Feminism and Gender Expectation
Elliott seeks to uncover the social theory that is tied into sexuality, dominance and capitalism through the discussion of Marxism, Feminism, Structuralism and various other theories. He suggests that semiology plays a valid part in understanding these constructs and provides us with the ability to delve past the façade and seek to understand humanity and society utilizing all of our senses. Elliott asks us to consider various points, and at times, the book seems to take us on endless bunny trails that lead to dead ends. This week’s assignment, was very much like looking through various pictures of Salvador Dali and Picasso and trying to come up with rational interpretation – the experience was exhausting and confusing at times. For this week’s post, I’ve decided to focus on Elliott’s presentation of Feminism and learned behavior that influences gender expectation.
What is gender? Can it be separated into binary definitions of characteristics, interests and behaviors? Or is it something deeper than scientific assumption? Freud believed that sexuality and domination worked in tandem against emotional and sexual repression. He sought to convey the interworking of humanity’s need for power, sex and position against the backdrop of capitalism. “Modern society, says Freud, is repressive. Society imposes severe restrictions upon individuals, some of which can produce intense emotional suffering and misery”[1] You would think that Freud would sympathize with the inequality of women, but in many ways, his theories kept women in continual bondage. Women were the “others” of humanity. In many ways, men were given the position of envy and highlighted as the utopian form of behavior and prestige. “Freud’s account of the central ‘marks of womanhood’ – masochism, envy, jealously, a weak superego – are understood as a consequence of women’s subjection to patriarchal law, and not as innate psychological attributes.”[2] We see in this statement, that womanhood was viewed as in comparison to manhood, instead of functioning as its own entity. This type of mindset entraps women with the belief that they must be married or with children in order to have identity – they must have a comparative standard of measurement.
Nancy Chodorow, author and Feminist theorist argues just that. However, she believes that there is an instilled desire to mother in order to replicate the sameness of females within the nuclear family. Children are simply an answer to the loneliness that women experience during marriage from the gender difference of being married to a man. She suggests that there is disengagement from men within the marriage and that women seek to raise children to fill an emotional need; especially children who are of the same gender.
The problem with this theory, is that it still stems from a reaction to patriarchal authority. The woman is still seen as subjugated to the role of motherhood. It lacks choice from the women, because it is reactionary to a man’s supposed distance. This type of belief perpetuates the concept that marriage and children are necessary to give women identity and eradicates the idea that female desires are individualized. Elliott reveals the loopholes in Chodorow’s argument by posing the questions, “What of mothers who encourage ‘feminine’ modes of expression in their sons? What of mothers who foster ‘masculine’ aims of autonomy, independence, and achievement in their daughters?”[3] Chodorow perpetuates the idea that gender is universal and children are somehow malleable to strictly defined characteristics based on sex. However, every argument must leave room for individual differences and cultural interpretations.
Judith Butler, a Feminist theorist stated, “Identity is not immediately present in a sign: it is by learning to use language situationally – which is itself a matter of linguistic differences and cultural conventions – that subjects project themselves into gender roles as women or men.”[4] In Butler’s opinion, gender is a learned aspect that occurs through personal projection of linguistic and semiotic definition of gender roles. She goes on to suggest, “Another way of putting this point is to say that gender performances are always copies, imitations fashioned out of fantasies or idealization of dominant cultural representations of femininity and masculinity.”[5] Gender identity, according to Butler is fashioned through popular culture; however, she failed to present the diverse reality of cultural representation. What about the young boy who loves to dance, who lives in Russia? Would he be labeled as feminine, because he enjoys ballet? No, because his interests would be considered culturally masculine and acceptable within that part of the world. In the same way, what about a young girl in America who enjoys studying chemical engineering? Is she considered masculine, because her interests don’t fit within the norm of femininity? No, because her cultural expectation is much more open to various forms of interests, which is not limited by gender. Are they both male and female? Yes. Are they both influenced by cultural norms? Yes.
Earlier in the book, globalization was discussed in regards to societal structures. I believe that the same applies to the structure of gender roles. Elliott states, “A number of conceptual approaches in this respect, from post-structuralism and postmodernism to globalization studies, suggests that the social sciences must radically rethink their subject matter – as a world of ‘bounded’ societies no longer exist, if they indeed ever once did.”[6] We need to rethink gender structuralism and consider the fact that the binary roles of masculinity and femininity really no longer exist, if they indeed ever once did. Sexual differences are factual aspects of biology, but strict forms of gender roles are contingent on cultural and global perspective. Anthony Elliot asserts that there is an inherited difference between males and females and suggests that masculinity and femininity are learned behaviors – filled with expectation and insecurities specific to their sex. Elliott presented his argument and stated, “Human beings are born male and female, but become men and women through a process of social construction.”[7] The question I pose to you is this – what type of men and women are you creating through your social construction? Are they made in the Image of Christ or fashioned by the image of culture? Galatians 3:26-28 says it best, “So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” We must delve into the debate and see people as more than ‘skirts’ and ‘pants’ – we must see the diversity of gender displayed through men and women determined to be used by the heart of God. This type of lifestyle is not tied down by gender expectation. It’s freed by God-ordained calling.
[1] Anthony Elliott, Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction, second ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014), 34.
[2] Anthony Elliott, Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction, second ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014), 213.
[3] Anthony Elliott, Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction, second ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014), 221.
[4] Anthony Elliott, Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction, second ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014), 238.
[5] Anthony Elliott, Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction, second ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014), 239.
[6] Anthony Elliott, Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction, second ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014), 5.
[7] Anthony Elliott, Contemporary Social Theory: An Introduction, second ed. (New York: Routledge, 2014), 209.
About the Author
Colleen Batchelder
I speak at conferences, churches, companies and colleges on intergenerational communication, marketing, branding your vision and living authentically in a ‘filtered’ world. My talks are customized to venue needs and audience interests. My passion is to speak with organizations and bridge the intergenerational gap. I consult with companies, individuals, churches and nonprofit organizations and help them create teams that function from a place of communication that bridges the generational gap. I’m also the Founder and President of LOUD Summit – a young adult organization that presents workshops, seminars and summits that encourage, empower and equip millennials to live out their destiny and walk in their purpose. When I’m not studying for my DMin in Leadership and Global Perspectives at Portland Seminary, you can find me enjoying a nice Chai Latte, exploring NYC or traveling to a new and exotic destination.10 responses to “Feminism and Gender Expectation”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Colleen, good post. Thought provoking. I like you had a difficult time with the material. It seemed like a dog chasing his tail.
First off, I do have some legitimate questions for you on gender, and I am not trying to “throw a bomb” in the room. First, you must know that our denomination ordains women, allows them to preach and pastor. I subscribe to that understanding. But, you do seem quite knowledgeable on the topic, so I wanted to ask. When and where did the shifts happen within the church? Have you ever researched these shifts: females being able to prophesy in Acts (Phillip’s daughters) to a low view of women in ministry through most of the next 1800 years, and then shifted back to allowing women to preach, prophesy, etc…but this mainly is connected to charismatic movements.
I really am curious. Secondly, what is your view of Paul telling Timothy that, “I do not allow women to teach or exercise authority over a man…”? Is this merely Paul’s opinion? Or was it universal? Why did it change? How do we reconcile it? How do we argue that this was culture and not commands?
I am trying my best to raise strong and confident girls, so I would love your insight. Thanks Colleen!
I’m glad I wasn’t the only one lost. I delved deeper into Plato and Socrates after reading about the Grecians being so sex-crazed, and found that the culture was very comfortable with homosexuality amongst older men and boys. Sadly, many believed in that time that it was a rite of passage for the young men and an intellectual initiation. You realize how one’s theology can influence their actions. I think many theorist within the book fell prey to their obsession and their obsession became their enslavement. McGrath stated in last week’s assignment that, “Every text demands to be interpreted; Scripture is no exception” (McGrath, 130). Scriptures reveals the lives of individuals with depth and relevance, but counters it with biblical moralism. For many of the theorists, their view was strictly secular assumption without any balance of theological truth.
Thanks so much for asking some great questions! I haven’t studied Charismatic history in depth, but I do have some ideas as to why the shift occurred. I believe that a lot of churches fail to include women, because they fail to study the topic contextually. I also think that one’s region and traditions play a heavy hand in equality. I was 23 years old, before I had even met a female minister in the UK. New Jersey is very liberal in politics and practice. The church, in an effort to counteract the issues of relativism, swung the pendulum far to the right in order to differentiate themselves from liberal theology. Many pastors associated homosexuality with allowing women to pastor or preach from the pulpit. Because of their belief that homosexuality was sinful, and caused by women in leadership positions, women were deemed sinful by assumed association. Fear caused the doors to close.
Many times, Paul speaks to individual circumstances and churches. Many of the areas where Paul preached were secularized and filled with sexual idolatry. “When he tells a leader to be the husband of one wife…” We can take that literally, or we can break it down and contextualize it to the culture, where polygamy and sexual affairs were prevalent. It’s my belief that his words were directed towards fidelity within marriage, not positioning one gender over another. When Paul says, “I do not allow women to exercise authority over men….” I simply point them back to Phoebe. She was sent out by Paul to deliver a message. Mary was at the feet of Jesus in the position of a rabbinical student. Phoebe was to speak to a mixed crowd and exercise authority within her speech. I would recommend a couple of books for further research. The first one is, “10 Lies the Church Tells Women” and the second is “Jesus Feminist.”
I also believe that we portray women as sexual and tempting and limit their personhood to their sexuality. When discussing purity, we place the blame on the female. We tell her that her cloths should be worn a certain way, so not to tempt her brothers. We should teach women that modesty is not being covered in shame, but being confident in identity. If a Christian women knows who she is in Christ, then her actions, her dress and her purpose will be rooted in Christ. We need to stop perpetuating the discussion around men and start instilling a heart of Christ in our sisters and daughters.
I was blessed to have two amazing parents who allowed me to develop my own convictions and morals. Because I knew who I was and knew that God had called me to accomplish much for His glory, everything else fell into place. I don’t waste my time dating men who are unequal in purpose and passion for Christ. I don’t go clubbing or get drunk, because I am confident in my standing as a daughter of the King. My morals came from my strength in my identity.
Thank you for the opportunity to share some thoughts. I Pray that God raises up your daughters to be confidant in their calling and contagious in their passion for Christ!
Great explanations. I am preaching through 1st Timothy, so I am going to use some of those thoughts :). Thanks Colleen.
Thank you, Jason! That’s awesome…I get paid $5 a word, right??? LOL Let me know how the sermon goes, or if you have any more questions. I’d be happy to contribute.
Colleen
Your best blog yet (in my humble opinion). Your train of thought flowed well. I love the analogy of Dali and Picasso. That really fits.
You are causing me to think and wonder about how I relate to my son and daughter. I may take the risk of asking them if I treat them differently, especially in regards to my tendency to be a control freak. (This is an acknowledged reality in my family.)
Now for the risky question to you. I am old (fashioned) enough to believe that in the military women should not be in direct combat. (Please put down that rotten fruit and don’t throw it at me.) Is this mentality a part of an out-dated social construct? Is there any merit to it?
Thank you so much, Marc! I confess – this was the hardest assignment so far. I had a difficult time following Elliott’s train of thought. I’m glad that my summation was coherent.
If you ever spend time really studying commercials, you’ll find that they stereotype based on gender expectation. Most of the ads that are geared towards children, laundry or housework are portrayed by women, yet the majority of women, because of the economic crisis work outside of the home. Do commercials portray reality or a projection of the imaginary ideal? Does this expectation cause division and frustration amongst men and women? I love how Elliott discusses the role of gender expectation. He states, “…we are – all of us – nine-tenths ventriloquists of the culture. We simply mouth the words of others, in gestures that express an essentially passive relation to the codes of culture and society. Yet, confoundingly, every so often we say something startling original, something different, something unique” (Elliott, 229). Gender should surprise us, because gender is made up of individuals. When I was in Bible College, I was shocked to find that many of the girls had never used a hammer or mowed a lawn. Being an only child had its advantages. I had to pitch in, whether that meant building a deck, closing up the swimming pool, baking a cake or cleaning the house. I wasn’t relegated to a women’s role. I simply served. They’ve done studies and found that women always doubt their intellect. Men are taught that they are smart. It is an inherent confidence that men have compared to women. I believe that this is true because we compliment men and women differently. We assume that men will be the breadwinner, so we compliment them on their accomplishments and work ethic. We assume that women will be mothers and be caretakers of the home, so we compliment them on their ability to cook and their looks. There needs to be a balance and a greater expectation on females. We need to encourage both men and women to have ambition and drive.
Good questions! I believe that if a woman is capable of carrying a man or woman twice her size, then she should be allowed to serve on the front lines. However, I believe the same should be true of a man. If I’m nearing the enemy and I need a comrade to help me to safety, then I want someone with muscles that can assist me and do their job. I think it should be based on muscular structure and the ability to handle the stress of the situation.
Colleen – I totally get what you’re saying about how advertisements are pitched: totally unfair and irritating. When I was a kid the family (mom, dad, my bother, and me) cleaned the house on Saturday morning. There’s no way my dad was going to let us think that was mom’s job.
My daughter works at a preschool, and one day the bathroom drain clogged and she took apart what was necessary to fix it. The other women were amazed and she told them, “My dad made me learn how to do this.”
Thanks for the perspective of physical ability, regarding combat.
Colleen
Maybe you need to have physical challenges more often! Just kidding! You took on a challenging subject that being “non-PC” can get you in trouble. Instead of attempting to be “correct, you ended your blog with the eternal truth of scripture.
With Elliot’s social theory being perceived, as you presented the complexities so well, as powers that have shaped society, why has the Gospel become diluted in our contemporary settings? The church has lost some of its voice to the social forces that have emerged since Nazism.
I am also interested in your statement: “I also believe that we portray women as sexual and tempting and limit their personhood to their sexuality. When discussing purity, we place the blame on the female. We tell her that her cloths should be worn a certain way, so not to tempt her brothers. We should teach women that modesty is not being covered in shame, but being confident in identity. If a Christian women knows who she is in Christ, then her actions, her dress and her purpose will be rooted in Christ. We need to stop perpetuating the discussion around men and start instilling a heart of Christ in our sisters and daughters.” This message needs to be spoken to the church. (Do I sense a book in the making?)
Thank you for taking this subject and handling it with Christ being the center, not pop theology or cultural acceptance.
Phil
Wow! Thank you, Phil! Appreciate the awesome encouragement!
I believe that the Gospel has become diluted, because humanity no longer wants to be affected? If we remove the power, or limit our understanding, then our responsibility becomes minimal. We can blame ignorance as the cause of our disobedience. However, when we delve into the context and grasp onto the substance of the Word of God, we understand that these words are associated with actions.
Thank you! I’m actually working on publishing my first book this January. I plan on finishing it up over break and working with a literary agent to get it published soon after. I would love to write a book on that topic. I think it would empower men and women to own their choices and stand firm in their convictions. Their walk with Christ would be a reflection of how they see themselves in Christ. I’ll definitely let you know when I launch the book. : )
Colleen,
With society’s role in creating our gender crisis, does this cause you to live on the defensive? I came from a balanced society in Jamaica but there has been a shift in what we believe should be a women’s role. When you walk in a room, are you already defensive because you’re not sure what men expect of you?
Garfield