Gender Wars and Battles of the Sexes

 

God Created Two Genders—Male and Female

Genesis 1:26-28, And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. ²⁷ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. ²⁸ And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

This article is concerned with the matter of two genders as the subtitle states, and to visit some of the difficult issues that fuel the battles between the sexes. Yes, I am very aware of highly educated folks claiming there are 63 genders. Some also insist there are about five sexes suggesting a distinction between gender and sex. Truly the disagreement and confusion among those who spout such ideas is more than a mathematician can calculate! I promise not to waste valuable time rehearsing these baseless and truly unscientific notions here. There are enough PhDs out there trying to make a name for themselves exploring something new…different or…full on weird. Biblically speaking, humanity is male and female as the Creator intended and nothing explains this patiently obvious reality better than the Word of God. The Lord Jesus states this at least four thousand years after creation, “And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female” (Matt. 19:4). With this in mind, let us explore this concrete idea that God created two genders—male and female. Then we will look honestly at some precepts of peace in marriage that could end the wars.   

Clearly the Genesis chapter 1 passage gives attention to the origin and roles of the sexes. It explores two questions, “Why did God create two sexes? And the second question is, “Can men and women be equal and yet have different roles?” The fact that God created humanity male and female is self-evident and clearly stated in Genesis 1:27. There is zero notion of an evolutionary process as this is presented as a direct and deliberate origination of humanity. It is also mentioned in Genesis 5:1-2 where Moses asserts that male and female bear the image of God. Male and female shows God’s image in (1) harmonious interpersonal relationship, (2) equality in personhood and importance, and (3) difference in role and authority (Grudem, 1994, p. 454). Four major sub-divisions of the subject of male and female may be addressed here: (A) personal relationships, (B) Equality in personhood and importance, (C) Differences in roles, and (D) the application to marriage. It is beneficial to look at each of these separately.

The personal relationships between male and female tells us that God did not create humanity to live in isolation, but in relationship (Gen. 2:24). Because people bear the image of God, they can enjoy interpersonal unity in different relationships and society. In fact the interpersonal relationships of human beings mirror the fellowship that exists within the company of the Trinity.  Healthy human relationships can show the unity, harmony, and fellowship that exist in the Trinity. This reflects the plurality of Persons as in the Trinity also (Jn. 17:5, 24). So marriage to some degree is designed to illustrate the enduring and harmonious relation in the Trinity (Mal. 2:14-16; Rom. 7:2). This is just one way the Trinity can be reflected in human life.

God’s design of equality in personhood and importance should also be pointed out. Just as the Persons of the Trinity are equal in their full existence and distinct Persons, so it is with men and women. They both are equal in personhood and importance. Male and female are created equally in God’s image and both reflect the character of God (Gen. 1:27; 5:1, 2). The Bible repeatedly emphasis this equality in personhood and importance regarding both sexes (Proverbs 31; Acts 2:17-18). Both are worthy of honor and respect and each individual should be thankful to God for what he made them. In New Testament times, the Lord Jesus was an outstanding advocate of this equality as evidenced in his teachings, illustrations, ministry, and actions toward women. Both are valuable and gifted members of Christ’s body (1Cor. 12:7, 11). Paul in Galatians 3:27, 28 clearly articulates this reality of equality in the church.

Equality, however, does not eliminate the differences in roles laid down in the Scriptures. In the Trinity, the Father has the greatest authority in spite of the fact that He shares equal personality with the Son and the Holy Spirit.  Clearly there are different and non-interchangeable roles within the Godhead. In marriage there must be recognition of authority and submission. Men are granted headship and the responsibility to lead and wives are responsible to submit and follow (1Cor. 11:3).  Also in this connection, there is biblical evidence for the existence of this distinction even before the fall of man. It is not a consequence of the fall, but it is hampered by the fall (Gen. 3:16). This can be substantiated by several observations. First, Adam was created before Eve (Gen. 2:7, 18-23). Secondly, Eve was created as Adam’s help meet or helper and not the other way around (Gen. 2:18). Thirdly, Adam named Eve thus signifying authority over her. Fourthly, God named the human race “Man” and not “woman.” Then fifthly, the serpent came to Eve first to undermine the marriage (Gen. 3). Sixth of all, God addressed Adam first after the fall and not Eve (Gen. 2:15-17). The seventh observation shows that Adam represented the human race and not Eve (Gen. 3:6; 1Cor. 15:22, 49). Eighthly, the curse because of the entrance of sin brought about a distortion of roles and not the introduction of new roles (Gen. 3:16, 18, 19). The woman would desire to rule her husband and the husband would rule over his wife with harshness and insensitivity. This is the consequence of sin. Then lastly, redemption in the Lord Jesus Christ reaffirmed the order of creation (Col. 3:18, 19; Eph. 5:22-33; Titus 2:5; 1Peter 3:1-7).

There are several noteworthy implications for the roles of men and women contained in the phrase “help meet for him” (Gen. 2:18). The first is the stated fact that it is not good for man to be alone (Gen. 2:18) and after God created Eve and brought her to Adam, God viewed this as very good (Gen. 1:31).  The implication is that man is a social creature designed so by God.  In light of this the term help meet means a helper “fit” or “suitable” or even “face to face” to him.  Some define it as ‘corresponding to’ the man. Thus Eve is not merely a helpmate, but a companion who would fulfill the social needs of Adam. 

In this connection, it should be recognized that Ephesians 5:21-33 do not teach a universal mutual submission among Christians as some have concluded. No, Ephesian 5:21 teach us to be submissive to others in the church who are in positions of authority over us. The context and the following verses (Eph. 5:22-6:9) show this to be the correct understanding of the verse. Spirit-filled wives will be submissive to their own husbands, and Spirit-filled children will be submissive to their parents, and Spirit-filled servants will be submissive to their own masters. This order is never reversed, nor diluted by a false idea of mutual submission.

How should we refute the cultural argument against the interpretation of roles in Ephesians 5 and 6? The cultural argument against sound interpretation of the roles prescribed in Ephesians 5 and 6 can be refuted in several ways.  First Paul’s instructions in this passage clearly are enduring; there is no statement or even hint of them becoming obsolete during this present age in God’s economy.  Some may argue that just as slavery has been abolished, so God’s order has changed for women in today’s culture.  They purport that wives in the first century were to submit to their husbands just as slaves in Paul’s day submitted to their masters: out of love for God and their freedom in Christ.  When slavery ended so did the requirement of submission in the wife’s role. But, again there is no such statement in any of the principle texts dealing with marriage that teach God’s order for marriage would not endure. The command to submit to one’s husband is enduring.

Secondly, marriage is a divine institution started and ordered by God directly and throughout revelation he addresses it to influence its course. Slavery is not an institution ordained by God, but rather God sought to regulate it to ensure justice, fairness, and Christian propriety. Slavery is a human invention, but God sought to manage, police and control it to eliminate abuses.  Accordingly, it is the institution of slavery that has been abolished. Is the cultural interpretation advocating abolishing the institution of marriage? Perhaps not by intent, but arguably they indeed are in effect. The elimination of marriage would be the equivalent to the abolishment of slavery, not merely deleting the role of wives’ submission to their husbands. 

Thirdly, the wife is to submit to her husband as unto the Lord and just as the church is subject to Christ (Eph. 5:22-24). These verses present a correlation and parallel to demonstrate the wife’s role to her husband—the church’s submission to the glorious Christ her Head. The analogy will not tolerate manipulation or role reversals. Is Christ still the head of His church? The obvious answer is yes. To reverse the role of the wife to head would also advocate the church assuming the leadership over Christ. No Christian person is prepared to embrace or advocate such a ridiculous proposition. To advocate a change in principle marital roles is equally absurd. 

There will always be cultural influences that invade Christian thinking and disrupt godly values.  However we must not bow to popular ideas to accommodate the culture nor to placate our own desire to avert controversy. The command to submit is enduring, the institution of marriage is divine not human, and the irreversible nature of Christ’s headship over the church advocates a patriarchal society.

So how should the husband exercise his headship in the home? The manner in which a husband fulfills his role of headship in the home must be understood.  He is to love his wife as “Christ love the church” (Eph. 5:25) and “love his wife as his own body” (Eph. 5:28).  He must show the same selfish concern for her welfare that he exhibits toward his own person and is to “nourish and cherish” her just as his physical body.  On the other hand he is to have the same self-sacrificing love for his mate that Christ has for His bride, the church. When a husband is right with God and loves his wife biblically, he treats her in such a kind, considerate, and thoughtful manner that she finds it easy to respect and submit to him as “unto the Lord.” The husband’s primary goal is to emulate the love Christ demonstrates for His bride, the church.  This kind of loving is not just emotional, but an orientation, a chain of choices, a series of actions designed to bring about the wife’s well-being, happiness, and ultimate wholeness.

In addition, husbands are not to be cruel and harsh with their wives, but to love them as Christ loves the church. This certainly makes it easier for a wife to live in submission to her husband. Men are not to be tyrannical or passive. Both extremes drive wives to great frustration! Wives are not to usurp authority over their husbands. This will only buy her resentment and weariness! Wives are not to be totally passive either. Husbands should focus on loving, considerate, and thoughtful leadership in their homes for the glory of Christ. Wives should focus on active, intelligent and joyful submission to their own husbands as unto the Lord Jesus Himself.

Consider another related question…. Why is it important to have a balance in the number of roles played by a husband and wife? Honestly, it is important to have a balance in the number of roles a couple assumes as individuals. The multiplication of roles for both husband and wife will have an adverse impact on the marriage and the family. A husband may be father and bread winner along with a ministry in the church, or a second job or even a volunteer position in the community.  A wife may not only be a mother, and homemaker, but also serve in the church, or even in a PTA or other community functions. The truth is we can handle many different roles successfully, but problems arise when we devote too much time to one role to the gross neglect of others. There is also the possibility of becoming spread too thin; performing many roles but none very well.  Every husband and wife must understand their limitations regarding time, energy, strength and emotional endurance. Though there are many worthy causes, we must develop the ability to say no to many of them. This will allow us to manage fewer roles in a far more meaningful manner, and insure children and spouses receive a healthy amount of interaction. Again God created the sexes to complement each other and to mirror the relationship in the Trinity as the couple shows the image of God in them.

Is it true that “Conflict is inevitable in marriage?” Yes, I can honestly say that conflict is inevitable in marriage. This is true with most couples; confrontations will occur.  There may be disagreement on a certain subject that creates tension, quarrels, and even hostility. Such confrontations may serve a useful purpose in that they force the couple to deal with issues and face problems they otherwise avoid. Since conflict is inevitable, couples must learn how to work through them and develop their communication skills. Strong families have the ability or communication skills to resolve their differences. They are able to talk about them, to share their feelings openly, and come to a resolution of the problem.

Well…what methods may a couples use to solve conflict situations? Several methods could be employed by a couple in conflict resolution…many are quite obvious. Having certain guidelines for arguing may prove to be very helpful if the couple has the discipline to stick to them in the heat of battle. The first step is to get to the base of the issue or source of the problem. Then once the fundamental issue has been understood, then the couple must explore the motive. Is it an ego problem? Or is this evidence of an inferiority complex? Maybe it’s an attempt to strike back or seize control through some form of manipulation. Once the problem has been discovered and discussed, the couple can now explore viable solutions to permanently settle the issue.  In additions once the problem is solved it is not to be brought up again in future quarrels.

There are other helpful approaches couples could use with some success and hope.  For example they should avoid attacking the others personality. Being familiar with their strengths and weaknesses means we possess an arsenal of ammunitions to damage our mate. Do not succumb to this temptation! Another tactic is to realize that some times are more appropriate for discussing problems than others.  One should never air differences when others are present, when one is tired, or when hungry. These will only escalate the problem when better timing would have been an aid in resolution.  Some families tackle problems as they come up and others have a set family conference time to deal with such conflicts. One of the most important things a couple must learn is how to compromise when this is a viable option.  Sometimes a couple must simply agree to disagree, but genuinely respect the other’s point of view.  Differences can also be resolved by assimilation—accepting the view of the other.  Always bear in mind that many problems can be solve through careful analysis.  Conflicts will occur, this we can be sure of.  In light of this each couple must develop skills and procedures to overcome disagreements and conflicts.  Instead of these becoming destructive, they can be used as constructive vehicles of growth and enrichment.

As noted earlier, God created two distinct genders, male and female are created equally in God’s image and yes, both sexes reflect the character of God as individuals and in relationship (Gen. 1:27; 5:1, 2). Clearly, the verses we have highlighted here repeatedly emphasis this equality in personhood and importance regarding both sexes (Proverbs 31; Acts 2:17-18). Conflicts will occur and disagreements can be work through. The more the character of Christ marks us the more capable we will be at working through the wars and disagreements. However, the more we allow our fickle culture to influence our thinking the more conflict and disharmony will escalate. Again, the Scriptures insist that both genders are worthy of honor and respect and each individual should thank God for what he made them.

Who Is Targeting America's Youth?

Ever wondered why American youth behave as they do? Could there be a link between their behavior and the advertising industry? According to the article “The Influence of Advertising,” some marketing professionals psychologically manipulate children to increase product appeal and bolster sales (http://www.squidoo.com). In the intensely competitive capitalistic society of America, advertising is a multi-billion dollar (http://www.apa.org) industry and an essential element of business and consumerism. Through various media outlets—television, magazines, the Internet, radio, movies, textbooks, and smartphones—youths are bombarded with slick and powerful appeals (http://www.wakingtimes.com). Children’s natural trust, gullibility, curiosity, absence of objectivity, and lack of critical thinking skills, renders them dangerously vulnerable to marketing manipulations and exploitations. Resultantly, advertising negatively sways American youths encouraging choices detrimental to their nutritional, behavioral, and moral well being. Yes, American youths are not only the targets of many advertising schemes, but also the unwitting casualties in the battles for product sales, and lifelong patronage.

Consider firstly the fast food industry and the negative impact of advertising on the nutritional choices of America’s young people. Obesity and relative inactivity among youths are serious and growing concerns according to the American Psychological Association (http://www.apa.org). They directly attribute these developments to children’s excessive exposure to fast food advertising by stating,

The childhood obesity epidemic is a serious public health problem that increases morbidity, mortality, and has substantial long term economic and social costs. The rates of obesity in America’s children and youth have almost tripled in the last quarter century. Approximately 20% of our youth are now overweight with obesity rates in preschool age children increasing at alarming speed.... Research has found strong associations between increases in advertising for non-nutritious foods and rates of childhood obesity (http://www.apa.org).

Accordingly an article entitled, “The Influence of Advertising” reported, “Some experts indicate that the average American child views over 40,000 television commercials each year” (http://www.squidoo.com). Because America’s young people, “ages 8 to 18,” are being bombarded by fast food commercials from many media outlets and spend more than 44 hours a week engaging the media, obesity has become a national concern (http://www.squidoo.com). 

Figure 1
Source: Covington, W.

Secondly, advertising that glamorizes alcohol has detrimentally influenced lifestyle choices among American youths. The pervasive nature of advertising literally inundates young people with unhealthy ads promoting the use of beer, distilled spirits, and wines (http://pediatrics.aappublications.org). Such exposure likely stimulates and drives early teenagers’ infatuation with alcohol. According to John’s Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health, about 4,700 young people die annually from “excessive alcohol consumption” (http://www.camy.org).  In an article entitled, “Exposure of African American Youth to Alcohol Advertising,” the same university reported, “Alcohol is the most widely used drug among African-American youth and contributes to many health and social problems, including violence, motor vehicle crashes, and the spread of sexually transmitted diseases” (http://www.camy.org). Another critical point they highlighted was the link between African-American youth drinking and advertisements that target them. They write,

At least 14 longitudinal studies have found a significant association between youth exposure to alcohol marketing and underage drinking, even after controlling for other factors that could potentially influence this relationship (e.g., socioeconomic status and parenting style). Specifically, these studies have found that youth exposure to alcohol marketing can increase the likelihood that young people will start drinking at younger ages, and, if they already consume alcohol, that they will drink more, increasing the risk of alcohol-attributable harms (http://www.camy.org).

Research demonstrates that African-Americans are targeted, subjected to, and overexposed to alcohol advertisements considerably more than other ethnic groups. In fact, the Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth observed that there is excessive exposure to alcohol through various media outlets within these same communities through radio, billboards, and in magazines (http://www.camy.org). Non-discerning young people take what they see in the media as portrayals of reality. Consequently, they are violently misled by the marketing exploits of the alcohol industry.

Figure 2
Source: Zastrow, C.

Thirdly, advertising unfavorably effects morality, social values, and the culture of American youth. The power of the media and advertising cannot be over stated. Commercials address every facet of life promoting products and creating a perception of value for the potential child customer.  Appealing to the natural desire for significance, they present their toys, games, cars, clothing brands, athletic footwear, accessories, sexy bodies, and soft drinks promising they will make the consumer most special. Appealing to the basic desire to belong and feel love, they parade a seductive concoction of cosmetics, perfumes, jewelry, colognes, spirits, beers, fashion products, and sex (http://www.studymode.com) before their audience virtually guaranteeing universal acceptance if one buys their product. This is done in the hope of lifelong patronage. Their marketing strategies include frequent appeals, product popularity, celebrity endorsement, sensuality, narcissistic indulgence, product placement, and peer pressure. Such ploys are launched anticipating an industry return of nearly one trillion dollars in sales (http://www.aef.com). They appeal directly to children and indirectly through children to parents. Everything from toys, food, magazines, and video games to recreational sex (http://wiki.answers.com) are pandered to non-suspecting youths. Many advertisements invent value for the customer through subtle exaggerations or entire fabrications. Consequently, these morale and social values are projected into the culture shaping and fashioning young consciences. Often this transpires daily; preoccupied parents are disengaged while the advertising industry weaves the fabric of their children’s morals. The saddest truth in all of this is the ‘reality’ marketed to young people is an empty lie and will prove to be disillusioning and frustrating throughout their lives.

Figure 3
Source: Zastrow, C.

Though the intention of the American advertising industry is to sell products in a completely saturated and competitive market, American youth are the unwitting casualties. As the industry strategizes to secure lifelong patrons, youths are daily blasted with advertisements influencing them to choose against their nutritional health. The unintended consequence is escalating childhood obesity. Alluring ads and commercials aimed at teens glamorize the use of alcohol and launch young people into lifestyles plagued with social problems, irresponsibility, and violence. The impact of advertising on the moral values and cultural attitudes of young people is not to be down-played. A culture of materialism, greed, selfishness, consumerism, and sex saturation has been spawned and the forecast for the future is woeful if the trend continues unchallenged. Parents must take charge of their young people’s interaction with much of the advertising industry. One key to restoring perspective, wholesome values, critical thinking, and equilibrium to the lives of young people is their parents shielding them from the barrage of advertisements in many media outlets.

References

Advertising to children (2005). Retrieved March 12, 2013 from the Advertising Educational Foundation website: http://www.aef.com/on_campus/classroom/speaker_pres/data/3005

Committee on Communications (2006, December). Children, adolescence, and advertising. Pediatrics: Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics 118(6), 2563 -2569. doi:10.1542/peds.2006-2698  

Covington, W. (2012, November). [Magazine cover] Stone cold marketing to young African Americans. The Sacramento Observer/ The SacOberserver.com. Retrieved March 15, 2013 from: http://sacobserver.com/2012/11/stone-cold-marketing-selling-alcohol-to-young-african-americans/ (Figure 1)

Dayanahmz (2012, March). Morality and ethicality of using sexual advertising: “effects on teens segment”. Retrieved March 14, 2013 from StudyMode website: http://www.studymode.com/ essays/Morality-And-Ethicality-Of-Using-Sexual-945276.html      

Dittmann, M. (2004, June). Protecting children from advertising. Monitor on Psychology, 35(6). (Print version: p. 58). Retrieved March 14, 2013 from the American Psychological Association website: http://www.apa.org/monitor/jun04/protecting.aspx

Gottesdiener, L. (2013, March). 7 highly disturbing trends in junk food advertising to children. AlterNet.   Retrieved March 15, 2013 from http://www.wakingtimes.com/2013/03/15/7

Impact of food advertising on childhood obesity. Retrieved March 13, 2013 from the American Association of Psychology website: http://www.apa.org/topics/kids-media/food.aspx?item=2

Musemeche , C. (2012, July). Ban on advertising to children linked to lower obesity rates. The New York Times. Retrieved March 16, 2013 from: http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com /2012/07/13/ban-on-advertising-to-children-linked-to-lower-obesity-rates/

The Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (2010). Exposure of African-American youth to alcohol advertising, 2008 and 2009. Retrieved March 13, 2013 from: John’s Hopkins University website: http://www.camy.org/research/ Exposure_of_African_American_Youth_to_Alc_Advertising_08_09/

The Center on Alcohol Marketing and Youth (2010). Youth exposure to alcohol advertising on television, 2001-2009. (Special report). Retrieved March 13, 2013 from The John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health website: http://www.camy.org/research/  Youth_Exposure_to_Alcohol_Ads_on_TV_Growing_Faster_Than_Adults/index.html

The influence of advertising. (2012, April). Retrieved March 13, 2013 from: http://www.squidoo.com

What is the impact of television advertisement on youth?  Retrieved March 12, 2013 from: Answers.com: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_impact_of_television_ advertisement_on_youth  

Zastrow, C. (2009, July). Paris Hilton: Cosmogirl [magazine cover] A long-pent-up rant against youth marketing. Retrieved March 16, 2013 from http://www.learningfirst.org/long-pent-rant-against-youth-marketing (Figure 2)

Zastrow, C. (2009, July). Paris Hilton: Seventeen [magazine cover] A long-pent-up rant against youth marketing. Retrieved March 16, 2013 from http://www.learningfirst.org/long-pent-rant-against-youth-marketing (Figure 3)