The Idolatry of the Masculine
Most of the discussion on this blog centers around men, probably because (1) I am a man (my experience is limited), (2) the discussion surrounding homosexuality in our Churches is largely driven by white men, and (3) the idea of a man being penetrated by another man (because that's all homosexuality is) is, for some reason, more threatening to the group controlling the discussion than is the idea of two women in a relationship with each other. Men together are perceived as disgusting or threatening; women together are often just dismissed (talk about the truly marginalized). I want to direct your attention to this interesting post over at Gay Spirituality & Culture. The pointed questions at the end are of particular interest. Read the whole thing, but I have copied and pasted the parts I found most interesting:
This:
...I went to the Exodus International website and found another testimonial, by Melissa Fryrear, who now works for Focus on the Family. She wrote about how she was attracted to girls at age seven, found a Bible verse against homosexuality at age thirteen (interpreting it to mean "Melissa is detestable"), and began to question why she hated "being a girl." Eventually, she came to a program called Crossover, where she "began to learn about this thing called womanhood." She writes "Goodness! Who knew there was so much to learn: plucking eyebrows, hair bleaches, hair waxings, facial mud masks, eye lash curlers, manicures, pedicures, push-up bras, tummy tuckers, rear-end boosters, last year’s colors, and next year’s fashions?"
And this:
There are few articles on the Exodus website devoted specifically to lesbianism, but one is particularly interesting as it relates to their view of spirituality. It's entitled "Control: The Last Stronghold of Lesbianism." After claiming that the roots of a lesbian orientation lie in sexual abuse or mistreatment, Alan Medinger (the author) goes on to describe how this abuse is rooted in God's curse ( "...your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" Gen. 3:16). This is an interesting interpretation of a curse directed at the the husband-wife relationship, especially for women whose "desire" is not for any husband. He goes on to characterize the lesbian relationship as characterized by "manipulation, jealousy, co-dependency", a generalization which he does not back up through citing any studies. Is it possible that the women who most struggle with their self-image as a lesbian resort to such unhealthy activity in order to retain their significant other at all costs? Is it possible that these are the sorts of women most likely to seek out a program like Exodus? These questions aren't addressed--they are ignored in favor of a sweeping generalization which appears to be supported by Medinger's reading of scripture.
The solution for this wounded, scared woman? To start seeing Jesus as her potential lover:
"But Jesus is seen as a man. Although a Christian woman knows that He is a man free of sin and could never hurt or abuse her, in the depth of her wounded heart she may be a long time coming to accept this truth. Emotionally and psychologically there is great difficulty in trusting even Jesus. But He can overcome this. He has a wonderful patience that will just keep wooing her until she can begin to trust Him."
We are now closer to the thrust of Medinger's argument--lesbian women are those who don't trust Jesus enough. If they were to follow more closely the old hymn, "Trust and Obey", they might find themselves (under the curse of God) desiring their husband and wishing that he rule over them.
The rest of the article describes, in broad descriptions, Jesus "[wooing the lesbian] until she can trust Him" and the now former lesbian "mov[ing] out from a lifetime of control and self-protection." There is no discussion of how these actions are linked to loving other women, to precisely what about a same-sex relationship requires "manipulation", or how the lesbian is to go about undergoing these changes.
These are the questions which I would like to put to Medinger and others, and see discussed more openly in the media, which is preoccupied with the nuances of gay men's lives in comparison to the occasional lesbian kiss-a-thon aired for ratings during sweeps.
1. Where is your evidence that all lesbian relationships are foundationally made up of manipulation and emotional enmeshment? How would your description of two relationships differ, given the same attitude and actions within each, if the couples were straight or lesbian?
2. Why do you consider "spiritual healing" for women to require steps like learning about mascara and tummy tuckers? If the goal is not obtaining a spouse, why the emphasis on beautification which is determined by the (secular) culture, for the sake of watching men?
3. (To the Christians) How do you explain the varied portraits of men and women interacting in the Bible, and the dearth of explicit verses describing the courting process, the way men and women "should" interact, and what "masculinity" and "feminity" really are?
4. Why is homosexuality, whether male or female, defined in your publications primarily around the concept of "masculinity"? For men, it is being "drawn to the masculine", and for women, it is desiring to "be masculine." Is it possible that your emphasis on a specific cultural manifestation of "masculinity" is itself a kind of idolatry, a lack of ability to really see the variety of ways that God allows humans to relate to one another?
These are just starting points for the dialogue. If America is going to move forward in understanding what the questions are in this discussion, it needs to move beyond stereotypes revolving around a static concept of "masculinity" (whether defined as a lack thereof, or an attempt to falsely attain it). If America is going to move forward, it needs to recognize that lesbian relationships are not merely sad copies of male-female marriages, cobbled together by needy and wounded women.
Unfortunately, the current discussion is lop-sided and focused on, dare I put it this way, the fears of straight men with regard to penetration by another man (yet another fear of the "feminine", defined as penetration). Let's move beyond this, begin to look at the full spectrum of relationships in our country, and do so with our blinders off, asking the hard questions.
This:
...I went to the Exodus International website and found another testimonial, by Melissa Fryrear, who now works for Focus on the Family. She wrote about how she was attracted to girls at age seven, found a Bible verse against homosexuality at age thirteen (interpreting it to mean "Melissa is detestable"), and began to question why she hated "being a girl." Eventually, she came to a program called Crossover, where she "began to learn about this thing called womanhood." She writes "Goodness! Who knew there was so much to learn: plucking eyebrows, hair bleaches, hair waxings, facial mud masks, eye lash curlers, manicures, pedicures, push-up bras, tummy tuckers, rear-end boosters, last year’s colors, and next year’s fashions?"
And this:
There are few articles on the Exodus website devoted specifically to lesbianism, but one is particularly interesting as it relates to their view of spirituality. It's entitled "Control: The Last Stronghold of Lesbianism." After claiming that the roots of a lesbian orientation lie in sexual abuse or mistreatment, Alan Medinger (the author) goes on to describe how this abuse is rooted in God's curse ( "...your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" Gen. 3:16). This is an interesting interpretation of a curse directed at the the husband-wife relationship, especially for women whose "desire" is not for any husband. He goes on to characterize the lesbian relationship as characterized by "manipulation, jealousy, co-dependency", a generalization which he does not back up through citing any studies. Is it possible that the women who most struggle with their self-image as a lesbian resort to such unhealthy activity in order to retain their significant other at all costs? Is it possible that these are the sorts of women most likely to seek out a program like Exodus? These questions aren't addressed--they are ignored in favor of a sweeping generalization which appears to be supported by Medinger's reading of scripture.
The solution for this wounded, scared woman? To start seeing Jesus as her potential lover:
"But Jesus is seen as a man. Although a Christian woman knows that He is a man free of sin and could never hurt or abuse her, in the depth of her wounded heart she may be a long time coming to accept this truth. Emotionally and psychologically there is great difficulty in trusting even Jesus. But He can overcome this. He has a wonderful patience that will just keep wooing her until she can begin to trust Him."
We are now closer to the thrust of Medinger's argument--lesbian women are those who don't trust Jesus enough. If they were to follow more closely the old hymn, "Trust and Obey", they might find themselves (under the curse of God) desiring their husband and wishing that he rule over them.
The rest of the article describes, in broad descriptions, Jesus "[wooing the lesbian] until she can trust Him" and the now former lesbian "mov[ing] out from a lifetime of control and self-protection." There is no discussion of how these actions are linked to loving other women, to precisely what about a same-sex relationship requires "manipulation", or how the lesbian is to go about undergoing these changes.
These are the questions which I would like to put to Medinger and others, and see discussed more openly in the media, which is preoccupied with the nuances of gay men's lives in comparison to the occasional lesbian kiss-a-thon aired for ratings during sweeps.
1. Where is your evidence that all lesbian relationships are foundationally made up of manipulation and emotional enmeshment? How would your description of two relationships differ, given the same attitude and actions within each, if the couples were straight or lesbian?
2. Why do you consider "spiritual healing" for women to require steps like learning about mascara and tummy tuckers? If the goal is not obtaining a spouse, why the emphasis on beautification which is determined by the (secular) culture, for the sake of watching men?
3. (To the Christians) How do you explain the varied portraits of men and women interacting in the Bible, and the dearth of explicit verses describing the courting process, the way men and women "should" interact, and what "masculinity" and "feminity" really are?
4. Why is homosexuality, whether male or female, defined in your publications primarily around the concept of "masculinity"? For men, it is being "drawn to the masculine", and for women, it is desiring to "be masculine." Is it possible that your emphasis on a specific cultural manifestation of "masculinity" is itself a kind of idolatry, a lack of ability to really see the variety of ways that God allows humans to relate to one another?
These are just starting points for the dialogue. If America is going to move forward in understanding what the questions are in this discussion, it needs to move beyond stereotypes revolving around a static concept of "masculinity" (whether defined as a lack thereof, or an attempt to falsely attain it). If America is going to move forward, it needs to recognize that lesbian relationships are not merely sad copies of male-female marriages, cobbled together by needy and wounded women.
Unfortunately, the current discussion is lop-sided and focused on, dare I put it this way, the fears of straight men with regard to penetration by another man (yet another fear of the "feminine", defined as penetration). Let's move beyond this, begin to look at the full spectrum of relationships in our country, and do so with our blinders off, asking the hard questions.
posted by GR at 8/19/2005 01:21:00 PM
4 Comments:
I disagree with calling God's words to Adam and Eve a "curse." He cursed the ground, not them. To them - children who were still dearly loved - He simply explained what the consequences of their actions would lead to. Just as I do with my kids, usually before but sometimes after, they do what they want to do. Adam and Eve could have had the tree of life; they chose adventure and ambition and death instead.
I'll respond to the challenge posed to Christians, too: I think there's a deficit in Biblical references to courting because customs change over time. Pre-arranged marriages were the norm for much of the Old Testament. The Song of Solomon seems to describe a sexual relationship by mutual choice. And I think the masculine and feminine roles were assumed to be self-evident. Still, there are exceptional people: Deborah and Jael step up to the plate when they feel the men aren't living up to the roles expected of them by their society. David and Jonathon share a bond beyond "the love of women." The Bible may be evasive but not shy about exceptional people. God works through all kinds of people ... in spite of the fact that we all sin.
Whether it is a "curse" or a "punishment," God chose to impose it upon woman and man by divine fiat, as a result of their actions. Being forced to endure a great deal of pain sure seems like a curse to me.
I think her point in asking the question of Christians is exactly what you answered: things change. Many Christians assume, though, that the 'family values' picture described by groups such as Exodus Int'l is a Biblical picture, when in fact it is not.
I'm coming to this a few weeks late, but I just wanted to say that those are great questions that I wish conservative Christians would take more seriously.
Unfortunately, it's much easier to fall back on the "self-evident" argument that it is to seriously examine what we believe and why. I've seen more than one Christian activist use that phrase to gloss over points they couldn't support through sound argumentation.
In a lot of ways, I like the theological implications that come along with the "Jesus as Lover" model. Granted, my interaction with that model is through lives of various male ascetics which changes up the tone more than a little. (On the flip side, in the life of Mary of Egypt, the Mother of God takes the place of Jesus as the spiritual lover.)
Unfortunately, the image also has a long history of being used to control and repress women -- starting at least with Jerome and probably Tertullian. It's entirely revealing of the androcentricity that dominates much of Christianity, and that prohibitions on sexuality have more to do with maintaining a hierarchy that benefits straight, white men.
Post a Comment
<< Home