragility is also somewhat bound in time and place as people can be fragile or strong depending on the situation. What I find most worrying is that through perpetrating and promoting ‘traditional gender roles’ (i.e. men taking care of women, providing, etc.) it has created almost a community of girls who long to be fragile. There are girls who do not feel as though they are feminine because they are not physically fragile enough. In addition to this, there are men who feel as though they are not strong enough and their sense of being is tied up in becoming the hyper masculine man idolized in traditional gender roles.