Have
you noticed that there are an alarming number of combative females on
television these days? I’m not
necessarily talking about women who are angry at everything besides baby
kittens and goldfish, but rather women who play “tough-guy” characters. The men are the calm writers or the
slackers who need protection, while it’s the women who are getting their butts
kicked by the bad guys, running headfirst into burning buildings and calling
their female supervisors, “sir”.
The trend has been growing since before Uma Thurman “Killed Bill”, but
it’s alarming to me that our society is normalizing (and glorifying) women in
physically dangerous roles.
Doesn’t it bother you, I asked my husband once, to watch a female get
walloped by a male? Or to watch
two women swinging punches at each other?
He thought for a minute and said, “yes, but I tell myself they’re
fighting the bad guy and that makes me feel better about it.”
Not
me. I wince. Every. Single. Time.
There’s something about watching a woman in a violent fist fight that
just grates against everything I hold as good, true and beautiful. Something in it just isn’t right and I’m
not exactly sure what it is.
There
is hot debate that’s been raging for some years now – whether or not women
should be accepted into physically dangerous, violent careers – like military
combat forces - and it’s increasingly being won by the “pro” side. Women have been battling, in the name
of equality, to be treated as men and our society is
responding. If we women, in fact, are
the same as men then what excuse do we have but to actually start doing what
men have always traditionally done?
So now that we open doors for ourselves and have ceased ascribing to the
“evil patriarchy” for our self-worth, we de facto must take on careers like
wrestling, boxing, firefighting, and hard-core military combat careers. Now that we’re “equal” we are obligated
to fight hard, just like men.
Right?
Fulton
Sheen had a different idea. First
of all, men and women are equal – but proportionally so, not
mathematically. In his book
entitle “Love, Marriage and Children” he said,
“The
catchword became “equality,” which meant roughly: “Anything you can do I can do
better.” Equality meant uniformity, or exactly the same amount of everything
for everybody. It was forgotten
that there are two kinds of equality: mathematical and proportional
equality. For example, a mother
does not give the same clothes, same food, same spending money to a son of two
that she gives to a sixteen year old girl; but as a good mother, she gives
proportional equality, according to age, needs, and physical and spiritual
differences.”
Men
and women are equal in dignity and value as human persons, yet about as
different as a two-year-old son is from a sixteen year old daughter. We not only don’t do the same jobs in
exactly the same way, we shouldn’t. Why would we? Men
have one set of gifts. Women have
another set – which I don’t believe (generally) include really big muscles. Although I am certain that some women
enjoy bodybuilding and strength training and could best a good number of
opponents, man or woman, anytime they felt like it, but they’re the exceptions.
I’m not convinced that generally
speaking women are the best candidates for hard-core, physically demanding
careers – especially where the military is concerned.
A
local radio station often plays a commercial where the announcer states:
“At -- FM we believe that you are
only limited by your imagination.
And your time. And your
ability. And your money.” He goes off to list a few more things
by which we’re all limited and I laugh every time I hear it. We (both men and women) like to think
that we are limitless in our abilities; that we can do anything of which we can
conceive the moment we think of it.
It’s even what we like to tell our kids, but I think the concept is just
stupid. If I’m 4 foot 1 and clumsy
I will find it extremely difficult to be a ballet dancer. Sure I could do everything in my power
to achieve the goal of being a ballet dancer but it’s very likely I will never
be as
good as those who’ve been given the ballet dancer’s tall, willowy
genes. Even if I achieve an
acceptable level of ability by working triple-hard, it’s still very likely that
I won’t ever come close to obtaining the ability of those who have an in-born
talent. That’s life.
This
is how I see women in combat positions.
Our bodies and spirits weren’t made for that type of thing and no matter
how much we’d like to, we cannot force our genetic makeup to change. While women generally have better
endurance than men, men generally have more skeletal muscle mass than women,
which typically makes them physically stronger. On a good day, could the strongest woman in any given group best
the strongest man? Maybe. But highly doubtful. No matter how much weight and strength
training they undergo, women cannot make themselves grow more muscle mass to
equal men’s. In addition, many
women experience extreme muscle weakness in the days leading up to menstruation
– some say they lose up to half their physical strength. Women cannot force their bodies to be
as consistently strong as men, which is decidedly not an asset when innocent human
lives are on the line.
But
even beyond certain physical differences between men and women, combative
careers require women to expunge from themselves that which many would consider
their greatest asset: their emotions and relational sensibilities. Military women must cut ties with their
children for months on end while deployed. And it’s not hard to see why those in combat must keep all
emotions in check. Horrible things
are done and experienced in times of war – and men are able to compartmentalize
the horrors a little bit better than
women. Of course I’m
generalizing. There will likely be
an exceptional person to disprove every rule, but generally speaking, this is
true.
So
what now? Should all women be
pigeonholed into a small list of “feminine” occupations like they have been in
the past; careers like nanny, tea-pourer or dressmaker? I don’t think so. Rather I think all women must identify
their gifts and strengths, and give what they’ve got, not what they
haven’t got. Most women aren’t
suited to military combat and wrestling in the same way that most men aren’t
suited to synchronized swimming or feminine hygiene product tester. Does that make either any less of a
person – because they have talents in one area over another? No. Emphatically no.
Yet I think the current thought is that because women generally aren’t
suited to combat, that they are somehow “less than”, “inferior” or “weak”.
What
a silly notion - but I understand why it’s a pervading thought. In her book The Privilege of Being a
Woman, Alice von Hildebrand said:
“The
hierarchy of values being upset [at the Fall], male accomplishments became
overvalued. Physical strength
became glorified and weakness was looked down upon as proof of
inferiority. ..Hand in hand with
the overestimation of strength and virility goes an overestimation of
accomplishments, feats, performances, success. In our society to be a “self-made man” calls for awe. A Bill Gates, an Oprah Winfrey, or even
a Bill Clinton inspires people with a totally illegitimate feeling of admiration.”
We’ve
come to believe, since the Fall, that only certain gifts and talents are
highly valued: strength, virility, prowess, being “self-made” or powerful – the
noticeably shining “virtues” of our modern world. Those who cannot acquire those “virtues” – or have different
or opposite abilities to those specified - are substandard, lesser human
beings. What about humility? Charity? Loyalty, compassion and obedience? They’re real virtues that our world can’t stand. To the
modern, untrained eye, humility and grace look shabby and dull next to novelty
and dazzling pride.
Yet
choosing to do something that may be well beyond the limits of our physical,
mental or psychological strength, merely because we believe that doing so is
the only way to be valued, is a suicide of sorts. We put to death an important part of our very selves (ie.
our femininity) in order to meet the requirements of “the job” and in the
process utterly discount our value and worth as a woman - as ourselves. Perhaps this is why I find it so
jarring to see women being physically violent on tv, because I instinctively feel
that they are setting something truly authentic aside for something
counterfeit. Or perhaps it’s
simply because I know that most women wouldn’t stand a chance in a fight
against the average man. It’s not
a fair fight, no matter how much some would try to convince you otherwise.
So
why does it matter that women are accepted as “tough guys”, able to best any
man, woman or child that walks through the door? I honestly don’t know because women, within
themselves, ARE tough. They are
fierce – just not in the way society thinks they should be, that is, in the way
that men are fierce. They may not break your neck with their
bare hands, but threaten their loved ones and you’ll wish you’d never been
born. Women are highly intuitive –
they will be able to ascertain important facts about situations that many
wouldn’t figure out in a million years. Most women have the ability to
multi-task: doing 18 things with one hand while pouring a glass of wine and
sending 5 emails with the other. They
have a deep wellspring of strength and a supernatural ability to sacrifice
themselves that puts many a man to shame. And best of all, women are able to shelter, nourish and grow
new life within themselves: a gift that is a privilege and an honour to possess. All of this isn’t to brag, but to
enlighten.
And
just as the physical strength of every man (and every one of their other
abilities) is needed in the world, the gifts of all women are also needed wherever
there are people - whether it be a courtroom, the military, a household or a
kitchen. We might have been historically referred to as the weaker sex, but I
think that men and women are both weak
and strong, in their own unique ways. So what if women are physically weaker than men. Maybe men are spiritually weaker than
women, but that’s not a bad thing.
Men and women not only need each other’s strengths, but they also need
each other’s weaknesses. Weaknesses
help to spur us on to be better individuals - we realize we’re not “there yet”. They can motivate us to support one
another and help us to be humble and honest in admitting to our needs. And they keep us vulnerable (in a good
way) and can increase intimacy between two people (if we allow them) as long as
both parties understand the importance of both strengths and weaknesses, and
treat the other accordingly.
Because
in the end, what matters isn’t that I benched 200 pounds or was able to do 75
squats, but that I used my abilities to their fullest to help myself and others
to gain heaven. Is there anything
more fulfilling than doing just that – using your expertise to change lives, or
allowing others to share their expertise with you? Like a doctor saving a life by clearing a windpipe or a
violinist bringing her audience to tears, there’s nothing better than doing
what we’re meant to do, when we’re meant to do it. It’s thrilling and satisfying and an adventure from
beginning to end.
 |
| St. Marina humiliating (and hammering) the devil |
“To fulfill
[her] mission, a woman has to develop her own personality and not let herself
be carried away by a naive desire to imitate, which, as a rule, would tend to
put her in an inferior position and leave her unique qualities unfulfilled. If
she is a mature person, with a character and mind of her own, she will indeed
accomplish the mission to which she feels called, whatever it may be. Her life
and work will be really constructive, fruitful and full of meaning, whether she
spends the day dedicated to her husband and children or whether, having given
up the idea of marriage for a noble reason, she has given herself fully to
other tasks. Each woman in her own sphere of life, if she is faithful to her
divine and human vocation can and, in fact, does achieve the fullness of her
feminine personality. Let us remember that Mary, Mother of God and Mother of
men, is not only a model but also a proof of the transcendental value of an
apparently unimportant life.”
~St. Josemaria Escriva
Fast forward 24 hours and the church is transformed, almost unrecognizable in it's relation to the previous space. There are flowers and candles everywhere, hours seems like minutes, there's greenery, incense (at least in our parish), bells, music, reds, yellows, whites - the senses are overwhelmed in the contradiction. And we process joyfully down the aisle of salvation history, re-learning and celebrating the miraculous marvels of our loving and living God-Man.
We were made for this. We are not a Calvary People, but an Easter People. We cannot have one without the other, but we are not to be frozen, stuck in death and despair. We were made for the fullness of glory and life. Sufferings are not always relieved after Easter Sunday - but there is a lightness in my heart that I pray is in yours as well. And that right there, friends, is the contradiction of following Christ. Light in the midst of the darkness of pain. Joy in suffering. Good Friday's cross with Easter Sunday's empty tomb.
