It’s a long holiday weekend, and I won’t be back to regular posting until Tuesday morning. In the interim, here’s a repost of something I wrote back in March 2005:
The comments on this post from last week about accountability have shifted to the topic of bad male behavior, particularly the sort that takes place when no other fellow is around. Mythago recently wrote:
Chivalry has always been about good manners towards ‘ladies,’ not to women, period. It’s as true in the modern day as it was when The Art of Courtly Love was written.
She’s right about the Art of Courtly Love. Andreas Capellanus, who wrote that famous medieval tract, argued for immense patience in pursuing women of gentle birth. As for peasants:
“If you love a peasant woman, praise her and force her–peasants don’t respond to gentle wooing.”
So much for seeing all women as one’s sisters in Christ! Capellanus makes it clear that the pursuit of courtly love is likely to be immensely frustrating for a man — which is why peasant women make such a convenient outlet for pent-up sexual desire.
Mythago is right when she suggests that nine centuries after Capellanus wrote his tract, the attitudes within it survive. Many of the male commenters on my recent posts about responsibility and propriety have implied that good manners are essentially reciprocal. Their thesis? If a woman dresses appropriately, she is deserving of respect in return. If she doesn’t respect herself or her community, then she forfeits her right to be respected. In other words, “nice” girls, “demure” girls, have the right not to be objectified and openly lusted for; “bad” women (you know, the bra-less ones, the ones in short skirts), deserve the wolfish stares from their brothers and resentment from their sisters.
I find that attitude sad and infuriating. I was raised to believe, and still do believe, that the whole point of good manners is that they aren’t reciprocal! Any fool can be polite to those whom he perceives as deserving of that courtesy; I was taught to believe that a gentleman insists on seeing the humanity even in those who are doing their damnedest to disguise it. Christ says in Matthew 5:
You have heard that it was said, ˜Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?
Surely, that’s applicable to how men of character, decency, and faith ought to see all women. At the risk of blasphemy, let me rewrite that passage in a way that (with all humility) I think is consistent with His intent:
You have heard it said, “Respect decent women, but condemn those who appear promiscuous.” But I tell you, respect and honor even those who do not seem worthy in your eyes. If you merely respect those whose demeanor demands it, what reward will you get? Do not most men manage to do that? And if you are only courteous to your sisters who do not arouse you, what are you doing more than others?
Mythago goes on:
I’ve worked as a stripper, and it’s very illuminating to see how some men act when they perceive that there are no “nice girls” around and therefore they are free to be as sexist and obnoxious as they please.
I don’t have a lot of experience in strip clubs, but I’ve known many women who’ve worked in one facet or another of the “adult industry”, from porn to stripping to prostitution. Most have said what Mythago says here. Most report seeing plenty of husbands and fathers and other “nice guys” who feel perfectly at ease saying the most appalling things to the sex workers whose services they are purchasing. Indeed, perhaps because they are behaving so “nicely” to “deserving” women, they feel free to be as obnoxious as they like to their sisters who work in the adult industry.
As both a pro-feminist man and a Christian, I loathe the idea of categorizing women as “nice girls” and “sluts.” My worth as a man of faith will be measured by how I treat all women, particularly, perhaps, by how I treat those whom society says I am entitled to objectify.
As Christians, we know that Christ often appears to us in disguise. In Matthew 25, we are told that when we feed the the hungry, clothe the naked, and care for the sick, we are in fact caring for Him. Doing these corporal works of mercy is not easy. The homeless often smell bad. They can be frightening. They repulse and scare us. But Christians must override their senses and their fear and their disgust and embrace those who seem unembraceable. To hug such people is to overcome one’s natural urge to withdraw. And I am convinced it is exactly so with men, women, and sexuality. I think it possible that Christ is also to be found in the sex worker, in the scantily-clad classmate, in the pages of the porn magazine! Just as I’ve learned to touch and hug the homeless (even when they reek of urine and alcohol and the street), I know that I — and other men — are called to overcome our natural urge to lust and see “unrespectable” women as our sisters, made in His image, worthy of far better than to be used for our own pleasure and release.
This Saturday, I’ll be taking the All Saints kids to feed the homeless, something we do fairly regularly. In my own extroverted way, I’ll be doing my best to talk to the clients we’ll meet. From years of experience, I know what some of them will look like and smell like. I will want to keep my distance, feeding them with a forced smile while trying to avoid body contact. Instead, Lord willing, I will gently and politely draw close to them. I will shake hands and give hugs (if the latter are welcomed), and I will pray the same prayer over and over again: “God, show me this person not as I see him, but as you see him.” It’s the exact same prayer I was taught to use to overcome the equally human desire to objectify and lust. And I can assure you from experience that it works.
I could have posted this in less explicitly Christian terms. But to be honest, it is only my faith in Christ that puts me in the homeless shelter. It is only my faith in Christ that lets me, one day at a time, renew the “covenant with my eyes” that lets me see all women as my sisters. It isn’t easy, and I am so far from perfect it’s not even funny. But if I can do this, any man can. And in the interests of justice, I think we all ought to be giving it one hell of a try.
“overcome our natural urge to lust ”
How do you mean “natural”?
If I were to re-write that sentence now, several years later, I’d replace “lust” with “objectify” and drop “natural” as an adjective.
This question was asked of me tonight re:porn, “What’s wrong with objectiving people who want to be objectified?”
Red flag much?
What’s wrong with being “promiscuous”? I have more respect for a sexually liberated woman than a repressed woman. In any event, “chivalry” is another part of the double standard in which men are supposed to treat women as if they are weak and helpless, and sacrifice themselves in the interests of women.
Now I would think that a feminist would be opposed to chivalry on these grounds. Yet it is a fact that many feminists do expect a double standard, as we can witness by the many “violence against women and girls” programs, while there are no similar programs for men. Similarly, many women see nothing wrong in inciting men to violence against each other, or destroying men’s lives as the recent Duke U case demonstrates.
Wow! I loved the rewrite of Matthew 5. To me it seems so true to Christ’s compassionate attitude to women he met who were despised for their sexual sins. I suppose you could apply this verse with thought provoking results to other types of people who society says it is okay to hate or ignore.
Bless you for your service to the homeless. I think that true Christian love for one’s neighbor is so radical and unexpected that it is almost shocking. It clearly points to God and his power!
“I have more respect for a sexually liberated woman than a repressed woman.”
There are, you understand, other alternatives than those two, right? (Same goes for men, BTW.)
I don’t determine whether or not to treat someone with respect based upon how she or her is dressed. I try to respect a person until (s)he gives me a reason not to (via her/his treatment of others, not her/his appearance).
Don’t feed the troll
I don’t see that as a troll’s comment. I mean: you do agree with Sertorius’s next point, right, that chivalry treats women as weak and helpless, while having men act as second-class citizens, right?
Sertorius is banned for trolling.