Some people have an incredible need to show off, to create shock, or to be considered funny. It can start very early, as most parents know. The youngster, sans diaper, prances through the living room where company is sitting. The college student takes distinct pleasure in rattling the professor with some inane question. The jokester always tops the last story.
Several incidents coming to my attention recently have reminded me of this. A singer/stand-up comedian made several insensitive, even vulgar, comments in an interview. Facing the ensuing firestorm, he apologized at length, very publicly, saying that in his quest to be clever, he completely forgot the people that he loved and that loved him. Thinking that if he could just continue to pull together fast witty phrases, he would be clever enough that no one would pull him up short for his bratty behavior. He was wrong.
The leader of a women's group contacted the husbands or sweethearts of some of the women and asked them to write a letter of love and affirmation to their loved one. These were to be sent to the leader ahead of time, and the women would open their letters at the meeting. A few letters were read aloud, with touching sentiments of appreciation and devotion. But one woman's letter said, "You are more precious to me than a tree full of sparrows, more fun than a basketball, and I wouldn't trade you for a truckload of turkeys!" Clever? Maybe for fifth grade.
This happened awhile ago, but I ran across a video connected to another story. The comedy site is meant to appeal to college students—and maybe that's why I didn't find it hilarious. A prankster arranged to have a fake marriage proposal displayed on the JumboTron during a game at Yankee Stadium. The supposed husband-to-be and the young woman accompanying him were not amused. His bewilderment was real and so were the couple of slaps she gave him before she stomped off. People, perhaps especially women, take marriage proposals seriously and don't want it to be a joke in front of thousands of people. Was it really that funny? (Even the perpetrator said afterwards, "I'm feeling kind of bad.")
If you are the one trying to be clever, be very careful that your performance is not at the cost of someone else. If someone is hurting you by trying to be clever, tell them how you feel and ask them to stop.
If one's words have substance, they don't need to be surrounded with pretense.
Marjorie
Showing posts with label respect. Show all posts
Showing posts with label respect. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
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
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
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Children Seen and Not Heard
In a department store one day, I heard a man bark to the corps of small children around him, "Children—" It was said with such authority that if there had been other children within twenty feet, they would have run to him obediently too. The youngsters were without question quiet and well-behaved. Why did I feel a vague sense of discomfort? It was something in the tone of his voice, and the palpable apprehension of his children.
I felt something else too. Where had I heard that commanding tone before? Oh yes, Captain von Trapp in the "Sound of Music" who ordered his children about in military fashion with little love and no grace at all. I didn't know the man in the store—nor did I want to.
Another father—this one I knew—snapped his fingers and beckoned sternly for his children to fall in at his side. He was proud of their disciplined obedience. And I would have been too. Of my dog.
A couple of generations ago, when my parents were children, they were sort of non-persons. "Children should be seen and not heard," was the prevailing attitude, coming probably out of the fifteenth century in England and applying specifically to young women! Many children of my generation, especially in conservative communities, experienced the same restriction in our homes. I wonder why? We were loved, I am sure, but somehow positive interaction, especially in public, was not the norm. Certainly, children must learn appropriate social behavior, but that is not acquired in a vacuum; real-life practice is the better way and it needs to begin early. Just because we see some children and young people who are badly behaved, we should not expect to limit communication and deny the privilege of choice to all!
Fortunately by the time I was rearing a family, many of us had learned there are approaches other than "Children should not be heard." My very young daughter and I were eating in a restaurant once, seated where we could see another family nearby. She said to me in surprise, "Look Mama, they're not talking!" This was strange to her, because while we ate, we always chatted about the things that had happened during the day, or the plans we were making. Sometimes school lunch rooms do have an "Eat silently" rule because there are just so many children, but when a family meal includes no conversation, she thought there must be something wrong! (And indeed, there may have been.) I now see the benefit in her own children who are at ease when carrying on conversation with an adult, but without being excessively noisy and intrusive or whiny and argumentative.
Will children who are allowed to express themselves misbehave sometimes? Of course. Will they embarrass us sometimes? Oh my, yes! But consider the alternative. I have to wonder about those children who are silenced all the while they are growing up. As adults, especially young women, will they know that they have worthwhile opinions? Will they trust their own judgment? Will they be able to express themselves clearly and courteously? Will they understand that manipulating and controlling other people is unfair? Will they respect one another? After all, children learn what they live. And then, later, they live what they have learned.
Marjorie
I felt something else too. Where had I heard that commanding tone before? Oh yes, Captain von Trapp in the "Sound of Music" who ordered his children about in military fashion with little love and no grace at all. I didn't know the man in the store—nor did I want to.
Another father—this one I knew—snapped his fingers and beckoned sternly for his children to fall in at his side. He was proud of their disciplined obedience. And I would have been too. Of my dog.
A couple of generations ago, when my parents were children, they were sort of non-persons. "Children should be seen and not heard," was the prevailing attitude, coming probably out of the fifteenth century in England and applying specifically to young women! Many children of my generation, especially in conservative communities, experienced the same restriction in our homes. I wonder why? We were loved, I am sure, but somehow positive interaction, especially in public, was not the norm. Certainly, children must learn appropriate social behavior, but that is not acquired in a vacuum; real-life practice is the better way and it needs to begin early. Just because we see some children and young people who are badly behaved, we should not expect to limit communication and deny the privilege of choice to all!
Fortunately by the time I was rearing a family, many of us had learned there are approaches other than "Children should not be heard." My very young daughter and I were eating in a restaurant once, seated where we could see another family nearby. She said to me in surprise, "Look Mama, they're not talking!" This was strange to her, because while we ate, we always chatted about the things that had happened during the day, or the plans we were making. Sometimes school lunch rooms do have an "Eat silently" rule because there are just so many children, but when a family meal includes no conversation, she thought there must be something wrong! (And indeed, there may have been.) I now see the benefit in her own children who are at ease when carrying on conversation with an adult, but without being excessively noisy and intrusive or whiny and argumentative.
Will children who are allowed to express themselves misbehave sometimes? Of course. Will they embarrass us sometimes? Oh my, yes! But consider the alternative. I have to wonder about those children who are silenced all the while they are growing up. As adults, especially young women, will they know that they have worthwhile opinions? Will they trust their own judgment? Will they be able to express themselves clearly and courteously? Will they understand that manipulating and controlling other people is unfair? Will they respect one another? After all, children learn what they live. And then, later, they live what they have learned.
Marjorie
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Another Bad Word: Submission
This post was first published on my "Finding the Faith Way" blog on September 1, 2008, and is no longer located there.
Yesterday I stated that to people who misunderstand it, “authority” is a bad nine-letter word. Here is a ten-letter word, also with terrible meaning for many people: submission.
Did you think of any particular group of people when you read the above? Slaves? Probably not. Children? Maybe. Women, especially wives? Many women would answer, “Yes, without question.” Perhaps you didn’t think of wives at all; you wouldn’t have any reason to unless you had experienced the negative results of cultural and/or religious subordination of women. Especially in very conservative religious groups, there is concentrated teaching on the subjection of women to their husbands.
The Scripture passage often quoted for this view is an abbreviated version of I Peter 3:1, which says, “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives.” The shortened form we often use is only, “Wives, be submissive to your husbands.” Clearly, this is not all that the Scripture means to say. With the words, “in the same way,” Peter is referring back to verses in chapter 2. He speaks of suffering, reminding us that one can bear up under unjust suffering when he/she is God-conscious. He warns us, “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.” (I Peter 2:21-23) So what Peter is really saying is, "Women, be like Jesus."
We sometimes forget to continue reading verses further down on the page: “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.” (I Peter 3:7) Some women bristle at the idea of being called weaker, but face it: females lack, usually, the size, the strength, and the vocal power of males. Men are called upon to treat those differences with respect. What Peter is really saying is, “Fellows, be like Jesus.” By ignoring the gracious gift of God’s life in both husband and wife, the man puts himself in grave danger: His prayers will be ineffectual.
Submission was not meant to create a master-servant relationship nor even a formal authority figure. It was not meant for the control of one person over another. Submission to each other was urged in order for there to be harmony. “Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. For, ‘Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech. He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.’" (I Peter 3:8-12)
That sounds like a happy home to me.
Marjorie
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
Yesterday I stated that to people who misunderstand it, “authority” is a bad nine-letter word. Here is a ten-letter word, also with terrible meaning for many people: submission.
Did you think of any particular group of people when you read the above? Slaves? Probably not. Children? Maybe. Women, especially wives? Many women would answer, “Yes, without question.” Perhaps you didn’t think of wives at all; you wouldn’t have any reason to unless you had experienced the negative results of cultural and/or religious subordination of women. Especially in very conservative religious groups, there is concentrated teaching on the subjection of women to their husbands.
The Scripture passage often quoted for this view is an abbreviated version of I Peter 3:1, which says, “Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives.” The shortened form we often use is only, “Wives, be submissive to your husbands.” Clearly, this is not all that the Scripture means to say. With the words, “in the same way,” Peter is referring back to verses in chapter 2. He speaks of suffering, reminding us that one can bear up under unjust suffering when he/she is God-conscious. He warns us, “To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth. When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.” (I Peter 2:21-23) So what Peter is really saying is, "Women, be like Jesus."
We sometimes forget to continue reading verses further down on the page: “Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers.” (I Peter 3:7) Some women bristle at the idea of being called weaker, but face it: females lack, usually, the size, the strength, and the vocal power of males. Men are called upon to treat those differences with respect. What Peter is really saying is, “Fellows, be like Jesus.” By ignoring the gracious gift of God’s life in both husband and wife, the man puts himself in grave danger: His prayers will be ineffectual.
Submission was not meant to create a master-servant relationship nor even a formal authority figure. It was not meant for the control of one person over another. Submission to each other was urged in order for there to be harmony. “Finally, all of you, live in harmony with one another; be sympathetic, love as brothers, be compassionate and humble. Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult, but with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. For, ‘Whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech. He must turn from evil and do good; he must seek peace and pursue it. For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous and his ears are attentive to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.’" (I Peter 3:8-12)
That sounds like a happy home to me.
Marjorie
Scripture taken from the Holy Bible, New International Version®. NIV®. Copyright©1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)