Walking Behind

Just as happens with other social expectations, the role that women (wives, in particular) are required to assume tends to swing from one side to the other. Since very early times, women have been considered a creative source of life; they do bear children, after all. Historically, however, they have also been considered intellectually inferior to men and a major source of temptation to evil. In fact, Roman law declared women were but children and always subject to men.

We would like to think that Jesus changed all of that since He obviously respected women, extending courtesy and personal dignity to them. While it is true that the Bible (and the writings of other major religions too, for that matter) teach equality, men do not always see that balance as part of their spiritual obligation. Unfortunately early Christian theology perpetuated the discriminatory views. St. Jerome, a 4th century Latin church father, declared woman, among other derogatory descriptions, "a perilous object." Some centuries later, Thomas Aquinas, a Christian theologian, recognized woman's role as a helpmeet and necessary for conception, but said that "for other purposes, man would be better assisted by other men."

The attitude toward women in the East was at first more favorable, but evolving religious restrictions eventually required obedience of women toward men. They could not own property, and widows could not remarry. Women had to walk behind their husbands. This is still true in some cultures today, although I want to make it clear that this is not law now, nor is it demanded by religious beliefs. It is the custom carried over, not easily relinquished, from earlier times.

You would not expect to find this true in places where it has never been required, but here it is. Although far from the terrible abuse some wives suffer from their "devoutly Christian" husbands, one little measure of disrespect never fails to make me uncomfortable when I observe it, which is fairly often: Women walking several feet behind the men accompanying them.

Granted, perhaps he is taller and has a hard time fitting his pace to the smaller steps she takes. Even if her height is similar, though, that does not mean her legs are as long as his. (A torso of average length can be equipped with short limbs. I happen to know this!) But where is his common courtesy? Wife, friend, or co-worker—must she always be in an uncomfortable hurry to keep up?

Furthermore, I wonder if this may speak of how important the fellow assumes he is. Impatient to be about the "real business," he ignores some critical interpersonal business. Fifteen seconds in his time of arrival will make that much difference? If he comes in first, does that make him the main feature? Must she always have to appear to be slow or lagging behind?

Or in the case of the conservative church-going couple, does he outpace her to demonstrate to observers that he is the leader in his household? (This would be appropriate if they were confronting danger like lions or landmines, but is unnecessary in ordinary circumstances, I think.) Does it indicate that a domestic spat has occurred? Or that one is brewing? To be fair, I've seen angry women stalking off too, leaving a puzzled man in their wake.

Mostly, we may just be unaware of how much this one telling little action can tell. Think about it!

Marjorie