Monday, August 17, 2015

My Take: Gender, Labels, and Faith

Hey there, just popping back in for a quick word. Beware ye of strong language ahead. It be not for the faint of heart.



 The big news this week was Target saying that they'd remove the "For Girls" labeling from their toy aisles.

 Kind of silly to say it like that, isn't it? Kinda helps put it all in perspective.


 I had some very confused emotions about the whole thing, but I've given myself some time to sort them out, and this is what I came up with.


 First off, there's nothing inherently feminine or masculine about certain colors. Our society associates pink with girls (and women), but this wasn't always the case. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, it was common for men to wear red, so it seemed only logical for boys to wear pink. The modern idea of pink being an exclusively female color only seems to have come about in the 40s and 50s. Color ideals and associations vary by time and culture, and often change radically over the course of a couple generations. 


 By the same token, there's nothing that says certain motifs, creatures, or accessories are naturally only for use by one gender. Perfect example: horses. While liking horses, and spending a lot of time with them are seen as girly, for most of history a man's horse was his life. I suspect that cars now fulfill much the same cultural role as horses used to, with some people going way overboard on them, some treating them as a necessity, and a handful in cities not owning one.

 Likewise, jewelry is now seen as a female only thing, but for most of history it was a gender-neutral sign of wealth and power. When you're dripping with precious stones and metals, it's obvious that you don't need to worry about them getting lost or stolen, either because you can afford to replace them, or you've got enough hired help to ensure that nothing goes missing.


 Finally, the idea that the toys you play with, the clothes you wear, or the way you talk is somehow tied to your gender identity is pure bulls***, and anyone, especially Christians, saying it is are dead wrong. The only time in the Bible where the situation is addressed directly is in Deuteronomy 22:5:

 "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God."

 That's pretty explicitly referring to crossdressing. But if you'll notice, it doesn't just say that men shouldn't dress like women, but that women shouldn't dress like men; it goes both ways. The reason that we shouldn't be up in arms about it is the same reason we don't have to do animal sacrifices, or carefully control our diet.

 In Acts 15:28-29, the christian gentiles are told,

 "For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well."

 Nothing in there about what toys to let your kids buy. Side note: While it does say to abstain from blood, I feel this is covered under the Romans 14 discussion of meat. I will understand if you disagree.


 What about being a tomboy, or effeminate? Those very concepts, and the preconceptions that go with them, are far from biblical. Look at the virtues advocated in Galatians 5:22 alone! 


"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law."

 Not exactly what you think of when you think of male gender roles, is it?

 In Romans 16 spends quite a bit of time greeting his friends in Rome, and commending them for their service. The "odd" thing is that a number of them are women, yet Paul seems to make no distinction between them and the men. He doesn't exclude them, but neither does he feel the need to point out the fact that they were women. He simply took it as understood that they were as important as the men.

 Let me restate that, because you may have missed it. They were as important as the men. Not more important. Not less important. The same level of importance.


What you should take from this is that there's no biblical reason to either support or oppose Target's decision. I choose to support it, because I feel that gender inequality is something that shouldn't exist. Males and females are distinct and different, but equal in God's eyes.

And really, what else matters?

No comments:

Post a Comment

Keep it clean, keep it polite.