THE BENEVOLENT CHAUVINIST

I've avoided evangelical man-groups for years, declining sometimes even the sincerest of invitations to bond over good food and "fellowship" (An ambiguous term which always brings to mind Rubadub-dub, three men in a tub, an occurrence I'm happy to say I've avoided). I especially avoid these gatherings when a book is involved. Not only has this awkward form of networking bypassed the normal, social speed for the development of genuine friendships to which I'm accustomed, but the language spoken in these sorts of settings might as well be Klingon to me. I'm not certain what is meant by QI'yaH, loDnI', lifting Ha' latlh jaj HoSqu'mo' lan chaH joH tIqwIj (Klingon for Hey, brother, I was lifting you up the other day because the Lord laid you on my mind) to which my normal response would be MajQa' Hech, DaH? chay' jen 'ej nuq porgh 'ay' ghop Hot mojpu'? (Oh, he did, did he? Well, how high? And exactly where did you put your hands?). But then I think I'm missing the point of the man-group altogether.

The main reason I sweat at these groups is that the subject of women comes up. Nine times out of ten, someone is going to remind us why we are at the meeting in the first place and will mention "emasculated" men, what society has "done" to manhood, "real" masculinity, the feminist movement, fatherlessness, and other curious suggestions for why masculinity finds itself rocking back and forth in the fetal position in the corner somewhere. Why am I bothered? Because in these conversations the elevation of men is almost always invariably achieved by the diminishment of women.

In group talks about masculinity, "real" men tend to establish themselves by essentially retracting the years that woman's suffrage, democratic progress, and a more progressive understanding of human nature has gained on behalf of women everywhere. The idea is that where a woman's place cannot be understood except be it in diminutive, servile, and patronized contexts, "real" men can't be who they need to be (That is to say, "real" without the quotation marks). And if "real" men cannot be who they need to be, then no hope exists for culture. Now, considering the roots of male-dominated culture, it's an understandable but unfortunate mindset.

When I ran a school full-time for eleven years, I failed to lay the foundation stones for a healthy view of female sexuality. To many traditional families, sexuality meant sex, not gender orientation. And to many progressive families, sexuality meant orientation which was sexist. So I straddled the dichotomy like a chameleon and was understandably misunderstood. When the majority of my families wanted to ban girls from Airsoft wars, I didn't raise much of a protest. And when the majority wanted the girls to wear dresses on the "dressier" days, I didn't raise much of a protest. But I finally drew the line when I was asked to officially ban dating and impose a 6-inch rule. Seriously? For me that was a sharia I was unwilling to impose for the very stupid assumption it necessitated: that female sexuality is forever the instigator in the moral failures of male sexuality. 

But was the 6-inch rule and the dating prohibition for the male or for the female? Think. Unless you have a private school full of boy perverts and helpless girls, boys can't date girls unless the girls let them and they can't touch girls unless the girls let them touch them. But do the girls initiate the aggressive desires in the boys or are the boys... well, boys? 

So when problems arise, it is the girls who have to be covered under more fabric to hide their curves, and it is the girls whose activities were restricted to limit contact with the porn-stimulated boys. And all the while the boys get to walk around with their boners poking out of their pants, taking sneak peeks at the girls' budding, feminine curves.

Now, I look like the hypocrite that, indeed, I had been all along, reinforcing sexist behavior without looking at sexuality in light of a much larger world. In all honesty, the best years of my school were when the boys and girls played Buck buck together before we got political about what special restrictions to impose on the female gender.

For Moderns, sexuality is largely empirical. So physical form is important to them. Moderns tend to see sexuality as a physical orientation that necessitates all the other sorts of orientations like emotional, psychological, and spiritual orientations. So if a human has a wiener, then he is categorically different than a "non-wiener" human. And in the same way those two categories are polar opposites, their emotional, psychological, and spiritual orientations and manifestations are categorically opposite, too. Which sets us up for, oh, so many literal ironies.

Even the progressive Modern thinks this way (though he would argue in the "opposite" direction. But still, in his zeal to eradicate sexual categories, the progressive Modern simply thinks that erasing the "obvious" distinctions of male and female creates a mashup of a wholly different category with an entirely new set of emotional, psychological, and spiritual orientations. 

Come on, a homosexual is a male who is affectually oriented to other males. And a lesbian is a female affectually oriented to other women. Neither is an inhuman hybrid of male and female or some macro-evolutionary transitional form like the progressive Modern fancies). But the physical category seems always to be primary to the Modern so that the "other" human categories of emotion, psyche, and spirit follow.

So many analogies have been drawn to describe the fundamental difference between women and men (with the women being generically weaker and the men being generically stronger). But my question is What difference is being described and to what end? Certainly, we aren't describing the physical difference. I mean, we understand that. However, the generic emotional, psychological, and spiritual differences are always linked back to a woman's physical design or limitations (body) as reference. 

The same with the men. One such evangelical concept tries to describe this ultimate difference by underscoring in the Creation narrative that Eve was created inside the Garden of Eden while Adam was created outside the Garden of Eden. Therefore, women are domestic and men are... well, not domestic.

The furthest difference back of this discussion there is (which has been used time and again as a hammer blow to the progress of women everywhere) has been the question, What was in the mind of God when He created the female? Shoddy apologetics reinforces that, yes, "male and female created He them" and both were made "in the image of God." But those affirmations can be doctrinally held while practically treated as blanket sentiments when the Creation chronology is considered. 

The chronological account has Adam created perfect before there was ever an Eve. Granted, Adam was "lonely", but when you get to the eating-of-the-fruit part, we have been taught to side with Adam in practice ("The woman who I didn't ask for, but whom you thought I needed, made me do this. Therefore, you made me do this"). I'm certain that a different and, probably, more positive angle can be drawn from this text, but the dominating mindset is that Eve was chronologically an afterthought. That is the practical and old-fashioned conclusion drawn almost every time.

So before the human race even gets out of the chutes in the minds of many evangelicals, the female is at a "Biblical" disadvantage and lags far behind. Ask kids who go to Sunday School, and they will insist (in comprehension at least) that the literal translation of the Creation account underscores Eve being referential to Adam. That is to say, many of these kids believe male is primary and the woman is secondary. The man is base and the woman is derivative. 

But can't we simply go along with the law that says It is what it is? A man is a man and a woman is a woman, no matter how widely the spectrum is for each? Is it necessary to underscore that difference with a list of impositions highlighting the flawed distinction that the male is the stronger and the woman the weaker or that the male is the more intelligent and the woman the less intelligent or that the male is unrestricted while the woman domesticated? Can't a man be a real man because he is a man? Can't a woman be a real woman because she is a woman? 

People will always have special definitions and qualifications for titles like masculinity and femininity that go beyond the common understanding. But don't we realize what "real" men everywhere are trying to do? They are trying to save the world! And clearly the only way they know how is publicly to affirm the old-fashioned, fuzzy notion of the female as contingent with a great amount of time spent on the cathartic process of decrying the history of civil rights in this country, the creation of pseudo-covenants between fathers & sons or fathers & daughters, the advocation of neo-Medieval chivalry as a current, legitimate model for masculine and feminine roles, etc. 

But what about being a real man in a way that is currently meaningful instead of applying artificial pressure to roles that exist whether or not we want them to exist? What about being a good man instead of trying to match the perception of an aggressive feminist agenda with an equally obnoxious masculine agenda? A chauvinist is a chauvinist, no matter how benevolent. 

And a note on people who create special definitions: vaj chaH neH SoH, 'ej SoH yong reinventing qaS pagh.

That didn't translate well from Klingon to English (understandably), so here is the original: He who creates special categories to exclude others can easily reinvent those same categories to make sure you don't qualify to be in.

And that's a fact.

FOUR SIGNS YOUR CHRISTIAN HUSBAND MIGHT BE CHEATING ON YOU

I live in a county with a high volume (and tolerance) for the impromptu affair. It is also an overwhelmingly conservative, Christian county which makes it that much harder to determine adultery. I mean, Christians are supposed to avoid [falsely] accusing each other, to avoid causing division "among the brethren", and to avoid being busybodies. Consequently, some of the most unhealthy relational behavior becomes inadvertently protected. The elevation of these New Testament maxims over, say, the Ten Commandments (or common sense), discourages the ferreting out of adultery in the self-proclaiming Christian man more than in the man who makes no such claim (or who prefers not to market that aspect of himself).


Seriously, what do you do when you have a suspicion or proof even that a friend or acquaintance is cheating on his wife? And he has kids? And he has a reputation to lose were he to be found out? I'm not talking about going on a witch hunt or being a Wienersnitch. I'm talking about putting to rest the open loops in our minds when we see or sense peculiar patterns of the men around us who, whether or not it's true, consider us to be friends. 


I have been in more awkward circumstances than I care to admit where a belligerent Evangelical or Charismatic male personality made it clear that something was not quite right about himself and was so comfortable with himself that he was too clever for his own good to realize the signs he was leaving the rest of us. Here are four signs that your Christian husband might have some shennanigans up his sleeve (or up his pants leg):


1. Exclusive use of Evangelical Language. All day Sunday is one thing and Wednesday night (for some people) another. But men who have regular jobs Monday through Saturday who exclusively (or as much as possible) use religious code to speak of work, politics, how they are doing, finances, etc. are intentionally hiding something. I mean religious code is not specific enough to communicate certain kinds of information ("Gunny, when it comes to pass, concentrate your men of God on the coordinates of the pagan enemy. Blast those idol worshipers to Kingdom Come in the name of the Father, the Son,and the Holy Spirit." or "IT guy, my computer is infested with all sorts of unrighteousness. Would you be willing to move your bowels of compassion to help me purge it like hyssop, making it whiter than snow? I'm on a deadline, just what Satan would like. But I'm pro-life."). It's called "changing the subject", and it's not any more natural than it would be to use religious code to describe a Big Mac or a new pair of shoes. I've seen it (heard it) hundreds of times:


Business Partner: "Hey, there was $60,000 in the operations account. Now, there is only $25,000. Where is the other $35,000?"


Blessed Business Partner: "Hey, Bill, stop panicking. Panicking is sin. Scripture says that God will provide. The Israelites panicked in the wilderness, and that's why they are no longer God's chosen people. I will find out what happened to the money, but you need to promise me that you are going to trust God and trust me, or God might not bless our company. Do you want to still be one of God's chosen people?"


Business Partner: "But you're the treasurer!"


Blessed Business Partner: "Bill... Scripture says 'Cast thy cares upon the Lord.' You are in rebellion."


Business Partner: "All I'm saying is..."


Blessed Business Partner: "'Get thee behind me, Satan!'"


Religious code in these sorts of situations not only discourages communication, but it intentionally muddies the waters. I recently spoke with a man who has done his share of disseminating seed behind his wife's back. Our conversation went something like the following:


Me: "So how are things with the wife?"


Him: "God's strength is perfect."


Me: "That's nice. What does your wife have to say about your affairs?"


Him: "God's grace is sustaining her. And He's been giving us a calm we have never felt before."


Me: "OK, but does she know how many women you've been sleeping with?"


Him: "In his time."


This guy was not interested in reconciling with his wife, and his unrelated use of God-words clearly made that point.


2. The Underscore of Chauvinism through Scripture (at Odd Times). I am intrigued with men who find the need to quote Scripture whenever the subject of successful women or their wives comes up. Even if you were just talking about a subject like sports or stocks where the language is industry-specific, all of a sudden you are subject to an antiquated sermon about women. The sermon usually surrounds some confusing nexus about why these particular husbands don't "allow" their wives to do certain things like not allowing them their own career interests, not allowing them social network outlets, not allowing them to (in any way shape or form) have a voice that matters in any cultural conversation the husband does not control. 



Man 1: "So, did you go to the game last night?"


Man 2: "Yeah, we owned! It was awesome!"


Man 1: "Did your wife go?"


Man 2: "Oh, she was with the kids. She doesn't even like games. She wouldn't understand them anyway."


Man 1: "Do you take her out much?"


Man 2: "She loves being at home. These men who have wives who work or who gallivant all over the place end up causing themselves trouble. The Bible makes it clear that a woman's place is in the home. She should be doing whatever is necessary to support her husband, and last night my wife was supporting me by watching the kids while I saw the game."


Man 1: "What does she do for fun?"


Man 2: "Oh, she has a ladies night. Once a month or so. Other than that she's busy with the kids. She likes to sew. She reads. Hey, what about that game!"



I personally avoid these men's wives, because the hungry vibes they give off (or the deep breath they have to take to dive into normal, male interaction) are, well, uncomfortable.


3. Irregular or Unexplained Absences. I'm not certain why it's OK for husbands to unexpectedly disappear for a time from dinner, from the office, from church, from the city (you name it) but it is not OK for wives to do the same. In the community I live in, work is so integrated as to be indistinguishable from break time or play. People work at Starbucks. They work at restaurants. They conference call when running. They network while doing Crossfit. They Facebook all hours of the day. So it only makes sense for men to use the excuse that they are "going to work" or "getting work done" or "having a meeting" when you see them at strange places around town (or out of town).


I was recently in a local store a few days before Christmas looking at JBL stereo systems when I ran into a friend I've known for fourteen years. When I asked about her husband (a friend of mine, too), she informed me that they were divorced. She described how he fluctuated between work and unemployment. One extended stint when he was not working, he set up a home office to deceive her into thinking he was working. He would tell her that he would be in the home office working on time-sensitive deals. Occasionally, she would intrude on him only to find out he was not there. He was always leaving out the back door. Whenever she would call him up (and she did this frequently), he was always at the gas station getting cigarettes or at some meeting. 


I have a good friend who just moved across the U.S. I pretty much know his schedule. I can even call him at odd times and project where he will be. Nine times out of ten I'm right. He wants me to know his schedule, because he wants to be on the radar. I've spoken with wives who cannot even tell me what their husband's overseas schedule is much less his in-town schedule. I've had women complain to me that they cannot get their husbands on the phone at all during a 10-12 hour work day. The cell rings until it goes to voice-mail, or the husband prefers to text hours later.


I'm not saying that time will never allow you the use of these things, but as habits never. Such husbands don't even bother to offer where they were beyond the blanket "I was at work." It really isn't that hard to keep tabs on your husband or for your husband to let you know where he is. If he wants you to know, that is (and if you want to know).


4. The Overhauling of Relationships. Many a man I know has gotten extra-religious before his infidelity became public. In evangelical and charismatic denominations, it takes the form of an unexplained, theological shift. Not only does the man have a problem with the pastor of the church that he has willfully attended for years, but he also has a problem with the pastor's wife and the pastor's children and the pastor's teaching style and the pastor's personality and the pastor's choice of deacons and elders and the theology and the denomination and the history of the church, and everything in between. 


Then he disappears for a time while he's "sorting" things out: checking out churches, studying the Bible, meeting new religious circles. Then one day he's gone altogether. And no one bothers asking why (or people think they know why). I have known many friends to unexpectedly switch to Anglican, Roman Catholic, Fundamentalist, and agnostic expressions of faith. And they can never adequately explain their choices, largely because they think that the rest of us just wouldn't understand. I've actually had friends advised by their new spiritual guides to completely leave behind their old life so that the new one can take root (And I'm sure it does. Like a weed.). That's a foolish and generous berth for these men to do whatever they want to do without someone who really knows them getting too nosy. 


While only a few of these friends of mine ended up leaving their wives, sudden life changes, like changes in temperature, can ruin things permanently (I just ruined my freezer this weekend, thinking I could thaw it in the winter. Not only did it take extra-long to defrost, but it seems that the compressor froze up). 


I remember seeing a hipster friend I've known for years, swapping cars with a lady not his wife in a part of town I have never since seen him in. As I passed by, I remember almost calling him and then changing my mind. There are fifty reasons he could be swapping cars with a woman not his wife (couldn't there be?). I let that bit of rationale suppress my suspicion. So that I didn't even make the connection to the suspicious-looking bruises I saw on his wife's arm months before. And I could have sworn she had been crying. But, there could be fifty reasons why she had bruises on her arm and why there were tears in her eyes at the same time. Couldn't there be?


What is pitiful about these four signs is that the wife almost never sees them. These are ways men act in front of other men. Over the years my friends and I have agreed that it is better to be presumptive and preemptive than to allow these open loops to become ever wider. Who cares if your friend is offended? Really? What's the worse he can do but give you some Old Testament reason as to why he's screwing another man's wife? 


I've heard those lines, too.