Fear of the Feminine

By Nancy Myer Hopkins

"What is driving the intensity of our current church infighting?" Is it really just about what people do sexually with each other?

Probably not. A more likely reason for a significant amount of the negativism is that same-sex relationships violate the rules laid down by all patriarchal cultures about how men and women should behave in relationship to one another. The same rules also narrowly define acceptable relationships between people of the same sex.

Looking through this lens, we can see that the offenses pile up rapidly. If a lesbian woman does not need a man to satisfy her, protect her and keep her in line, the threat of the feminine is there; if a gay man is able to access the feminine side of his being, his every move can be considered suspect and an affront to many. If long-term relationships between two people of the same sex toss the age-old formulas attached to male dominance and female submission out the window, what are we left with? And if we must allow people who are partnered in this way to live openly and with our blessing -- so that we can't pretend that this is not happening -- how offensive is that? It is only offensive if we continue to cling to a patriarchal framework which keeps the feminine in her "proper" place.

There are still parts of the world where a woman can be stoned to death for adultery or where a woman is ritually "castrated" by having her clitoris removed at puberty. . . why are we not demanding that these human rights violations stop immediately? If one was looking for an excuse to go to war, would not that do?

Would there be any need to fetter the feminine if it was not considered "dangerous"? Of course not. The extreme responses to such fear include requiring women to be fully veiled so that they do not tempt (have power over) their men. I often wonder how women of the Middle East survive in the heat of a summer desert while swaddled in heavy, dark cloth. There are still parts of the world where a woman can be stoned to death for adultery or where a woman is ritually "castrated" by having her clitoris removed at puberty. While we in the northern and western worlds are not subjected to this extreme and culturally sanctioned kind of abuse, why are we not demanding that these human rights violations stop immediately? If one was looking for an excuse to go to war, would not that do?

It was not so long ago in America that women were officially considered the property of their males, and while no longer explicitly stated, that implicit understanding continues to drive an epidemic of domestic violence. In most faith traditions, women do not have full leadership inclusion. Pay scales for women lag behind men, and many working poor who can't make ends meet are women and children who are homeless, or on the brink of it. Most of this is not news to any of us, but there is one area of our modern lives where the strict rule of male dominance and female submission is so ubiquitous as to be invisible. Anyone inclined to doubt this can simply open any magazine, especially one which features fashion ads, and take a good look at the ways that the male and female models are posed, made up, dressed and shown in relationship to each other.

The human body language of dominance and submission mirrors to an uncanny degree the body language of dogs. Because we have been so long in a patriarchal culture, we have defined the body language of dominance and submission as the only "right" way for males and females in be in relationship, and heterosexual relationships the only "right" way to be partnered. Much of this message has been delivered in historically subtle ways, but in recent years it has become much more blatant. Few have noticed this change due to its gradual transition. The message is driven home day in and day out by the capitalist media.

If we compare the body language of a submissive dog to the body language of female human submission, we may be jolted into awareness. A submissive dog bends every part of the body that can possibly bend. The neck, waist, shoulders, knees and ankles flex so that the dog is lower to the ground in relationship to the dominant dog. The tail is between the legs, or conversely, the genitals are exposed. The teeth are exposed in a "smile" and the eyes are averted. The dominant dog stands with legs straight and gets direct eye contact. There is no smile. His tail is erect.

The human body language of dominance and submission mirrors to an uncanny degree the body language of dogs. Because we have been so long in a patriarchal culture, we have defined the body language of dominance and submission as the only "right" way for males and females in be in relationship, and heterosexual relationships the only "right" way to be partnered.

"Sexy" body language as defined by a patriarchal culture for a desirable woman involves as wide a variety of bent extremities as possible. The legs are often spread apart with one knee bent, the body is canted at the waist and neck, and the total look perhaps amplified by a coy smile. This is not a pose that can be confused with the relaxed knee bend that men employ in fashion ads. Much more female flesh is exposed than is usual with males. The eyes are often cast down or looking dreamily off into the distance. For variety, ads employ a sullen look and a pout with lips that suggest the model might have been beaten or drugged. More sexually explicit poses show women lying down. Anorexic female models have swallowed nothing but the message, "Diminish yourself, don't take up too much room." Many women have subliminally absorbed the idea that to be sexy, desirable and attractive, one must be submissive. It is no accident that troublesome females are called "bitches."

Women are rarely showed looking "instrumental" -- in other words, doing something important. I think the reason L.L. Bean's "Freeport Studio" line of working women's clothing went bust was because they persisted in showing women in their catalogues all dressed up for business doing nothing more serious than holding flowers or trowels. Some were in clearly child-like poses. Coming from Maine, as I do, I like to think that perhaps L.L. Bean customers are not so easily snookered as the general public.

When men and women are shown together, the male is almost always clearly dominant in the relationship. If he is not, it is often presented as a joke. If we see men occasionally pictured in submissive poses, such as lying down and with a bare chest, we might immediately conclude that this is an ad that is targeting the gay male, enough to make straight men avert their eyes in horror.

Why are we putting up with this? What is the significance of our hunch that the ads have gotten worse over time? Does this represent a backlash being carried out in the dominant culture against the threats to our ordered ideas of patriarchal male/female relationships, or are the purveyors of fashion just blindly pushing the envelope in the interests of lining their pockets?

Raising awareness is nearly always the first step that has to precede societal change. The interrelationship between homophobia and misogyny is real, and we still have a big job ahead of us. There will probably be yet more sexuality studies by the churches to help people cope with the significant changes that are hopefully before us. We would do well to incorporate consciousness-raising about dominance/submission to help people recognize and resist these destructive messages. It is time to take the blinders off.

Nancy Myer Hopkins is editor of Restoring the Soul of a Church and author of The Congregational Response to Clergy Betrayals of Trust. She may be reached by email at nhop@aol.com